The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-10-15 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN City of Palm Desert March 2019 DSRT SURF Specific Plan ii Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 A. Authority and Scope ....................................................................................................... 1 i. Enabling Legislation ................................................................................................ 2 B. Project Location .............................................................................................................. 2 C. Site Background .............................................................................................................. 2 D. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 6 E. Project Description .......................................................................................................... 6 i. Land Uses ................................................................................................................. 6 ii. Operations ............................................................................................................. 10 F. CEQA Compliance ....................................................................................................... 12 II. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS .............................................................................................. 13 A. Surf Lagoon Planning Area ........................................................................................... 13 B. Hotels and Villas Planning Area ................................................................................... 14 C. Allowable Uses ............................................................................................................... 16 D. Parking Standards .......................................................................................................... 17 E. Circulation and Emergency Access ........................................................................... 18 III. DESIGN GUIDELINES ........................................................................................................... 21 A. Architecture ................................................................................................................... 21 i. Architectural Themes ........................................................................................... 22 ii. Building Heights and Mass ................................................................................... 26 iii. Building and Design Materials ............................................................................. 30 B. Pathways and Wayfinding ........................................................................................... 31 C. Landscaping .................................................................................................................. 31 i. Conceptual Landscape Plan Zones .................................................................. 32 ii. Landscape Palette ............................................................................................... 36 a) Plants ................................................................................................................. 36 iii. Irrigation ................................................................................................................. 43 iv. Public Space Furniture ......................................................................................... 43 v. Stone ...................................................................................................................... 45 vi. Landscape Lighting .............................................................................................. 45 D. Signage ........................................................................................................................... 45 i. Project Identity and Monument Signage .......................................................... 46 a) Location ............................................................................................................ 46 b) Materials ............................................................................................................ 46 c) Sizing .................................................................................................................. 47 ii. Project Wayfinding Signage ................................................................................ 47 a) Location ............................................................................................................ 47 b) Materials ............................................................................................................ 47 iii. Primary Building Signage ..................................................................................... 48 a) Location ............................................................................................................ 48 b) Materials ............................................................................................................ 48 c) Sizing .................................................................................................................. 48 DSRT SURF Specific Plan iii iv. Retail Signage ....................................................................................................... 48 a) Location ............................................................................................................ 48 b) Materials ............................................................................................................ 49 v. Signage Lighting ................................................................................................... 49 vi. Signage Approval Process .................................................................................. 49 E. Walls and Fences ........................................................................................................... 49 F. Lighting ........................................................................................................................... 51 IV. INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................................ 53 A. Roadways ....................................................................................................................... 53 B. Drainage and Flood Control ........................................................................................ 53 C. Public Utilities .................................................................................................................. 54 i. Sewer ...................................................................................................................... 54 ii. Water ...................................................................................................................... 54 iii. Other Utilities .......................................................................................................... 54 V. ADMINISTRATION and IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................ 58 A. Application Review Process ......................................................................................... 58 B. Specific Plan Amendments .......................................................................................... 58 C. Financing ........................................................................................................................ 58 VI. APPENDIX A: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY .................................................................. 59 List of Tables Table 1 DSRT SURF Specific Plan Land Uses .............................................................................. 7 Table 2 Surf Lagoon Planning Area Development Standards ............................................. 13 Table 3 Hotels And Villas Planning Area Development Standards ..................................... 14 Table 4 Allowable Uses ............................................................................................................. 16 Table 5 Parking And Loading Standards ................................................................................ 18 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Regional Location Map ............................................................................................... 3 Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................. 4 Exhibit 3 Project Location Map .................................................................................................. 5 Exhibit 4 Overall Site Plan ............................................................................................................ 8 Exhibit 5 Project Planning Areas ................................................................................................ 9 Exhibit 6 Emergency Access Site Plan ..................................................................................... 20 Exhibit 7 Desert Mid-Century Modern ..................................................................................... 22 Exhibit 8 Surf Center Design Concepts ................................................................................... 27 Exhibit 9 Hotel Inspiration .......................................................................................................... 28 Exhibit 10 Villa Inspiration Exhibit .............................................................................................. 29 Exhibit 11 Landscape Material List ........................................................................................... 37 Exhibit 12 Landscape Palette: Trees ........................................................................................ 38 Exhibit 13 Landscape Palette: Shrubs ..................................................................................... 40 Exhibit 14 Landscape Palette: Accent Plants ........................................................................ 41 Exhibit 15 Landscape Palette: Groundcover ......................................................................... 42 DSRT SURF Specific Plan iv Exhibit 16 Landscape Palette: Furniture/Stone/Fencing/Lighting ....................................... 44 Exhibit 17 Grading and Utility Plan (Sheet 1 of 3) ................................................................... 55 Exhibit 18 Grading and Utility Plan (Sheet 2 of 3) ................................................................... 56 Exhibit 19 Grading and Utility Plan (Sheet 3 of 3) ................................................................... 57 DSRT SURF Specific Plan 1 I. INTRODUCTION The DSRT SURF Specific Plan provides the vision for a recreational and resort development that is authentic to the surrounding desert environment while evoking natural surf environments from around the world. The landscape, architecture, and design will celebrate the blending of natural and man-made elements to create a unique destination surf experience on the beach and in the water. The resort atmosphere and added amenities such as restaurants, bars, and outdoor activities make DSRT SURF the perfect desert escape. "If you're having a bad day, catch a wave." Frosty Hesson A. Authority and Scope A Specific Plan is a document allowed under California law which provides cities and counties with a planning tool for master planning project sites. A Specific Plan, when approved, becomes the zoning ordinance for the project area it covers. The Specific Plan is intended to ensure quality development consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Palm Desert General Plan. The Specific Plan guides the standard of development for the DSRT SURF plan area and is structured to provide a degree of flexibility for future land developers to address market driven changes if necessary. The DSRT SURF Specific Plan establishes and updates the DSRT SURF Specific Plan 2 design and development zoning policies applicable to development within the planning area described herein. This Specific Plan also establishes the regulations and standards which serve as the ordinance and development regulation for the planning area going forward. i. Enabling Legislation The authority to adopt and implement the DSRT SURF Specific Plan is granted to the City of Palm Desert by the provisions of California Government Code Section 65450 et seq. As with General Plans, the Planning Commission must hold a public hearing before it can recommend to City Council the adoption of a Specific Plan or an amendment thereto. The City of Palm Desert may adopt a Specific Plan and/or an amendment to the Specific Plan by either ordinance or resolution. (Palm Desert Zoning Code Chapter 25.78 Decisions by the City Council). B. Project Location The Project consists of three Assessor’s Parcels: 620-420-023, 620-400-024 and -620-400-008. The Project is located on the west side of Desert Willow Drive, north of Country Club Drive in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California (See Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map and Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map). The irregularly shaped site is bounded by golf course on its west, south and east sides, the Westin Resort Villas on its southwest corner, and by the Desert Willow Clubhouse parking lot on the north. (See Exhibits 3: Project Location Map). C. Site Background The City of Palm Desert constructed the Desert Willow Golf Resort in 1997-1998. At the time, it consisted of two 18-hole golf courses and remainder parcels planned for a wide range of resort and residential development on a total of 515± acres. Development within the Project has been governed by the North Sphere Specific Plan, which established multiple planning areas within the Project area. Multiple planning areas have developed, including the hotels and restaurants located at the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Cook Street; condominium units on the west side of the golf course and east of Portola Avenue; and resort residential projects in the southern half of the Project area. Four vacant development pads remain today, centered around Desert Willow Drive and generally located east and south of the existing clubhouse. The DSRT SURF planning area generally occurs within Planning Area 7 of the North Sphere Specific Plan. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 6 D. Existing Conditions The DSRT SURF Specific Plan area consists of irregular shaped lots totaling 17.69 acres. The land is partially developed with the Desert Willow Golf Resort clubhouse parking lots in its northwest corner, on approximately 3 acres. The balance of the site (approximately 14.7 acres), is vacant, desert land, bounded by the existing golf course. The proposed Specific Plan area is designated as “Resort & Entertainment District” on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, which allows for various types of lodging, retail, commercial services, recreational facilities, along with specialized entertainment with a commercial floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 0.10, and multi-family residential land uses of up to 10 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). According to the General Plan (2016), the purpose of this District is “to provide for a range of entertainment and resort destination uses that require large amounts of land and that draw visitors to the City such as theme parks, hotels, and sports facilities.” The City’s Zoning Map currently designates the Specific Plan area as “Planned Residential (PR).” Commercial recreation and hotel land uses are allowed in the PR zone only with the issuance of a conditional use permit when not directly related to a permitted residential development. With regard to hotels in the PR zone, the maximum density must be approved by the Planning Commission or Council (Zoning Code Chapter 25.10 Residential Districts). E. Project Description i. Land Uses The DSRT SURF Specific Plan establishes building and development standards for the entire 17.69-acre Project area. This Specific Plan proposes the development of a 5.5-acre surf lagoon and surf center facilities to include restaurant, bar, retail and similar facilities, up to 350 hotel rooms, and up to 88 resort residential villas. The Project will be implemented in two phases: The Surf Lagoon Planning Area (Planning Area 1) will include the development of the surf lagoon and associated amenities on 11.85 acres. The Hotels and Villas Planning Area (Planning Area 2) will result in the construction of the hotel(s) and villas on approximately 5.84 acres. (See Exhibit 4: Overall Site Plan and Exhibit 5: Project Planning Areas) DSRT SURF Specific Plan 7 Table 1 DSRT SURF Specific Plan Land Uses Surf Lagoon Planning Area (11.85 acres) Max/Min Allowed Surf Lagoon Max 6 acres Surf Center Building Max 35,000 SF Restaurant/Bars/Cafés 8,000 SF* Retail 4,000 SF Meeting/Event Rooms 6,000 SF Ancillary Restrooms/Changing Rooms/Locker Buildings Max 1,500 SF Ancillary Rental Building(s) Max 1,500 SF East Lagoon Café and Bar Max 2,750 SF Maintenance and Equipment Buildings Max 15,000 SF Landscaping/OS/Pool /Recreational Space Minimum 20% Planning Area Hotel and Villas Planning Area (5.84 acres) Max/Min Allowed Hotels Max 350 rooms Hotel Spa Max 12,500 SF Villas 15 units per acre/88 villas max. Villa Clubhouse Max 3,125 SF Maintenance and Equipment Buildings Max 2,500 SF Landscaping/OS/Pool /Recreational Space Minimum 25% Planning Area * Seating areas only. Does not include kitchens, storage, etc. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 10 ii. Operations In addition to overall Project design, it is essential that the operational function of Planning Areas 1 and 2 complement each other to achieve Project cohesion. Both Planning Areas will provide a variety of recreational and commercial opportunities that tie into the surf resort theme envisioned for the Project. The following section lists potential amenities for each Planning Area. Surf Lagoon Planning Area Site Program and Recreational Amenities The following are representative of but not limited to the amenities in the Surf Lagoon Planning Area: • Surf Lagoon • Surf Academy • Lifeguard Stations • Pools and Spa/Jacuzzis • Cabanas and Palapas • Fire Pits • Exterior Movie Projection • Shade Hammocks • Open Lawn Space • Boardwalk/Pier • Art Gallery • Pickle Ball • Restaurants/Bars/Cafes • Stage/Event Amphitheater • Sand Beach Areas • Yoga, Stretching, Workout Space • Adventure Course (Ropes/Climbing) • Bouldering Features • Bocce Courts • Beach Volleyball • Bike Racks (Rentals and Public Use) • Retail/Merchandise • Outdoor Showers • Tennis/Beach Tennis DSRT SURF Specific Plan 11 Surf Lagoon Hours of Operation Surf Lagoon (surfers in water): 6am-10pm on week days; 6am-12am on weekends (Friday through Sunday) and special events (special events may be on week days or weekends). Surf Center: 6am – 2am Music Events: Friday -Sunday Outdoor music/event to end at 12am, indoor music/event to end at 2am. Ticketing/Admission To access the surf lagoon, pool areas, recreational areas, and surf shack/bar, all guests will be required to purchase a Beach Pass. To participate in surf lessons/surf sessions, guests will be required to purchase an additional Surf Pass. The surf center building, shopping, and surf center restaurants will be open to the public. Lagoon Capacity The surf lagoon will accommodate, on average, 75 surfers at any one time with the ability to accommodate 95 surfers for special events. Lagoon use will be sold in 1-hour increments with the average surf sessions lasting 1-4 hours. Special Events Special Events may also be held that could result in 3,500 ticketed spectators. Parking overflow during special events will be located off-site at location(s) to be approved by the City. A shuttle service will be provided during special events to transport visitors to and from offsite parking to the Surf Center. Lagoon Maintenance The surf lagoon will require daily cleaning and may require one annual full-drain for maintenance purposes. In the event of a maintenance emergency, the lagoon will be drained as necessary and heavy equipment may be required to repair damage and/or replace equipment. Hotels and Villas Planning Area This Specific Plan allows for one or multiple hotels to occupy Planning Area 2 with a maximum of 350 rooms total. Proposed villas and/or condominiums (maximum of 88 villas total) may be owned and operated by the future hotels, timeshares, fractional ownerships or vacation villas, or be developed for private ownership. All future Precise Plans proposed for the Hotels and Villas Planning Area are required to adhere to the standards and guidelines set forth in this Specific Plan. This will include preparation of a Parcel Map if villas are developed for private lot ownership. Site Program and Recreational Amenities The following are representative of but not limited to the amenities in the Hotel and Villa Planning Area: • Shaded Hotel Terraces • Spa and Wellness Center • Business Center Work Space • Restaurants/Bars/Cafes DSRT SURF Specific Plan 12 • Pools and Spas/Jacuzzis • Cabanas and Palapas • Fire Pits • Exterior Movie Projection • Bocce Ball Courts • Kids Club • Conference Rooms • Event Lawn • Barbecue Areas • Pickle Ball Courts • Volley Ball Courts • Bike Racks • Retail/Merchandise • Outdoor Showers F. CEQA Compliance In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City identified the preparation of this Specific Plan as a “Project” under CEQA and prepared an Initial Study. The Initial Study found that the Specific Plan had a potential to significantly impact the environment, and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. The City circulated to all responsible and trustee agencies a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR. All comments received in response to the NOP were considered and incorporated into the EIR. The EIR was circulated to all responsible and trustee agencies, and all other interested parties, for a period of 45 days. All comments received in response to the EIR were considered in the Response to Comments prepared for the Planning Commission and City Council. The City Council certified the EIR prior to adopting this Specific Plan, on xxxx. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 13 II. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS This section of the Specific Plan serves as the Specific Plan Area’s Zoning Ordinance. Standards and guidelines which are applied to the Specific Plan Area are described in detail below. When Zoning Ordinance standards and guidelines apply, a reference is made to the appropriate Section of the Zoning Ordinance. A. Surf Lagoon Planning Area The Surf Lagoon Planning, also known as Planning Area 1, will consist of a surf center, 5.5-acre surf lagoon, surf rentals and lesson space, pool and spa amenities, outdoor activity space, restaurants, bars, and event space. The following table provides a comparison of existing development standards per the PR zoning district and proposed development standard modifications for the DSRT SURF Specific Plan. Table 2 SURF LAGOON PLANNING AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MEASUREMENT/STANDARD EXISTING DSRT SURF Residential Density PR: Density (du/ac), min – max 4 – 40 No dwelling units Building Measurements PR: Height / Number of Stories, max 40’ / 3 50’/ 4 PC-4: Height / Number of Stories, max 55’/ 4 Coverage PR: Building Coverage, max % of Planning Area 50% 50% PC-4: Floor Area Ratio 0.10 Recreational/Lagoon Coverage, min % of Planning Area -- 40% (currently 50%) Landscaping/Open Space/Recreation PR: Planning Area Coverage, pervious surface, min 25% (total Res lot area) NA PR: Front Yard Coverage, non-pervious surface, max 40% (front yard) NA PC-4: Commercial Landscaping (other) coverage, min 20% 20% Landscaping, Specific Plan Perimeter, min -- 5’ DSRT SURF Specific Plan 14 Table 2 SURF LAGOON PLANNING AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Building Setbacks Setback from golf course -- 25’ PR: Front Yard, min -- -- PR: Side Yard, min -- -- PR: Street Side Yard, min -- -- PR: Rear Yard, min -- -- PC-4: Front Yard, min 30’ -- PC-4: Side Yard, min 15’ -- PC-4: Street Side Yard, min -- -- PC-4: Rear Yard, min 20’ -- Source: Palm Desert Municipal Code; Zoning. Surf Lagoon Planning Area = 11.85 acres PR = Planned Residential (planning area existing zoning/land use) PC-4 = Planned Commercial: Resort and Entertainment. Reference for comparable land use standards proposed under DSRT SURF. PR Development Standards, PDMC Ch. 25.10.050 and/or Residential Landscaping PDMC Ch. 25.52.030 PC-4 Development Standards PDMC Ch. 25.16.050. B. Hotels and Villas Planning Area The Hotels and Villas Planning, also known as Planning Area 2, will consist of resort style hotels and villas with access to pool and spa amenities, restaurants, bars, and retail uses. The following table provides a comparison of existing development standards (Existing (PR)) and proposed development standard modifications for the DSRT SURF Specific Plan (DSRT SURF). Table 3 HOTELS AND VILLAS PLANNING AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MEASUREMENT/STANDARD EXISTING DSRT SURF DENSITY Villa Density 4 – 40 du/ac 15 du/ac max Hotel Density -- 350 rooms max BUILDING MEASUREMENTS PR: Height / Number of Stories, max 40’ / 3 50’ / 4 PC-4: Height / Number of Stories, max 55’/ 4 DSRT SURF Specific Plan 15 Table 3 HOTELS AND VILLAS PLANNING AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MEASUREMENT/STANDARD EXISTING DSRT SURF Villa size, max bedrooms per villa -- 4 bedrooms Hotel Room/Suite size, (min SF/ avg. SF per room) 330 SF / 375 SF 330 SF, 375 SF COVERAGE PR: Building Coverage, max % of Planning Area 50% 50% VILLA SETBACKS Setback from golf course, min -- 5’ PR/PC-4: Front Yard, min -- -- PR: Side Yard, min -- 5’ PR: Combined both sides, min -- 10’ PR: Street Side Yard, min -- 5’ PR: Rear Yard, min -- 10’ HOTEL SETBACKS Setback from golf course, min -- 25’ PC-4: Front Yard, min 30’ 30’ PC-4: Side Yard, min 15’ 15’ PC-4: Street Side Yard, min -- -- PC-4: Rear Yard, min 20’ 20’ LANDSCAPING PR: Lot Coverage, pervious surface, min 25% (total lot area) 25% (total lot area) PR: Lot Coverage, non-pervious surface, max 40% (front yard) 40% (front yard) PC-4: Landscape/Recreational Space, min % of lot area 25% 25% Landscaping, SP Project Perimeter, min -- 5’ Source: Palm Desert Municipal Code; Zoning. Hotel and Villa Planning area = 5.84 acres PR = Planned Residential (planning area existing zoning/land use) PC-4 = Planned Commercial: Resort and Entertainment. Reference for comparable land use standards proposed under DSRT SURF. PR Development Standards, PDMC Ch. 25.10.050 and/or Residential Landscaping PDMC Ch. 25.52.030 PC-4 Development and Landscaping Standards PDMC Ch. 25.16.050 (Table 25.16-4: Commercial and Industrial District Development Standards, Note 9): For hotels, a minimum of 25% of the site area must be usable landscaped open space and outdoor living and recreation area with an adequate irrigation system PC-4 Setbacks PDMC Ch. 25.16.050.A: On interior lots in the PC zone districts, setbacks shall be the lesser of the setback requirement listed in above under “Hotel Setbacks.” For exterior lots or projects perimeter adjacent to public streets the setback standards below shall apply. Said setbacks shall be measured from the property line. Special Use Provisions: Hotels Minimum room size PDMC Ch. 25.34.070 DSRT SURF Specific Plan 16 C. Allowable Uses The DSRT SURF Specific Plan area is designated as Resort and Entertainment District on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, which allows for various types of lodging, retail, commercial services, recreational facilities, along with specialized entertainment with a commercial floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 0.10, and multi-family residential land uses of up to 10 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). The City’s Zoning Map currently designates the Specific Plan area as “Planned Residential (PR).” Commercial recreation and hotel land uses are allowed in the PR zone only with the issuance of a conditional use permit when not directly related to a permitted residential development. With regard to hotels in the PR zone, the maximum density shall be approved by the Planning Commission or Council (Zoning Code Chapter 25.10 Residential Districts). A comparison of existing and proposed allowable land uses are listed in Table 4, below. If a proposed use is not listed in the Table, the Community Development Director, upon written request and in conformance with the provisions of Section 25.72 of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, review the proposed unlisted use and determine whether it is Permitted, requires a Conditional Use Permit or is prohibited. Table 4 ALLOWABLE USES Land Use Existing (PR) PA1 Surf Lagoon PA2 Hotel and Villas Special Use Provision Residential Uses Assisted living C N N Condominium C N P Dwelling, duplex N N P Dwelling, multifamily C N P 25.10.040.A Dwelling, second P N P 25.34.030 Dwelling, single-family P N P Guest dwelling P N P Home-based business P N C Planned unit development, residential C N P 25.10.040.C Retail, Service, and Office Uses Bed and breakfast N N C Condominium hotel C N P Hospital C N N Hotel C P P 25.10.040.J Resort hotel C P P 25.10.040.J Timeshares* C C P Ancillary commercial -- P P Art gallery -- P P Art studio -- P P Business support services -- N P Health club, gyms or studios -- P P Liquor, beverage and food items shop -- P P DSRT SURF Specific Plan 17 Table 4 ALLOWABLE USES Land Use Existing (PR) PA1 Surf Lagoon PA2 Hotel and Villas Special Use Provision Personal services -- P P Restaurant -- P P Retail -- P P Spa -- P P Recreation, Resource Preservation, Open Space, and Public Assembly Uses Amusement facility, indoors -- P P Amusement facility, outdoors -- P P Club, private C P P Nightclub -- P P Open space (developed or natural) -- P P Public park P P P Recreational use, commercial C P P 25.10.040.G Recreation facility, commercial N P P Recreation facility, incidental C P P 25.10.040.H Recreation facility, private P P P Recreation facility, public C P P Theater/auditorium -- C C P=Permitted; C=Conditional Use Permit; N=Not Permitted; -- = Use not listed under existing (PR) land use designation. * = The City requires buildout and operation of a hotel prior to buildout timeshares. D. Parking Standards Primary parking for the Surf Lagoon Planning Area shall be provided immediately adjacent to the surf center building. Through mutual agreement with the City of Palm Desert, 130 parking spaces will be shared with the Desert Willow golf clubhouse. Parking for the Hotel and Villas Planning Area shall also be provided adjacent to the proposed buildings and must be provided within the Hotel and Villas Planning Area. Underground or structure parking is allowed for both Planning Areas. Parking and loading spaces, including off-site parking for special events, shall be designed in conformance with Section 25.46.030.D of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, with the following exceptions: • Tandem parking is permitted for villa areas, however, no more than two tandem spaces are allowed with one access to a drive aisle. • Tandem parking is permitted in parking structures; however, a valet service must be required at all times the use is open for business, and the valet parking area is accessible only by the valet service. The following table provides parking standards for the entire Specific Plan area. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 18 Table 5 PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS Measurement/Standard Existing DSRT SURF Commercial/Recreational Parking Restaurants/Bars/Lounges 8 per 1,000 SF 8 per 1,000 SF Surf Lagoon -- 130 Shared Golf + 1.5 per surfer (95 max. surfers) Off-site/Special Events -- 500 stalls Condominium/Villa Parking Studio and one bedroom 2 stalls per unit 2 per unit Two or more bedrooms 2.5 stalls per unit Hotel/Resort Parking Hotels 1 stall per guest unit 1 stall per guest unit Resort Hotels 1.1 stalls per guest unit Off-Street Loading Loading Berth, min L x W 45’ x 12’ 45’ x 12’ Setback to residential, min 50’ 10’ Source: Palm Desert Municipal Code; Zoning, PDMC CH. 25.46.040 Parking Requirements. E. Circulation and Emergency Access Vehicular connectivity between Planning Areas will be from a perimeter Promenade that will have gated access points to and from the Lagoon Villas and East Villas planning areas. The Promenade also provides emergency access to the entire planning area, with access points shown in Exhibit 6: Emergency Access Site Plan. Internal circulation will primarily be designed for pedestrians with the exception of emergency life guard vehicles, which will have access to the Lagoon area and boardwalk for emergencies and maintenance vehicles for transporting equipment and daily upkeep of the lagoon and surrounding area. All on-site Planning Areas shall be accessible for pedestrians, bikes, and golf carts. The East Villas, Lagoon Villas, wave machine equipment, and general mechanical/maintenance areas will be gate guarded requiring a key card for vehicular access. In addition, it is anticipated that all hotel/commercial buildings and many of the villas within the Specific Plan area will have their own individual private security systems and/or security monitoring. Circulation plans for both planning areas shall adhere to the design guidelines set forth in this Specific Plan. Street improvements, including curbs, gutters, paving and sidewalks, shall adhere to requirements and development standards set forth in Zoning Code Chapter 25.10.B.13, which states: DSRT SURF Specific Plan 19 “Required Width of Private Roads. With no parking, the private roads shall be 20 feet wide. With parking on one side, 32 feet wide. With parking on two sides, 40 feet wide. The roadways shall be a minimum of asphaltic concrete with concrete curbs and gutters as approved by the Director. Standards of design and construction of roadways, both public and private, within the project may be modified as is deemed appropriate by the City, especially where it is found that the development plan provides for the separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns and provides for adequate off-street parking facilities.” DSRT SURF Specific Plan 21 III. DESIGN GUIDELINES A. Architecture All buildings constructed onsite shall maintain a consistent character carried out by quality materials and design that are evocative of the surf resort theme proposed within this Specific Plan. Architecture must embrace and incorporate authentic materials, curated in a way that is not overly designed - such as a natural weathered look found in genuine surf environments. It is encouraged that building design features be multi-functional, including shade structures that change with the season and creative seating designs that are integrated into the landscape and building features. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 22 Building design shall be unique to the site in that the configuration shall take advantage of and preserve the surrounding vistas while integrating into the existing character of the surrounding Desert Willow property. Various architectural characteristics include: • Blending artificial and natural elements for functional purposes (shade, seating, etc.) to integrate into the environment; • Embrace and integrate the beach into the desert, think dunes to surf; • Encourage intuitive and organic wayfinding designs; • Consider irregular roof lines that encourage unique designs with added functionality for shade and place-making; • Incorporate dynamic and seasonal shading strategies for exterior occupied space; • Encourage the use of eco-friendly materials that have been recycled and upcycled reminiscent of the natural and relaxed feeling of the property. i. Architectural Themes DSRT SURF reflects the natural environment and the Desert Modern theme, which blends contemporary and Mid-Century styles. Buildings must have clean lines, play off horizontal and vertical planes, and incorporate natural materials. Desert Mid-Century Modern Desert Mid-Century Modern is an architectural style characterized by clean simplicity with the intention of blurring the lines between indoor space and outdoor living. This blending with nature is achieved by emphasizing the use of windows and open floor plans when designing indoor spaces. What makes “Desert Mid-Century Modern” unique is the opportunity to design buildings tailored to the warm California climate by incorporating passive cooling techniques, such as the use of open breezeways, ample glazing, angular construction, light facades, and outdoor living space. Simple post-and-beam steel-framed buildings are often used due to the material’s resilience in the harsh desert climate, which also promotes a sleek modern design. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 24 While in accordance with the prevailing architectural theme, arrival points and building entrances must receive special treatments consistent with the materials discussed in this document. Generous use of desert landscaping, natural materials, and interesting monument signage assist in the creation of a distinctive sense of place that will be carried out throughout the Project. Architectural elements that provide shade and create shadow lines, such as building projections, covered walkways, arcades, and other human scale openings shall be included to reduce the impact of building mass and create visual interest. The means of enclosure to courtyards and balconies shall be visually permeable where appropriate and the stepping back of upper floors should also be utilized to further reduce the visual impact of building mass and maximize view corridors and viewsheds of the mountain vistas. It is also common to see rooflines echoing the surrounding mountains with “butterfly roofs,” or “V roofs,” which are characterized by an inversion of a standard form roof, with two roof structures sloping down from opposing edges towards a middle point of the roof. Preserving and Enhancing Viewsheds The Specific Plan area enjoys views of the surrounding San Bernardino and San Jacinto mountain ranges. As building heights within the Specific Plan generally exceed those previously existing in the surrounding area, it is essential that architectural elements and building components be varied to reduce the overall perception of mass, resulting in graduated frontages that allow generous view corridors. A particularly distinctive viewshed will be created by the opening of the arrival plaza between the surf center building in Planning Area 1 and the hotel building(s) in Planning Area 2. Views from the arrival plaza looking southeast between the two Planning Areas shall be unobstructed to the greatest extent possible to preserve the viewshed of the surf lagoon against the dramatic mountain backdrop. Creating Gathering Space One of the overarching goals of this Specific Plan is the thoughtful creation of public gathering space to encourage friendly interactions between guests. This playful co- mingling is achieved by both passive and intentional design. Landscaping will be utilized as a functional seating design element within both Planning Areas by encouraging the use of low-rise block and/or stone walls that serve to define landscaped areas while also providing casual seating throughout the property. Open lawn and sandy beach areas will be strategically placed throughout the property in proximity to the lagoon and pools to encourage guests to create their own hangout space, which is reminiscent of an authentic beach experience. Other Project components that provide intentional DSRT SURF Specific Plan 25 hangout space include restaurants and bars, cabanas, lounge chairs, fire pits, and recreational activity space. The combination of designed gathering points and freeform hangout space promotes a destination resort atmosphere envisioned for the Project. Sustainable Building and Energy Efficiency Conservation and sustainability are common values amongst the surf community and encouraged throughout the DSRT SURF Project. Green building techniques and design principles should be implemented throughout DSRT SURF. DSRT SURF structures shall utilize passive design principles that are unique to the site and thus minimize the consumption of energy and maximize user comfort as much as is practicable. Roof overhangs, supplemental shading, strategic glazing ratios, building orientation and daylighting shall be considered in concert. Materials shall be chosen for resiliency as much as for aesthetics. Interior spaces shall be designed to be an extension of the outside and not require conditioning where (and when) practicable. Passive solar design has been implemented in Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley for a number of years, through the use of shade structures and building orientation. Passive solar design should be part of building design to the greatest extent possible through deep recesses for balconies which shield building interiors; window placement on exposed wall faces; and use of structures and trees to shade public or private open spaces, and limit heat sink effects. As technology continues to expand and improve, solar energy can be harnessed to lower the energy demand of the Project. Active solar panel design should also be considered throughout the Project. The surf lagoon wave machine technology is designed to perform at the highest level and as efficiently as possible. In terms of performance, the system runs at an efficiency level of 92%, thus using the energy at the most efficient levels to generate waves within the lagoon. The versatility of the technology permits the number of waves to be adapted DSRT SURF Specific Plan 26 to the number of surfers at any given time. In this way, the fixed consumption of the installation is reduced to a minimum, and electricity consumption has a direct correlation to wave generation without unnecessary energy waste. DSRT SURF also promotes the use of products and materials that have a positive economic, social and environmental impact and focuses on minimizing the energy involved in extracting, processing, transporting, maintaining and disposing of materials associated with construction of the machinery. The landscaping palette for DSRT SURF is designed to minimize the use of water for irrigation through the installation of highly efficient irrigation systems, plant-specific emitters, and using drought tolerant desert landscaping. Recycling of materials within DSRT SURF should be made as simple and accessible as possible. Although centralized solid waste disposal is likely throughout the Project, each building should be designed to make the recycling of materials easy and convenient. If trash chutes or centralized sorting areas are designed in buildings, they must include a recycling component. Finally, open spaces within the Project will include furnishings and finishes which should to the greatest extent possible be made of sustainable and/or recycled materials. A broad range of products are now available, with more being introduced every year, which reuse materials in their construction. ii. Building Heights and Mass The Specific Plan allows for development where careful attention to appropriate building height, scale and massing will be essential to creating space and enhancing the surf resort experience. The majority of the planning area will be pedestrian oriented, and all buildings should be sensitively designed to the human scale with active, pedestrian friendly frontages and pathways. The DSRT SURF Specific Plan allows for a maximum building height of 50 feet without articulation for both Planning Areas. Elements such as awnings, balconies, roof overhangs, or trellises that protrude from the building elevations are encouraged to provide a unique design and additional shade. The following exhibits provide architectural inspiration for the surf center, hotels and villas, and should be considered during the precise planning process. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 30 iii. Building and Design Materials The DSRT SURF architectural style is defined by an authentic and organic palette of complementary materials and finishes. While consistent with the broader theme, it is essential that materials, colors and finishes are appropriate to the architectural style of individual buildings. Intense sunshine is a prevailing feature of the desert environment and textured surface finishes on which interesting shadow effects can be achieved will contribute much to distinctive local character. The following materials are encouraged in building design: • Weathered tropical hardwoods such as ipe for pathways and walls; • Rammed earth walls create an interesting focal point; • Ocotillo branch screens and trellises to provide shade with natural materials and interesting textures; • Stacked stone for walls, fencing, and seating; • Sand finished concrete for pathways to create a beachy texture; • Wood siding commonly used for coastal buildings; • Painted steel, Rusting steel, and metal roofs will naturally weather creating an authentic look. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 31 B. Pathways and Wayfinding The streetscape and wayfinding concepts are intended to unify the Planning Areas in a cohesive manner. The goal of the internal pathway theme is to encourage organic wayfinding designs with natural materials juxtaposed with artificial materials (such as boardwalks, sand, grass, and concrete) to suggest organic circulation. Haphazard path directions promote the feel of natural wayfinding consistent with natural beach environments. Examples of creative wayfinding include: • A mix of pathway materials, such as concrete, boardwalks, sand, and grass; • Playful pathway directions that avoid 90-degree angles; • Interesting wayfinding signage using natural and/or weathered materials; C. Landscaping The landscape design character at DSRT SURF will project the relaxed surfing beach character of Baja California, where the desert meets the ocean. At DSRT SURF, the use of rustic stone, wooden boardwalks, and casual arrangements of desert compatible plants creates a setting for guests to unwind and engage with the dynamic surfing lagoon. Another goal of the landscape is to complement the character of the landscape at Desert Willow, with an emphasis on desert compatible plant species. The plant species selected at the perimeter of the Project will be species that are currently being grown in the adjacent landscape areas at Desert Willow. The goal is to blur the landscape line between the two Planning Areas and have DSRT SURF fold seamlessly into the overall landscape character of Desert Willow. The perimeter landscaping will subtly provide screening between DSRT SURF and the golf course, while maintaining views outward to the San Jacinto Mountains. The perimeter landscaping will also use wind tolerant plantings to buffer the Project from the northwesterly winds and mitigate the potential for wind-blown sand. The landscape at DSRT SURF has been designed to celebrate the bold forms, textures, and blooms of succulents and cacti that are adapted to the climate of the Coachella Valley. Varied plant species have been selected and placed to create organic compositions that display the unique colors, textures and forms of novel and memorable plant species. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 32 i. Conceptual Landscape Plan Zones The landscape for DSRT SURF has been broken down into five Conceptual Landscape Plan Zones. ZONE 1: PERIMETER LANDSCAPE The perimeter landscape will be comprised of evergreen trees and shrubs that are either native or native adaptive. Plants that are currently growing in adjacent landscaped areas at Desert Willow will be incorporated into the plant palette. Plants will have dense evergreen foliage to create a vegetative windbreak or to screen selective views into and outward from the site. Evergreen groundcover plants and angular crushed gravel will be placed to assist in bank stabilization and to reduce wind-blown sand. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 33 ZONE 2: PROJECT ENTRY The landscape at the Project entry at Desert Willow Drive will have native California Fan Palms that provide vertical punctuation to create a sense of arrival and assist with wayfinding. A landscaped median will include additional native California Fan Palms that will be held back from the intersection so that views of on-coming traffic are not blocked. Project signage will be incorporated into the entry landscape along with LED low voltage up-lights on the palm trees and entry sign. ZONE 3: ARRIVAL PLAZAS There are two arrival plazas at DSRT SURF; one for the Surf Center and one shared by the two hotel sites. Upright palm trees will visually cue the visitor that they have arrived, and wayfinding signage will assist in directing them to their destination. Both arrival plazas include vehicular drop off zones for loading and unloading with wide accessible sidewalks and comfortable benches. Each plaza includes an architectural porte cochère extending over the entry drive to announce the ‘front door’ and to offer welcomed shade for pedestrians and vehicles during arrivals and departures. Given the northern exposure for the arrival plazas, the plants are selected for shade tolerance, bold textures, and minimal plant litter. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 34 ZONE 4: LAGOON BEACH The zone between the lagoon and the Surf Center and Hotel sites is referred to as the ‘Lagoon Beach’. There is a thirty-inch grade change from the rear of the hotels/surf center and the edge of the surf lagoon. The thirty-inch grade change will be taken up in a pair of eighteen-inch-high stone seat walls. The walls have a soft, curved, organic alignment. There are wooden stairs and a wooden accessible ramp to access the beach level. The pool fencing, and gates are subtly incorporated into the walls to provide the required pool fencing security. The concrete paving will have a sand finish to provide the needed slip resistance and ‘sand beach’ character. To strengthen the beach character of the landscape, tropical hardwood decking is inlaid flush into the pavement to suggest beach boardwalks. The decking will be used to create gathering zones and subtle circulation corridors. The beach zone will also include small zones of sand or lawn, to support the beach character and to create cool surface zones for bare feet. Large boulders will be judicially placed to direct foot traffic and create casual seating opportunities. Crushed gravel will cover the planting areas to reduce potential blown sand. Located at the Lagoon Beach zone are pools and spas for each hotel site and for the surf center. All pools will have a zero-entry edge to offer an accessible entry for each pool. Blue Mexican Fan Palms are planted in small clusters along the lagoon to add to the Baja California landscape concept. Most of the trees at the Lagoon Beach will be small textured, evergreen trees located to provide the maximum afternoon shade. The trees will be desert compatible, with minimal litter or pollen production. A variety of tree sizes will be planted to offer varied tree heights and tree ages. Desert shrubs and succulents will have bold textures, colorful blooms, and a variety of foliage colors; variegated, blue-green, or olive-green colors. Shrubs with spines or thorns will be set back from the edge of walkways. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 35 ZONE 5: VILLAS The landscape character at the villa sites will have a more intimate, residential scale as compared with the other landscape zones. Palm trees are limited to just the pool/spa patios at the villas. Large canopy, small textured evergreen trees are located to shade the parking stalls and the pedestrian walkways from the afternoon sun. Shrubs and accent plants will display a variety of colorful foliage and flowers. Pedestrian paving will be a sand finished concrete that will complement the native stone and gravel and provide slip resistance. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 36 ii. Landscape Palette a) Plants Plant material has been selected using WUCOLS water use calculations with preference given to low water use plants. Plant material native to tropical regions on the planet have been excluded due to their irrigation requirements and the ‘tropical’ character of their foliage. Given the surfing, swimming focus of this Project, plants and trees that produce excessive leaf, flower, seed and pollen litter that could end up in a water filtration system are to be avoided. Exhibit 11 provides the full list of landscape plant materials discussed in the following sections. Trees Entry Plaza tree species were selected for their upright, vertical form that will assist visitors with wayfinding. The trees will be placed to frame views of the mountains and of the lagoon. Parking lot trees will be evergreen and tolerant of seasonal winds and provide shade to parking stalls and pedestrian walkways. The placement of trees will avoid casting shade onto the photo voltaic panels on the parking lot canopies. Promenade trees will have an informal alignment and spacing. Their locations will be selected to buffer views both into and out from the site. The varieties will be evergreen and wind tolerant. Lagoon Beach tree species will include both evergreen shade trees and clusters of Blue Mexican Fan Palms. The shade trees will have small textured evergreen foliage and will produce minimal litter. They are placed in informal groves with varied tree heights at time of planting. The Blue Mexican Fan Palms are limited to small groves adjacent to the lagoon or at circulation nodes to assist in wayfinding. Perimeter Landscape tree species have been chosen to complement or mimic the golf course landscaping. They will be evergreen, tolerant of seasonal winds and provide judicious screening as required. They will be placed in informal, natural appearing groves comprised of a variety of heights. Exhibit 12 provides a visual list of tree species representative of the palette envisioned for the Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 39 Shrubs The shrub species have been selected for their ability to tolerate wind and afternoon heat. Shrubs that are sensitive to afternoon heat have been placed in shaded north or east facing exposures. Wind tolerant shrubs have been used to create vegetative windbreaks along the perimeter of the Project. In areas of greater visibility, plants have been selected for their variety of foliage colors and forms. At the lagoon beach, shrubs have been chosen for their cleanliness and compatibility with hardscape surfaces. Exhibit 13 provides a visual list of shrub species representative of the palette envisioned for the Project. Accent Plants Accent plants will comprise heat and drought tolerant succulents and cacti. Accent plants will be primarily located in high traffic areas of the Project. Preference has been given to plants with bold sculptural form, large texture and dramatic blooms. Spineless varieties of cacti have been incorporated into the palette. Any accent plant with sharp spines or thorns will be kept away from walking paths. Exhibit 14 provides a visual list of accent plant species representative of the palette envisioned for the Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 43 Groundcover Groundcover is used in large, sloped planting areas to help retain soil and control surface erosion. These plants will not exceed 18 inches in height. They were chosen for their drought tolerance and ability to set new roots as they spread. Exhibit 15 provides a visual list of groundcover plant species representative of the palette envisioned for the Project. iii. Irrigation The irrigation system will be computer controlled and extremely water efficient. The irrigation controller will communicate with a weather station so that the frequency and duration of the irrigation will be adjusted to hourly changes in the weather. The irrigation layout will be zoned to isolate landscapes with similar sun exposures and plant communities. All shrub beds will be irrigated by drip irrigation emitters and trees will be irrigated on zones separate from the shrubs. The water use calculations for this system will be prepared and submitted per CVWD irrigation design requirements. iv. Public Space Furniture The furniture selected for DSRT SURF will be durable and user friendly. Benches will include benches with and without backs. The furniture seating surfaces will be either tropical hardwood or aluminum chosen for its high durability and low heat retention. Movable chairs and tables, incorporated into areas adjacent to food and beverage service, will allow guests to customize the furniture arrangements. Casual seating is encouraged on eighteen-inch-high seat walls and stone boulders located throughout the Lagoon Beach. Customized canvas shade sails are located adjacent to architecture or screen walls to create areas of shade at high volume use areas. Trash receptacles will be durable stainless steel and easy to service. Bicycle racks will be located at prominent access points and will be made of tubular stainless steel. Exhibit 16 provides a visual list of furniture, stone, fencing, and lighting representative of the palette envisioned for the Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 45 v. Stone Native stone boulders will be placed strategically within the planting beds to provide a native landscape character and to assist in soil retention. Some boulders are located to provide casual seating for guests. The boulders will be sized between two and six feet across. The landscape beds will be covered in either round river cobble or angular crushed rock. This will provide additional texture to the landscape and assist in limiting blowing sand. Native stone will also be used in retaining walls and eighteen-inch-high seat walls. The stone will be either dry set, mortar set, or used in a gabion wall retention system. vi. Landscape Lighting Landscape lighting will include tree and shrub up lights, path lights, and step lights. All lighting will be low voltage and have low maintenance LED fixtures. The selective use of up lights will limit their numbers to only high-profile specimen tree and shrubs. The lights will be angled to reduce glare and hot spots. The goal is to showcase the lighted element and not the light source. D. Signage To ensure a cohesive overall Project design, both Planning Areas will be subjected to these same signage program standards and guidelines. Materials will be consistent with the overall Project material palette and in keeping with the desert modern theme established in this Specific Plan. The overall intent of this section is to describe signage that appears consistent with the materiality of the Project and will weather over time. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 46 All signage will be located in a manner that provides optimal efficacy of the overall signage program balancing the need for identification and wayfinding while maintaining a discreetly curated sense of place. Care shall be exercised to minimize the overuse of signage and thus reduce visual clutter around the Project. All Project signage will comply with the local building code and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and will be approved by the City. Signage will comply with the City’s Zoning Code, Chapter 25.56 and building code pertaining to clearances and sizes, except where provided below. Typography shall be coordinated across the entire Project. Creative design in signage is encouraged. Variations to the standards and materials provided below can be permitted with approval of the Community Development Director. Corporate logos and typestyles are permitted within the parameters set forth below. i. Project Identity and Monument Signage a) Location Project Identity Monument Signage will be located at the primary entrance at Desert Willow Drive in the separated median, or immediately adjacent to the separated median. Signage at the secondary drive onto Desert Willow Drive shall be treated as Project Wayfinding Signage thus ensuring the majority of vehicular traffic enters the Project off the primary entrance at Desert Willow Drive’s roundabout. b) Materials Monument signs shall be constructed in rammed earth, stone or weathering steel or a combination thereof. Narrative content shall be cast or carved into the primary material or shall be additive in the form of individual cast letters on stand-offs or shall be subtracted (e.g. laser cut) from a weathering steel plate placed over the primary material. Rammed earth walls and stone walls with signage shall be reserved for Project identity signage or principal Project component signage (e.g. The Surf Center, Hotel identity, Villa identity) and shall be grand in scale. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 47 c) Sizing Primary narrative content, either positive or negative shall be a minimum of 9” and a maximum of 24” and secondary narrative content shall be no larger than 60% of the height of the primary content. The overall size of the Project monument signage shall be no taller than 7’ measured from adjacent grade and shall be no wider than a maximum proportion of 2.5 times the height. ii. Project Wayfinding Signage Project wayfinding signage is an opportunity to reinforce the overall cohesion of the Project across all phases and programs. a) Location Wayfinding signage shall be located at all major transitions between Project programs (e.g. Surf Lagoon, Hotel, Spa, Villas) and minor Project programs (e.g. Restrooms, changing areas, pools, etc.) Wayfinding signage shall be pole or building mounted and narrative content shall be placed within 3’ and 5’ elevation above adjacent grade so that the content is easily read by standing pedestrians. Wayfinding signage shall be placed adjacent to traffic areas in landscaped areas such that it is readily visible. However, care shall be taken to avoid obstructing primary view corridors of the Lagoon or other Project amenities. b) Materials Project wayfinding signage shall be weathering steel plate or post that provides information at different scales. Alternately, Project wayfinding signage shall be steel, or aluminum painted black. Primary wayfinding information (e.g. directions or simplified descriptors for program) can be reduced to simple graphics or letters that are cut into the plate/post. Secondary wayfinding information may be printed on a contrasting (white) element mounted to the primary weathering steel plate or may be etched into the weathering steel plate. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 48 iii. Primary Building Signage a) Location Primary building signage shall be located at, or proximate to, the primary public entrance to the building in question. b) Materials Primary building signage shall be of the same or similar materials as the Project identity signage. c) Sizing Primary narrative content, either positive or negative shall be a minimum of 9” and a maximum of 24” and secondary narrative content shall be no larger than 60% of the height of the primary content. Primary building signage may be graphically incorporated into the building skin provided the building skin is a natural material (e.g. rammed earth, natural wood siding, stone, etc.). Graphically incorporated signage shall not be limited in size. Narrative content that is subtracted from other materials in the “field” from which it is subtracted shall be no taller than 3’ and no wider than a maximum proportion of 2.5 times the height. The overall size of the Primary Building Signage shall not be limited. iv. Retail Signage a) Location Retail Signage shall be mounted directly to buildings in the form of letters on standoffs or directly applied rather than integrated into a complete sign. This allows the building façade material to read behind the sign. Blade signs may be considered. Plate or sheet material may be considered if the narrative content is subtracted from the sign and the building façade material is the relief. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 49 b) Materials Retail signage shall be of natural materials consistent with this section or painted black, grey or white. v. Signage Lighting Cast surfaces or additive content shall be face illuminated from concealed sources. Laser or otherwise cut narrative content shall be illuminated from behind the material from which the content was subtracted. Wayfinding signage shall be illuminated internally, or by concealed illumination, or by general building illumination if available. vi. Signage Approval Process Signage program(s) shall be approved by the Architectural Commission. Signage program(s) can be submitted with Precise Plan applications, or subsequent to Precise Plan applications. E. Walls and Fences DSRT SURF is being developed as a unified, single Project. Perimeter walls between Planning Areas, or between components within Planning Areas, are prohibited. Screen walls are to be limited to only those required for privacy or to block views into service areas, loading docks and similar back of house facilities. Surf Lagoon Planning Area A 5-foot high cable or rail fence will be located at the perimeter of the surf lagoon and the Surf Center/Hotel beach area. Gates that satisfy the current pool fence code requirements will be located at each entry point to the surf lagoon/beach area. There will be a minimum 4-inch on-center spacing for the rails or cables for security purposes. There are locations where a building, structure, or wall will provide the required security in lieu of the fence. The fence will occur between any gaps between these structures. A minimum 4-foot clear zone between the top or bottom riser of a staircase and the fence gates is required to address ADA accessibility code. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 50 Within Planning Area 1, walls shall be permitted at the ground level only to screen loading dock facilities, pool and lagoon maintenance equipment, and trash enclosures. Walls shall not be allowed to exceed 6 feet in height, as measured from finished grade. Walls shall be constructed of split faced block, precision block, wood, stucco or stone. Wrought iron fencing, decorative block/rock walls or tubular steel fencing no higher than 3-feet in height shall be permitted to enclose outdoor use areas, such as restaurant terraces and lounge areas. Within underground garage and service areas, chain link fencing shall be permitted to enclose equipment or storage areas only. The chain link fencing shall not exceed 6-feet in height. Hotels and Villas Planning Area Adjacent to hotel land uses, walls shall be permitted at the ground level only to screen loading dock facilities. Walls shall not be allowed to exceed 6 feet in height, as measured from finished grade. Walls shall be constructed of split faced block, precision block, stucco or stone. No other material shall be permitted. Wrought iron fencing, decorative block/rock walls or tubular steel fencing no higher than three feet in height shall be permitted to enclose outdoor use areas, such as restaurant terraces and lounge areas. As previously discussed, a 5-foot high stainless-steel cable rail fence will be located at the perimeter of the surf lagoon and the Surf Center/Hotel beach area. Gates that satisfy the current pool fence code requirements will be located at each entry point to the surf DSRT SURF Specific Plan 51 lagoon/beach area. There will be a minimum 4-inch on-center spacing for the stainless- steel cables for security purposes. No chain link fencing shall be permitted at or above ground level in any part of the hotel development. Within underground garage and service areas, chain link fencing shall be permitted to enclose equipment or storage areas only. The chain link fencing shall not exceed 6-feet in height. Adjacent to residential/villa development, walls and fences shall be permitted at the ground level to screen entryways and courtyards. Walls and fences adjacent to a street may not exceed 6-feet in height, as measured from finished grade. Walls and fences on the interior of a building, adjacent to common area open space may not exceed 3 feet in height as measured from finished grade. Walls and fences may be constructed of wrought iron, tubular steel, split face block, precision block, stucco, wood, or decorative metal siding (non-reflective). No chain link fencing shall be permitted at or above ground level in any residential/villa development. F. Lighting Lighting will be used for landscaping, pathways and stairways, monuments and signs, and security. With the exception of the surf lagoon, all developments within the Specific Plan area are subject to the outdoor lighting requirements set forth in Chapter 24.16 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Requirements include architectural outdoor lighting, public street lighting, light trespass standards, holiday exceptions, and time of operation. The following images are example fixtures proposed for the planning area. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 52 Surf Lagoon Lighting Standards Lighting for the surf lagoon will require both in ground lighting (flush with the lagoon bottom), lighting in the lagoon side walls, as well as stadium-like lighting above ground to ensure all portions of the lagoon are properly lit for night surfing. The following lighting standards have been developed specific to the surf lagoon to ensure minimal light and glare spillage onto surrounding properties, while optimizing surfer safety. Technology: LED technology positioned in a manner that focuses light directly onto the lagoon to prevent excess light and glare spillage onto neighboring land uses. Light Pole Height: 80 feet maximum. Hours of Operation – Pole Lighting: Pole lighting will be permitted from dusk until 10 PM on week days, 12 AM on weekends and during special events. For safety purposes, lighting within the lagoon will be required after hours until dawn. Pole lighting will be permitted in the early hours of operation (6-7am) in the event that natural lighting conditions are inadequate for surfer safety. A lighting plan will be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure swimmer/surfer safety and that light trespass onto neighboring land uses is minimized. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 53 IV. INFRASTRUCTURE The DSRT SURF Project occurs in an area of Palm Desert which is fully developed. As such, most infrastructure, including roadways, water, sewer, and utilities, are in place in the area. It is expected that with implementation of the Specific Plan, the majority of existing trunk lines will remain with minor relocations, and on-site extensions will occur to service individual development components throughout the site. A detailed description of all existing and proposed infrastructure for the Project is provided below. A. Roadways Primary Project entrance ingress and egress will occur at the northeast corner of the site from the existing Desert Willow Drive roundabout. A secondary driveway will be provided approximately 240 feet southeast of the primary access point but will only be used for guest egress and emergency access. Primary vehicular circulation within the Specific Plan area will be from a perimeter roadway or “Promenade” that connects both Planning Areas. The Promenade right of way will range from 24 to 30 feet wide with a single lane of traffic in each direction. Parking will be provided in designated driveways (villas), parking lots and/or structures within the appropriate Planning Area. On-street parking will not be permitted. Two emergency access points will be provided; one from the secondary driveway located southeast of the site entrance, and one gated access point from the neighboring Desert Willow Westin Villas property to the west via Willow Ridge Drive. B. Drainage and Flood Control Storm runoff generated on-site is designed to be conveyed to the adjacent South Golf Course via an underground storm drain piping system in a similar manner to the systems employed by existing adjacent resort developments. The Project will connect to existing 24-inch storm drain lines and proposed underground systems to outlet on-site runoff to the adjacent golf course consistent with the existing South Golf Course Runoff Management Plan. Disposal of accumulated water will take place by infiltration, assisted by the installation of drywells. The surf lagoon will require regular cleaning and maintenance resulting in the need to dispose of lagoon water. Lagoon water will be drained in a similar fashion to stormwater, in that it will be directed to the adjacent South Golf Course via an underground storm drain piping system. Stormwater and lagoon water will be discharged into an existing lake on the golf course that is currently used for stormwater retention and landscape irrigation. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 54 C. Public Utilities The infrastructure that will serve the development is described below and is designed to provide a coordinated system of infrastructure and public services to adequately serve the plan area at full build out. The infrastructure and utilities plan identify standards relative to land use for the plan area and establishes the infrastructure and public service policies. i. Sewer The development is located within the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Water District (CWVD) for sewer and wastewater service. The Project will connect to existing 8-inch sewer lines located within Willow Ridge Drive to the west. Wastewater will be conveyed to and treated at CVWD’s wastewater treatment plant WRP-10, which also generates recycled water that is primarily used for irrigation of golf courses and large landscaped areas, including the Desert Willow property. ii. Water The development is located within the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for water service. As shown in Exhibits 17-19, existing 8-inch, 12-inch, and 18-inch water lines are located adjacent to the site in both Desert Willow Drive and Willow Ridge Drive. An on-site well is proposed for the southeastern portion of the Project site by the lagoon wave machine infrastructure and will supply water for the lagoon. Alternatively, the Project could connect to an existing well, located south of the Project site within the golf course. A Water Supply Assessment will be prepared prior to Project approval to ensure CVWD has adequate water supply and infrastructure to serve the site. On-site irrigation will connect to existing 10-inch, 12-inch, and 15-inch irrigation lines adjacent to the property. Fire flow water would be provided from the proposed 8-inch pipe located in Willow Ridge Drive, and onsite fire hydrants will be provided per Riverside County Fire Department standards. Two infrastructure realignments are required in proximity to the Desert Willow Drive roundabout and Project entrance. These include the realignments of a 20-inch recycled water line and a 12-inch irrigation line (See Exhibits 17-19). iii. Other Utilities The site is served by Southern California Edison (SCE) for electrical services and by Southern California Gas Company for natural gas. Solid waste and recycling services will be provided by Burrtec Waste and Recycling. Telecommunication services will be provided by Frontier Communications and cable television services will be provided by Spectrum. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 58 V. ADMINISTRATION and IMPLEMENTATION A. Application Review Process This Specific Plan is designed to provide guidance to the public, City staff, and decision makers in realizing the objectives of the DSRT SURF Project. According to the Palm Desert Zoning Code, Chapter 25.78, the following findings shall be made by the Council prior to approval of any specific plan or specific plan amendment: 1. Consistent with the General Plan. The specific plan or amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. 2. Public Welfare. The specific plan or amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 3. Land Use Compatibility. The specific plan or amendment is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties and ensures development of desirable character that will be harmonious with surrounding properties. 4. Property Suitability. The specific plan or amendment is suitable and appropriate for the location, access, and topography for the development of the subject property. 5. CEQA. The specific plan or amendment has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. (Ord. 1303 § 3, 2016). Future development within the planning areas will require a Precise Plan application which shall adhere to requirements and review criteria set forth in Palm Desert Zoning Code, Chapter 25.72.030. B. Specific Plan Amendments Specific Plan Amendments required to clarify standards or guidelines, make interpretations of permitted uses, or otherwise required which do not change development standards in this Specific Plan may be made by the Planning Director. Any amendment which changes uses, density, maximum square footage or units, development standards or circulation within the Specific Plan shall require review by the Planning Commission and City Council. C. Financing The majority of Project costs will be financed via investor funds. Other methods of financing infrastructure may be considered. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 59 VI. APPENDIX A: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY California Government Code §65450-§65453 permits the adoption and administration of Specific Plans as an implementation tool for elements contained within the local General Plan. The City of Palm Desert General Plan provides guidance for long-term growth and development in the City through comprehensive plans for future development. Consistency with the General Plan is achieved when the various land uses within the Specific Plan are compatible with the goals, policies, and general pattern of land uses contained in the General Plan. Consistency is defined as follows: “An action, program, or project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment.” This statement from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) describes how a Specific Plan should be consistent with the General Plan. The discussion below details the DSRT SURF Specific Plan’s consistency with the goals and policies that are set forth in the City of Palm Desert General Plan. 2035 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS LAND USE and COMMUNITY CHARACTER GOAL 1. Quality Spaces. A beautiful city with a balance of high-quality open spaces and high-quality urban areas. Policies 1.1 Scale of development. Require new development along the city’s corridors use design techniques to moderate height and use and ensure compatible fit with surrounding development. 1.2 Open space preservation. Balance the development of the city with the provision of open space, and especially the hillsides surrounding the City, so as to create both high quality urban areas and high quality open space. 1.3 Traffic generation. Balance medium and high intensity/density development with pedestrian-oriented and bicycle friendly design features so as to maximize trip and VMT reduction. 1.5 Community Amenities. Balance the impacts of new development, density, and urbanization through the provision of a high-level of neighborhood and community amenities and design features. Consistency The development of the DSRT SURF Specific Plan (DSSP) will result in improvements the area’s existing environment. These improvements will be in the form of new sidewalks and enhanced landscape areas as well as the construction of a recreational resort center on a currently vacant lot. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 60 In addition, the architectural style will be reflective of the desert mid-century modern aesthetic. The aesthetic character of the DSSP, including architecture, landscaping, walls and fences, and signage, are described in the design guidelines defined by Chapter III of the Specific Plan. The integration of a signature surf theme with related recreational amenities also supports the goals of the General Plan. The high-quality design attributes of the DSSP, such as enhanced streetscapes and pedestrian walkways, have the potential to increase surrounding property values and create positive fiscal impacts in the City. GOAL 2. Human-Scaled Design. A city designed for people, fostering interaction, activity, and safety. Policies 2.3 Landscaping. Require development projects to incorporate high quality landscaping in order to extend and enhance the green space network of the city. 2.6 Lighting. Require all new street lights in commercial areas to be pedestrian- oriented and scaled, attractively designed, compatible in design with other street furniture, and to provide adequate visibility and security in accordance with best practices for night sky protection. 2.12 Destination Accessibility. Direct the development of new centers, parks, schools, and similar destinations so as to provide all residences within town ¼ mile to at least two amenities. Consistency The DSSP’s carefully designed landscaped buffers and parkway improvements along perimeter will blend into the existing Desert Willow landscapes. Landscape treatments, theme walls, and entry monumentation will visually enhance the currently vacant area. All lighting within the DSSP, with the exception of the surf lagoon, will be subject to the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to the night sky. Specific lighting standards have been developed for the surf lagoon to ensure minimal light spillage onto offsite properties. Since the DSSP is located within the Desert Willow resort development, resort guests may access the DSSP amenities and vice versa. GOAL 4. Districts. A series of unique, destination-oriented districts that provide space for large-format retail, industrial and resort uses in order to increase access to jobs, provide amenities for residents, and enhance the fiscal stability of the City. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 61 Policies 4.1 Resorts. Encourage the development of unique resort complexes. Locate resorts in areas of the city where citywide connectivity will not be negatively affected by the design of the project. 4.2 Resort design and connectivity. Allow resorts to be designed as isolated and gated developments as long as through traffic and external connectivity occurs at distances of no greater than 1,300 feet. Exceptions to this may be made where external connection is not possible because of steep slopes, or natural or man-made barriers. Consistency The DSSP’s uses will support balanced growth in the area since it adds to the existing Desert Willow amenities in a unique format by creating surf community in the center of a desert resort city. Unlike any other resort development, the DSRT SURF Specific Plan area will create a different resort complex within an existing resort and maintain the overall image of the site. GOAL 8. Economic Development. A diverse, growing, and resilient local economy. Policies 8.1 Long-term economic development. Support the development and implementation of long-term economic development strategies that seek to establish and keep new businesses. 8.7 Natural environment. Maintain and enhance the natural environment as critical to the attraction of tourists and ensure that new development does not adversely affect the natural environment as a tourist draw. 8.8 Recreational amenities. Strategically utilize City recreational investments to create and enhance development opportunities. Consistency The DSSP contributes to the economic well-being of the City by offering quality development that will provide a diversity of resort and commercial businesses to the employment pool. GOAL 9. Fiscal Stability. A fiscally sound and sustainable city. Policies 8.1 Fiscal impact assessment. For all major development projects, including but not limited to specific plans, annexations and changes in General Plan designations for areas over 5 acres in size, require a fiscal impact DSRT SURF Specific Plan 62 assessment to determine possible fiscal impact of the development project and use the information to formulate conditions of approval for the project. 8.2 Efficient growth. Manage growth in a manner that is fiscally sustainable and protects and/or enhances community value. 8.3 Diverse tax base. Guide development and public investments to maintain a fiscally sound city with a sustainable tax base and user fees including property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax, utilities user tax and user fees that pay for cost of services. Consistency The City has required performance and market feasibility assessments to be prepared for the DSSP in order to evaluate these impacts to the City. The assessments will also outline the projected growth of the immediate area as a result of the DSSP. Since the DSSP proposes a hotel and commercial uses such as restaurants and retail uses taxes from these services will create a diverse tax base from the implementation of the DSSP. MOBILITY GOAL 2. Parking. An actively managed system of public and private parking facilities that supports future development. Policies 2.1 Public Parking Facilities. Provide new public parking facilities only after applying appropriate techniques to manage parking demand and ensure efficient use of all public and private parking facilities.   2.5 Innovative Parking Approaches. Allow the use of innovative parking supply and demand strategies such as shared parking, unbundling parking, and other related items within privately owned parking facilities to allow an appropriate level of flexibility for these private land owners.   2.6 Formal Parking Evaluations. Perform formal evaluations of parking capacity on a biannual basis to identify areas where parking is under- or over-utilized.   Consistency Primary parking for the commercial component (PA 1) of the DSSP will be provided immediately adjacent to the surf center building. Parking for the residential component (PA 2) will be provided adjacent to the corresponding buildings. Underground or structure parking is allowed for both Planning Areas. The Parking standards stipulated by the City of Palm Desert were used in order to design the required parking spaces. Table 4 of the DSSP further breakdowns the standards. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 63 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Goal 1. Water Resources. Protected and readily available water resources for community and environmental use. Policies 1.1 Water conservation technologies. Promote indoor and outdoor water conservation and reuse practices including water recycling, grey water re- use and rainwater harvesting. 1.2 Landscape design. Encourage the reduction of landscaping water consumption through plant selection and irrigation technology. 1.3 Conservation performance targeted to new construction. Incentivize new construction to exceed the state’s Green Building Code for water conservation by an additional 10 percent. 1.4 Greywater. Allow the use of greywater and establish criteria and standards to permit its safe and effective use (also known as on-site water recycling). 1.5 Waterways as amenities. When considering development applications and infrastructure improvements, treat waterways as amenities, not hazards, and encourage designs that embrace the waterways. Consistency As stipulated by SB 610 and SB 221 under Water Code Section 10910(a) the DSSP is required to produce a water supply assessment and water supply verification in order to document the sufficiency of the CVWD water supply to meet the demand associated with the proposed land use. CVWD adopted the DSSP WSA in 2019. The DSSP WSA determined that CVWD has sufficient water supplies to meet the demands of the Project for the next 20 years and the anticipated water demand will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The DSSP will also encourage water conservation through techniques such as the use of low volume irrigation systems and drought-tolerant landscaping. Any water features, such lagoons or pools, built in the specific plan area will be designed to minimize the use of excessive amounts of water. In addition, the Project applicant proposes to offset the lagoon’s water demand by participating in the Golf Course Turf Reduction Plan developed by the City of Palm Desert that will replace approximately 1,035,325 square feet of turf with drought-tolerant landscaping DSRT SURF Specific Plan 64 Goal 6. Energy. An energy efficient community that relies primarily on renewable and non-polluting energy sources. Policies 6.1 Passive solar design. Require new buildings to incorporate energy efficient building and site design strategies for the desert environment that include appropriate solar orientation, thermal mass, use of natural daylight and ventilation, and shading. Masquerade 6.2 Alternative energy. Continue to promote the incorporation of alternative energy generation (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) in public and private development. 6.3 Energy Efficient Buildings. Encourage new buildings and buildings undergoing major retrofits to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards. 6.11 Energy-efficient infrastructure. Whenever possible, use energy-efficient models and technology when replacing or providing new city infrastructure such as streetlights, traffic signals, water conveyance pumps, or other public infrastructure. Consistency A cornerstone of the surf community is conservation and sustainability. In addition to the solar panel design features included in the surf center, passive solar design such as the use of shade structures and building orientation will be used throughout the DSSP area. The DSSP intends to uphold those values by creating structures and spaces that implement green building techniques and design principles, such as using recycled building material where appropriate. The surf lagoon wave machine technology is designed to perform at the highest level and as efficiently as possible. In terms of performance, the system runs at an efficiency level of 92%, thus using the energy at the most efficient levels to generate waves within the lagoon. SAFETY Goal 3. Flood hazards. A community where flooding and inundation hazard are contained within areas reserved for open spaces. Policies 3.1 Flood Risk in New Development. Require all new development to minimize flood risk with siting and design measures, such as grading that prevents adverse drainage impacts to adjacent properties, on- site retention of runoff, and minimization of structures located in floodplains. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 65 3.2 Flood Infrastructure. Require new development to contribute to funding regional flood control infrastructure improvements. 3.3 Stormwater Management. Monitor, update, and enforce stormwater management plans in coordination with regional agencies, utilities, and other jurisdictions. 3.4 Open Space for Flood Control. Prioritize open space or uses that serve recreational purposes as a preferred land use within areas of high flood risk. Consistency The DSSP property is located in Zone X, which represents “areas outside of 0.2% annual chance flood.” (Map No. 06065C1615G) as defined by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Development of the DSSP will not added structures in an area that is subject to flood risk. The retention basin planned for the DSSP will be in the form of a lagoon and passive open space. PUBLIC UTILITIES & SERVICES Goal 1. Stormwater. Stormwater management system that leads to clean water, basin recharge and increased water retention. Policies 1.1 Stormwater infrastructure for new development. Require development projects pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that development (regional shallow ground water). 1.2 On-site stormwater retention and infiltration. Whenever possible, stormwater shall be infiltrated, evapotranspirated, reused or treated onsite in other ways that improve stormwater quality and reduce flows into the storm drain system. 1.3 Groundwater infiltration. Encourage the use of above-ground and natural stormwater facilities in new development and redevelopment, such as vegetated swales and permeable paving. 1.4 Stormwater re-use and recycling. Encourage innovative ways of capturing and reusing stormwater for non-drinking purposes to reduce the use of potable drinking water. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 66 1.5 Recycled water. Work with the CVWD to encourage existing golf courses to connect to its recycled water system. 1.6 Collaborative stormwater management. Encourage collaborative, integrated stormwater management between multiple property owners and sites. 1.7 Low impact development. Require the use of low-impact development strategies to minimize urban run-off, increase site infiltration, manage stormwater and recharge groundwater supplies. 1.8 Green infrastructure in public rights-of-way. Encourage green streets with in-street bio-retention and other forms of stormwater retention and infiltration in streets and public rights-of-way. 1.10 Stormwater in urban context. Development projects shall incorporate stormwater management into landscaping, except in downtown designations where catch basins shall be prohibited. 1.11 Water quality detention basins. Require water detention basins to be aesthetically pleasing and to serve recreational purposes, such as in the form of a mini park. Detention basins designed for active uses are intended to supplement park and open space and should not be counted towards a developer’s minimum park requirements, unless otherwise determined by the Planning Commission or City Council. 1.12 Retention Basins. Encourage storm water retention basins, especially in the City Center Area, to be underground in future development so as to achieve the most efficient use of land and compact development and promote the urban character goals of the General Plan. Consistency The DSSP will implement the standard requirements for the retention of storm flows and participates in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to protect surface waters from pollution, as well as maintain the City of Palm Desert’s Municipal Code 8.70.100 (On-Site Stormwater Retention), which requires all new developments to retain the 100-year storm flow on-site and/or off-site. Goal 2. Sewer. Sewer management and facility operations that allow for adequate disposal within the community. Policies 2.1 Sewer system maintenance. Work with the Coachella Valley Water District to ensure sewers are operational and in good working order. DSRT SURF Specific Plan 67 2.2 Sewer infrastructure for new development. Require development projects to pay for their share of new sewer infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that development. 2.3 Sewer connections. In the event that a sewer line exists in the right-of-way where a lateral line connection is required to serve a lot, require a sewer connection at the time the lot is developed. Consistency As mentioned above, the DSSP will incorporate the use of the existing sewer and water facilities and infrastructure near the site and new storm drains to fit extended to tie into existing facilities. The DSSP lines will connect to existing lines beneath Willow Ridge and Desert Willow Drive. All new sewer facilities will be constructed and maintained in accordance with applicable standards. Goal 3. Water Supply. Ensure a sustainable, clean, long-term water supply. Policies 3.1 Agency coordination. Coordinate on an ongoing basis with the Coachella Valley Water District, and other agencies responsible for supplying water to the region. 3.3 Water infrastructure. Maintain existing water infrastructure to protect the supply, quality, and delivery of potable water. 3.4 Water infrastructure for new development. Require development projects to pay for their share of new water infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that project. 3.5 Recycled Water. Expanded use of recycled water in existing and new development. 3.6 Citywide water conservation and efficiency. Encourage and promote community water conservation and efficiency efforts, including indoor and outdoor efforts that exceed CalGreen requirements. Consistency The DSSP will incorporated the State’s Water demands and conservation measures will include techniques such as the use of low volume irrigation systems and drought-tolerant landscaping. The lagoon and added water features that will built in the DSSP area will be designed to minimize the use of excessive amounts of water. As required by Water Code Section 10910(f) a Water Supply Assessment was prepared and approved for the DSSP area to assess the condition of the groundwater basin and a sufficiency analysis of the basin to supply the Project area. Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) adopted the DSSP WSA in 2019 that determined CVWD has sufficient water supplies to meet the demands of the Project for the next 20 years. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Table of Contents ii DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2019011044) Table of Contents Page No. List of Tables viii List of Exhibits xi List of Appendices xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 1. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-1 1.1. Project Location 1-7 1.2. Statement of Project Objectives 1-16 1.3. Project Alternatives 1-16 1.4. Other Alternatives Considered But Not Further Analyzed 1-19 1.5. CEQA Process 1-20 1.5.1. Notice of Preparation 1-20 1.5.2. Draft EIR 1-21 1.5.3. Final EIR 1-21 1.5.4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 1-21 1.5.5. Organization of the Draft EIR 1-22 1.6. Permits and Approvals 1-23 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 2.1-1 2.1 Introduction and Summary of Analysis 2.1-1 2.1.1 Introduction 2.1-1 2.1.2 Summary of Analysis 2.1-1 2.2 Aesthetics 2.2-1 2.2.1 Introduction 2.2-1 2.2.2 Thresholds of Significance 2.2-1 2.2.3 Regulatory Framework 2.2-2 2.2.4 Environmental Setting 2.2-3 2.2.5 Existing Conditions 2.2-3 2.2.6 Project Impacts 2.2-4 2.2.7 Mitigation Measures 2.2-42 2.2.8 Significance After Mitigation 2.2-42 2.2.9 Cumulative Impacts 2.2-42 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Table of Contents iii 2.3 Air Quality 2.3-1 2.3.1 Introduction 2.3-1 2.3.2 Thresholds of Significance 2.3-1 2.3.3 Regulatory Framework 2.3-2 2.3.4 Environmental Setting 2.3-10 2.3.5 Existing Conditions 2.3-11 2.3.6 Project Impacts 2.3-11 2.3.7 Mitigation Measures 2.3-20 2.3.8 Significance After Mitigation 2.3-21 2.3.9 Cumulative Impacts 2.3-22 2.4 Biological Resources 2.4-1 2.4.1 Introduction 2.4-1 2.4.2 Thresholds of Significance 2.4-1 2.4.3 Regulatory Framework 2.4-2 2.4.4 Environmental Setting 2.4-6 2.4.5 Existing Conditions 2.4-7 2.4.6 Project Impacts 2.4-19 2.4.7 Mitigation Measures 2.4-21 2.4.8 Significance After Mitigation 2.4-22 2.4.9 Cumulative Impacts 2.4-22 2.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources 2.5-1 2.5.1 Introduction 2.5-1 2.5.2 Thresholds of Significance 2.5-1 2.5.3 Regulatory Framework 2.5-2 2.5.4 Environmental Setting 2.5-6 2.5.5 Existing Conditions 2.5-9 2.5.6 Project Impacts 2.5-12 2.5.7 Mitigation Measures 2.5-18 2.5.8 Significance After Mitigation 2.5-19 2.5.9 Cumulative Impacts 2.5-19 2.6 Energy 2.6-1 2.6.1 Introduction 2.6-1 2.6.2 Thresholds of Significance 2.6-1 2.6.3 Regulatory Framework 2.6-1 2.6.4 Environmental Setting 2.6-6 2.6.5 Existing Conditions 2.6-8 2.6.6 Project Impacts 2.6-10 2.6.7 Mitigation Measures 2.6-16 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Table of Contents iv 2.6.8 Significance After Mitigation 2.6-16 2.6.9 Cumulative Impacts 2.6-16 2.7 Geology and Soils 2.7-1 2.7.1 Thresholds of Significance 2.7-1 2.7.2 Regulatory Framework 2.7-2 2.7.3 Environmental Setting 2.7-4 2.7.4 Existing Conditions 2.7-5 2.7.5 Project Impacts 2.7-9 2.7.6 Mitigation Measures 2.7-23 2.7.7 Significance After Mitigation 2.7-25 2.7.8 Cumulative Impacts 2.7-25 2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2.8-1 2.8.1 Introduction 2.8-1 2.8.2 Thresholds of Significance 2.8-1 2.8.3 Regulatory Framework 2.8-1 2.8.4 Environmental Setting 2.8-4 2.8.5 Existing Conditions 2.8-6 2.8.6 Project Impacts 2.8-7 2.8.7 Mitigation Measures 2.8-11 2.8.8 Significance After Mitigation 2.8-11 2.8.9 Cumulative Impacts 2.8-11 2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2.9-1 2.9.1 Introduction 2.9-1 2.9.2 Thresholds of Significance 2.9-2 2.9.3 Regulatory Framework 2.9-2 2.9.4 Environmental Setting 2.9-6 2.9.5 Existing Conditions 2.9-8 2.9.6 Project Impacts 2.9-9 2.9.7 Mitigation Measures 2.9-13 2.9.8 Significance After Mitigation 2.9-13 2.9.9 Cumulative Impacts 2.9-13 2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality 2.10-1 2.10.1 Introduction 2.10-1 2.10.2 Thresholds of Significance 2.10-1 2.10.3 Regulatory Framework 2.10-2 2.10.4 Environmental Setting 2.10-6 2.10.5 Existing Conditions 2.10-7 2.10.6 Project Impacts 2.10-13 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Table of Contents v 2.10.7 Significance After Mitigation 2.10-32 2.10.8 Cumulative Impacts 2.10-33 2.11 Land Use/Planning 2.11-1 2.11.1 Introduction 2.11-1 2.11.2 Thresholds of Significance 2.11-1 2.11.3 Regulatory Framework 2.11-1 2.11.4 Environmental Setting 2.11-8 2.11.5 Existing Conditions 2.11-8 2.11.6 Project Impacts 2.11-11 2.11.7 Mitigation Measures 2.11-23 2.11.8 Significance After Mitigation 2.11-23 2.11.9 Cumulative Impacts 2.11-23 2.12 Noise 2.12-1 2.12.1 Introduction 2.12-1 2.12.2 Thresholds of Significance 2.12-1 2.12.3 Regulatory Framework 2.12-2 2.12.4 Environmental Setting 2.12-5 2.12.5 Existing Conditions 2.12-8 2.12.6 Project Impacts 2.12-12 2.12.7 Mitigation Measures 2.12-31 2.12.8 Significance After Mitigation 2.12-31 2.12.9 Cumulative Impacts 2.12-31 2.13 Population and Housing 2.13-1 2.13.1 Introduction 2.13-1 2.13.2 Thresholds of Significance 2.13-1 2.13.3 Regulatory Framework 2.13-1 2.13.4 Environmental Setting 2.13-2 2.13.5 Existing Conditions 2.13-3 2.13.6 Project Impacts 2.13-3 2.13.7 Mitigation Measures 2.13-5 2.13.8 Significance After Mitigation 2.13-5 2.13.9 Cumulative Impacts 2.13-5 2.14 Public Services 2.14-1 2.14.1 Introduction 2.14-1 2.14.2 Thresholds of Significance 2.14-1 2.14.3 Regulatory Framework 2.14-1 2.14.4 Environmental Setting 2.14-2 2.14.5 Existing Conditions 2.14-3 2.14.6 Project Impacts 2.14-6 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Table of Contents vi 2.14.7 Mitigation Measures 2.14-14 2.14.8 Significance After Mitigation 2.14-15 2.14.9 Cumulative Impacts 2.14-15 2.15 Transportation 2.15-1 2.15.1 Introduction 2.15-1 2.15.2 Thresholds of Significance 2.15-1 2.15.3 Regulatory Framework 2.15-2 2.15.4 Environmental Setting 2.15-5 2.15.5 Existing Conditions 2.15-5 2.15.6 Project Impacts 2.15-12 2.15.7 Mitigation Measures 2.15-30 2.15.8 Significance After Mitigation 2.15-33 2.15.9 Cumulative Impacts 2.15-33 2.16 Utilities and Service Systems 2.16-1 2.16.1 Introduction 2.16-1 2.16.2 Thresholds of Significance 2.16-1 2.16.3 Regulatory Framework 2.16-2 2.16.4 Environmental Setting 2.16-4 2.16.5 Existing Conditions 2.16-5 2.16.6 Project Impacts 2.16-8 2.16.7 Mitigation Measures 2.16-16 2.16.8 Significance After Mitigation 2.16-16 2.16.9 Cumulative Impacts 2.16-16 3. ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS ANALYSIS 3.1-1 3.1. Introduction 3.1-1 3.1.1. Summary of Alternatives 3.1-2 3.2 Aesthetics 3.2-1 3.2.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.2-1 3.2.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.2-3 3.2.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.2-5 3.3 Air Quality 3.3-1 3.3.1 Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.3-1 3.3.2 Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.3-8 3.3.3 Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.3-12 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Table of Contents vii 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4-1 3.4.1 Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.4-1 3.4.2 Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.4-2 3.4.3 Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.4-4 3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 3.5-1 3.5.1 Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.5-1 3.5.2 Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.5-3 3.5.3 Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.5-5 3.6 Energy 3.6-1 3.6.1 Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.6-1 3.6.2 Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.6-5 3.6.3 Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.6-8 3.7 Geology and Soils 3.7-1 3.7.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.7-1 3.7.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.7-4 3.7.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.7-7 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.8-1 3.8.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.8-1 3.8.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.8-5 3.8.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.8-7 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.9-1 3.9.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.9-1 3.9.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.9-3 3.9.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.9-5 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.10-1 3.10.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.10-1 3.10.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.10-6 3.10.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.10-10 3.11 Land Use and Planning 3.11-1 3.11.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.11-1 3.11.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.11-2 3.11.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.11-3 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Table of Contents viii 3.12 Noise 3.12-1 3.12.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.12-1 3.12.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.12-3 3.12.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.12-5 3.13 Population, Housing and Socio-Economic Resources 3.13-1 3.13.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.13-1 3.13.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.13-2 3.13.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.13-3 3.14 Public Services 3.14-1 3.14.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.14-1 3.14.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.14-4 3.14.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.14-6 3.15 Transportation 3.15-1 3.15.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.15-1 3.15.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.15-4 3.15.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.15-7 3.16 Utilities and Service Systems 3.16-1 3.16.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.16-1 3.16.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.16-4 3.16.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.16-7 4. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 4-1 5. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 5-1 6. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 6-1 7. ORGANIZATIOS, PERSONS AND DOCUMENTS CONSULTED 7-1 List of Tables Table 1-1 Specific Plan Land Uses and Development Standards DSRT SURF Lagoon and Resort 1-3 Table 1-2 Surf Lagoon Precise Plan Land Uses and Development Standards DSRT SURF Lagoon and Resort 1-4 Table 1-3 “No Project” Alternative A: Northern Sphere Specific Plan (Assumes conformance to Northern Sphere SP: PA 10 Luxury Hotel) 1-17 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Table of Contents ix Table 1-4 Mixed Use Alternative B (Assumes buildout under existing GP land use) 1-18 Table 1-5 Residential Alternative C (Assumes buildout under max res. density allowed under PR-5 zoning) 1-19 Table 2.3-1 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards 2.3-5 Table 2.3-2 PM10 Monitoring Data for the Coachella Valley 2.3-6 Table 2.3-3 PM2.5 Monitoring Data for the Coachella Valley 2.3-7 Table 2.3-4 Ozone Monitoring Data for the Coachella Valley 2.3-8 Table 2.3-5 Salton Sea Air Basin Designation Status 2.3-8 Table 2.3-6 Construction Emissions Summary 2.3-14 Table 2.3-7 Unmitigated Operational Emissions Summary 2.3-16 Table 2.3-8 Localized Significance Thresholds 25 Meters, 5 Acres (lbs per day) 2.3-19 Table 2.4-1 Sensitive Plants 2.4-12 Table 2.4-2 Sensitive Habitats 2.4-14 Table 2.4-3 Sensitive Wildlife Species 2.4-14 Table 2.5-1 Cultural Resources Within One Mile of the Project Site 2.5-9 Table 2.7-1 Total Projected Water Demand for Lagoon and Surf Center 2.7-18 Table 2.7-2 Total Projected Water Demand for Hotel and Villas 2.7-19 Table 2.8-1 Construction GHG Emissions Summary (Metric Tons) 2.8-7 Table 2.8-2 Special Events Operational Emissions 2.8-9 Table 2.8-3 Operational GHG Emission Summary (Metric Tons/Year) 2.8-9 Table 2.10-1 Total Projected Water Demand 2.10-20 Table 2.10-2 Total Area of Golf Course for Turf Reduction 2.10-23 Table 2.10-3 Water Demand of Turf vs. Desert Landscaping Firecliff Golf Course 2.10-24 Table 2.10-4 Water Demand of Turf vs. Desert Landscaping Mountain View Golf Course 2.10-24 Table 2.10-5 Water Demand of Turf vs. Desert Landscaping Both Golf Courses (Combined) 2.10-24 Table 2.11-1 DSRT SURF Specific Plan Specific Plan Land Uses 2.11-20 Table 2.11-2 DSRT SURF Surf Lagoon Precise Plan Land Uses 2.11-22 Table 2.12-1 General Plan Noise Compatibility Matrix 2.12-4 Table 2.12-2 Representative Environmental Noise Levels 2.12-6 Table 2.12-3 Existing Off-Site Noise Contours 2.12-9 Table 2.12-4 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements 2.12-11 Table 2.12-5 Reference Noise Level Measurements 2.12-12 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Table of Contents x Table 2.12-6 Significance Criteria Summary 2.12-13 Table 2.12-7 EAC 2022 Without Project Noise Contours 2.12-14 Table 2.12-8 EAC 2022 With Project Noise Contours 2.12-15 Table 2.12-9 Unmitigated EAC With Project Traffic Noise Impacts 2.12-16 Table 2.12-10 Unmitigated Typical Project Daytime Noise Level Contributions 2.12-17 Table 2.12-11 Unmitigated Typical Project Nighttime Noise Level Contributions 2.12-18 Table 2.12-12 Construction Reference Noise Levels 2.12-19 Table 2.12-13 Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary (dBA Leq) 2.12-20 Table 2.12-14 Construction Equipment Noise Level Compliance (dBA Leq) 2.12-20 Table 2.12-15 Unmitigated Special Event Project-Only Operational Noise Levels 2.12-22 Table 2.12-16 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment 2.12-29 Table 2.12-17 Project Construction Vibration Levels 2.12-29 Table 2.14-1 Villa Estimated Student Generation 2.14-13 Table 2.15-1 Existing (2019) Conditions Intersection Analysis 2.15-10 Table 2.15-2 E+P Intersection Analysis 2.15-14 Table 2.15-3 E+P Findings and Recommended Improvements 2.15-14 Table 2.15-4 E+P Conditions with Improvements 2.15-15 Table 2.15-5 EAP (2022, Typical Operations) Intersection Analysis 2.15-17 Table 2.15-6 EAP (2022, Typical Operation) Findings and Recommended Improvements 2.15-17 Table 2.15-7 EAP (2022, Typical Operations) Conditions with Improvements 2.15-18 Table 2.15-8 EAP (2022, Special Event) Intersection Analysis 2.15-19 Table 2.15-9 EAP (2022, Special Event) Findings and Recommended Improvements 2.15-19 Table 2.15-10 EAP (2022, Special Event) Conditions with Improvements 2.15-20 Table 2.15-11 EAP (2022, Special Event) I-10 Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing Summary 2.15-20 Table 2.15-12 Project Trip Generation Summary – Typical Operation 2.15-25 Table 2.15-13 Project Trip Generation Summary – Special Event 2.15-26 Table 2.15-14 EAPC (2022, Typical Operations) Intersection Analysis 2.15-34 Table 2.15-15 EAPC (2022, Typical Operation) Traffic Conditions 2.15-35 Table 2.15-16 EAPC (2022, Typical Operation) Conditions with Improvements 2.15-35 Table 2.15-17 EAPC (2022, Special Event) Intersection Analysis 2.15-36 Table 2.15-18 EAPC (2022, Special Event) Traffic Conditions 2.15-37 Table 2.15-19 EAPC (2022, Special Event) Conditions with Improvements 2.15-37 Table 3.1-1 “No Project” Alternative A: Northern Sphere Specific Plan (Assumes conformance to Northern Sphere SP: PA 10 Luxury Hotel) 3.1-2 Table 3.1-2 Mixed Use Alternative B (Assumes buildout under existing GP land use) 3.1-3 Table 3.1-3 Residential Alternative C 3.1-4 Table 3.3-1 Construction Emissions Summary: Alternative A (lbs./day) 3.3-3 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Table of Contents xi Table 3.3-2 Operational Emissions Summary: Alternative A (lbs./day) 3.3-4 Table 3.3-3 Localized Significance Thresholds: Alternative A (lbs. per day) 3.3-6 Table 3.3-4 Construction Emissions Summary: Alternative B (lbs./day) 3.3-9 Table 3.3-5 Operational Emissions Summary: Alternative B (lbs./day) 3.3-10 Table 3.3-6 Localized Significance Thresholds: Alternative B (lbs. per day) 3.3-11 Table 3.3-7 Construction Emissions Summary: Alternative C (lbs./day) 3.3-14 Table 3.3-8 Operational Emissions Summary: Alternative C (lbs./day) 3.3-15 Table 3.3-9 Localized Significance Thresholds: Alternative C (lbs. per day) 3.3-16 Table 3.6-1 Energy Consumption Estimates for the proposed Project and Its Alternatives 3.6-4 Table 3.8-1 Construction GHG Emissions Summary: Alternative A (Metric Tons/Year) 3.8-2 Table 3.8-2 Operational GHG Emission Summary: Alternative A (Metric Tons/Year) 3.8-3 Table 3.8-3 Construction GHG Emissions Summary: Alternative B (Metric Tons/Year) 3.8-5 Table 3.8-4 Operational GHG Emission Summary: Alternative B (Metric Tons/Year) 3.8-6 Table 3.8-5 Construction GHG Emissions Summary: Alternative C (Metric Tons/Year) 3.8-8 Table 3.8-6 Operational GHG Emission Summary: Alternative C (Metric Tons/Year) 3.8-8 Table 3.10-1 Total Projected Water Demand for Alternative A 3.10-3 Table 3.10-2 Total Projected Water Demand for Alternative B 3.10-8 Table 3.10-3 Total Projected Water Demand for Alternative C 3.10-12 Table 3.15-1 Alternative A - Project Trip Generation Summary 3.15-2 Table 3.15-2 Alternative B - Project Trip Generation Summary 3.15-5 Table 3.15-3 Alternative C - Project Trip Generation Summary 3.15-8 Table 3.17-1 Environmentally Superior Development Alternative Comparison 3.17-1 Table 3.17-2 Environmentally Superior Development Alternative Comparison 3.17-2 Table 3.17-3 Comparison of Project Objectives and Alternatives 3.17-3 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1-1 Regional Location Map 1-8 Exhibit 1-2 Area Location Map 1-9 Exhibit 1-3 Vicinity Map 1-10 Exhibit 1-4 Location Map 1-11 Exhibit 1-5 Project Site Plan 1-12 Exhibit 1-6 Specific Plan Planning Areas 1-13 Exhibit 1-7 Illustrative Site Plan 1-14 Exhibit 1-8 Tentative Tract Map 1-15 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Table of Contents xii Exhibit 2.2-1 Illustrative Site Plan 2.2-7 Exhibit 2.2-2 Aerial Architectural Rendering – View to the South 2.2-8 Exhibit 2.2-3 Aerial Architectural Rendering – View to the North 2.2-9 Exhibit 2.2-4 Aerial Architectural Rendering – View of Entire Project 2.2-12 Exhibit 2.2-5 Architectural Rendering – Surf Center Pool 2.2-13 Exhibit 2.2-6 Architectural Rendering – Surf Center Entry 2.2-14 Exhibit 2.2-7 Materials Board 2.2-15 Exhibit 2.2-8 Beach Pavilion – Elevations & Sections 2.2-16 Exhibit 2.2-9 South Bar – Elevations & Sections 2.2-17 Exhibit 2.2-10 Wave Machine – East & South Elevations 2.2-18 Exhibit 2.2-11 Wave Machine – West & Southeast Elevations 2.2-19 Exhibit 2.2-12 Visual Simulations Key Map 2.2-26 Exhibit 2.2-13 Visual Simulations 1 2.2-27 Exhibit 2.2-14 Visual Simulations 2 2.2-28 Exhibit 2.2-15 Visual Simulations 3 2.2-29 Exhibit 2.2-16 Visual Simulations 4 2.2-30 Exhibit 2.2-17 Northwest Site Photometrics 2.2-36 Exhibit 2.2-18 Northeast Site Photometrics 2.2-37 Exhibit 2.2-19 South Site Photometrics 2.2-38 Exhibit 2.2-20 Lagoon Photometrics 2.2-39 Exhibit 2.2-21 Lagoon Perimeter Photometrics 2.2-40 Exhibit 2.2-22 Comparative Glare 2.2-41 Exhibit 2.4-1 Soil Map of Planning Area 2.4-9 Exhibit 2.4-2 Vegetation Communities in Planning Area 2.4-10 Exhibit 2.5-1 Scope of Records Search for the Project Area 2.5-11 Exhibit 2.10-1 Preliminary WQMP and Hydrology Site Map 2.10-10 Exhibit 2.10-2 Desert Willow Original Hydrology Map 2.10-11 Exhibit 2.10-3 Pool and Lagoon Backwash Drainage System 2.10-12 Exhibit 2.11-1 Land Use Map 2.11-10 Exhibit 2.12-1 Ambient Noise Measurement Locations 2.12-10 Exhibit 2.12-2 Sensitive Receiver Locations 2.12-26 Exhibit 2.12-3 Unmitigated Typical Project Operational Noise Level Contours 2.12-27 Exhibit 2.12-4 Construction Noise Sources Locations 2.12-28 Exhibit 2.15-1 Existing (2019) Traffic Volumes (same as TIA Exhibit 3-11) 2.15-7 Exhibit 2.15-2 Existing (2019) Summary of LOS (same as TIA Exhibit 3-12) 2.15-11 Exhibit 2.15-3 Site Adjacent Roadway and Site Access Mitigation 2.15-16 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Table of Contents xiii Exhibit 2.15-4 Special Event Traffic Management Plan (same as TIA Exhibit 1-6) 2.15-23 Exhibit 2.16-1 Grading and Utility Plan 2.16-14 List of Appendices Appendix A: The City of Palm Desert CEQA Environmental Checklist and Initial Study, Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Responses to NOP. Prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., January 17, 2019. A-1 Appendix B: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report. DSRT SURF, Palm Desert, CA Prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., March 2019. B-1 Appendix C: Habitat Assessment and Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Report Desert Willow Golf Resort Project Site. Prepared by Wood Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., September 24, 2018. C-1 Appendix D: Historical / Archaeological Resources Survey Desert Willow Golf Resort Development Project. Prepared by CRM TECH August 30, 2018. Tribal Consultation Request Letters and Responses. D-1 Appendix E: Geotechnical Investigation Report. Prepared by Sladden Engineering, December 7, 2018 E-1 Appendix F: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. Prepared by The Altum Group, December 3, 2018 Preliminary Hydrology Report. Prepared by The Altum Group, December 3, 2018 F-1 Appendix G: Noise Impact Analysis. Prepared by Urban Crossroads. March 4, 2019 G-1 Appendix H: Traffic Impact Analysis. Prepared by Urban Crossroads. March 4, 2019 H-1 Appendix I: Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification for the DSRT SURF Project. Prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. May 2019 I-1 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Executive Summary ES-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The City of Palm Desert has prepared this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts related to the DSRT SURF Project (proposed Project or Project). The City is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this Project. The EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (as amended) (Public Resources Code §§21000-21189.3) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, §§15000-15387). Under State CEQA Guidelines §15121: • An EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The public agency shall consider the information in the EIR along with other information which may be presented to the agency. • While the information in the EIR does not control the agency’s ultimate discretion on the project, the agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the EIR by making findings under Section 15091 and if necessary, by making a statement of overriding consideration under Section 15093. • The information in an EIR may constitute substantial evidence in the record to support the agency’s action on the project if its decision is later challenged in court. Under State CEQA Guidelines §15123, this Executive Summary describes the proposed Project, potentially significant impacts and required mitigation measures. Also identified in this Section is a summary of the alternatives to the project evaluated in this Draft EIR (Draft EIR or DEIR), DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Executive Summary ES-2 including those that would avoid potentially significant effects; issues of concern/areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency; and issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and how best to mitigate the potentially significant effects. The reader should review, but not rely exclusively on the Executive Summary as the sole basis for judgment of the proposed Project and alternatives. The complete DEIR should be consulted for specific information about the potential environmental effects and mitigation measures to address those effects. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The DSRT SURF Project proposes the development of a surf lagoon and surf center facilities, hotel(s), and resort residential villas on 17.69 acres within the Desert Willow Golf Resort in the City of Palm Desert. The Project will also include off-site improvements, including stormwater management and pool/lagoon discharge infrastructure, a lagoon water source, removal of golf course turf in several locations within the existing golf course and replacement with desert landscaping, landscaping improvements, special events parking facilities, and soil removal and storage. Background and Project Summary The Desert Willow Golf Resort was built by the City of Palm Desert in 1998. It consists of two 18-hole golf courses and remainder parcels planned for resort and residential development on 515± acres. Development of the site has been governed by the North Sphere Specific Plan, which established multiple planning areas within the 515 acre property. Several of these planning areas have been developed with hotels and restaurants, condominium units, and resort residential projects. Four development pads centered around Desert Willow Drive, generally east and south of the existing clubhouse, remain vacant. The proposed Project site consists of irregular shaped lots west of Desert Willow Drive and south of the existing Golf Resort clubhouse. Approximately 3 acres at the northwest corner of the Project site is currently developed with clubhouse parking lots; the remaining 14.7 acres is vacant desert land that was previously graded as part of the golf course but has since renaturalized. The Project will be implemented in two phases. The Surf Lagoon Planning Area will include development of a 5.5-acre surf lagoon and surf center facilities to include restaurant, bar, retail, and similar facilities together totaling 11.85 acres. The Hotels and Villas Planning Area will include the development of up to 350 hotel rooms and up to 88 resort residential villas on approximately 5.84 acres. Parking facilities throughout the Project will include surface parking, underground parking, and improvement of an existing off-site parking lot southeast of the Project site for overflow parking during special events. Primary Project access will be provided DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Executive Summary ES-3 via two access drives on Desert Willow Drive, and emergency access will be provided at a third access point at the southwestern portion of the Project, into the adjacent developed Westin Desert Willow project. In addition to daily operations, the surf lagoon and surf center will also be capable of accommodating special events that will attract additional surfers and ticketed spectators. The number of special events is not currently known. However, for purposes of this document, it has been assumed that up to one event per month could occur, for a total of 12 special events per year. The Project is consistent with surrounding resort and recreational development and the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, which designates the site as Resort and Entertainment District. The Project includes a Specific Plan that will guide overall development, a Precise Plan for the lagoon and surf center, a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the site, and a Disposition and Development Agreement to facilitate the sale of the property which is currently owned by the City, and establish development responsibilities of both the applicant and the City. STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES Under State CEQA Guidelines §15124(b), the project description shall include a statement of objectives. These objectives have been designed to assist the City in developing a reasonable range of project alternatives to evaluate in the DEIR, and aid the decision-makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The project objectives are intended to address the purpose of the DSRT SURF Project. The City has identified the following list of criteria as the objectives for the project. • Continue the mission of the Desert Willow Golf Resort by providing a world-class recreational opportunity unique to the Coachella Valley. • Expand the City’s tourism economy and expand transient occupancy tax revenues. • Implement water conservation and recycling measures to minimize the impacts to water demand at Desert Willow. • Energy efficient resort development to meet the City’s sustainability goals. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Section 2, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, of this DEIR presents the environmental impact analyses for all CEQA resource topics and identifies mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to a less than significant level, where appropriate and feasible. A summary of all impacts and mitigation measures from Section 2 is provided in Table ES-1 at the end of this summary. The table is intended to provide a summary of the project’s impacts and mitigation measures; please refer to Section 2 for the complete analysis and discussion. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Executive Summary ES-4 As shown in the Table, impacts associated with air quality during daily operations and special events will exceed thresholds of significance for NOx; and impacts associated with operational greenhouse gas emissions will exceed established standards. Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be prepared, and will be considered by the City as a part of its review of the EIR. The draft statement will set forth information, considerations and findings that are supportive of the goals and benefits of the project as a whole. ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY Section 3, Alternatives, of this DEIR presents the alternatives analysis for the proposed Project. CEQA Guidelines §15126.6 requires that an EIR describe and evaluate the comparative merits of a range of alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the project. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. The CEQA Guidelines further state that the specific alternative of “no project” shall also be evaluated. The alternatives evaluated in this DEIR were identified based on the Palm Desert General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the North Sphere Specific Plan, and the development patterns in this part of the City. The alternatives were selected in consideration of one or more of the following factors: • Extent to which the alternative would accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project; • Extent to which the alternative would avoid or lessen any of the identified significant adverse environmental effects of the project; • Feasibility of the alternative, taking into account site/geographic suitability, economic viability, constructability, and consistency with regulatory requirements; and • Appropriateness of the alternative in contributing to a reasonable range of alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice by decision-makers. In consideration of the above factors, the following alternatives were selected to be addressed in this DEIR. Alternative A– No Project Alternative / Northern Sphere Specific Plan Alternative A, the No Project Alternative, assumes the site will build out according to the land use designations and development standards of the Northern Sphere Specific Plan (NSSP), which is the current Specific Plan regulating development within the Project area. The Project site is located in Planning Area 10 (PA 10) of the NSSP. According to the Section 4 North Sphere EIR, PA 10 was planned for a “Luxury Hotel” with a maximum of 500 rooms. Buildout of Alternative A would result in the development of a 5-story hotel with a maximum of 500 rooms totaling 665,000 square feet (including 100,000 square feet of meeting/hall space), as well as 300,000 square feet of landscaping/pool/recreation facilities, and 660 parking spaces. A detailed land use breakdown for Alternative A is provided in Table 1-3 of this DEIR. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Executive Summary ES-5 Alternative B – Mixed Use Alternative Alternative B, the Mixed Use Alternative, assumes the entire Project site will be developed according to existing General Plan land use designations and standards. The site is currently designated as Resort and Entertainment on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, which allows bed and breakfast inns, recreational facilities, small retail, large retail, and lodging, support retail and commercial services along with specialized entertainment with a commercial floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 0.10, and multi-family residential land uses of up to 10 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). For analysis purposes, it is assumed site standards are applied to the entire site acreage (as opposed to dividing the acreage in half) for both commercial and residential land uses. At buildout, Alternative B would include approximately 77,100 square feet of commercial development, 177 dwelling units, and 817 parking spaces. Table 1-4 of this DEIR provides a detailed land use buildout breakdown for Alternative B. Alternative C – Residential Alternative Alternative C, the Residential Alternative, assumes the entire site will build out as a residential development, allowing the maximum residential density under the existing Planned Residential District (PR-5) zoning standards. The purpose of this district is to provide for flexibility in residential development by encouraging creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities (4.0 – 40.0 du/ac), mixed housing types, and community facilities. City staff has indicated that it will not allow multi-family, apartment style development on the Project site due to its location within the Desert Willow property. Therefore, the maximum density in the PR-5 zone allowed for the Project site is 5 dwelling units per acre. At buildout, Alternative C would include approximately 89 dwelling units and 178 parking spaces. Table 1-5 of this DEIR provides a detailed land use buildout breakdown for Alternative C. ISSUES OF CONCERN/AREAS OF CONTROVERSY When a Lead Agency determines that an EIR is required for a project, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) must be prepared and submitted to the State Clearinghouse. The purpose of the NOP is to provide responsible and trustee agencies, and the public, with sufficient information describing the proposed Project and the potential environmental effects, to enable interested parties/persons to make a meaningful response. The City issued the NOP for the Project on January 22, 2019, and it concluded after the 30-day public review period concluded on February 20, 2019. The City received comments from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Their comments and concerns have been included in the analysis within Section 2 of this DEIR. The comment letters all address and request further information and analysis, and do not raise any issues considered controversial. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-6 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY MATRIX This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to assess the potential impacts to the environment that may result from the approval and implementation of the proposed Desert Wave Specific Plan Project. The Project includes 17.69 acres of land within the Desert Willow Golf Course, Palm Desert. The Project proposes the development of a 5.5 acre surf lagoon and surf center facilities to include restaurant, bar, retail and similar facilities, up to 350 hotel rooms, and up to 88 resort residential villas on the site in two planning area which will be built in two phases: the Surf Lagoon Planning Area and Hotels and Villas Planning Area. The Surf Lagoon Planning Area will include the development of the surf lagoon and associated amenities on 11.85 acres. The Hotels and Villas Planning Area will result in the construction of the hotel(s) and villas on approximately 5.84 acres. Summary of Alternatives The proposed Project includes three alternatives as follows: Alternative A – No Project – Northern Sphere Specific Plan: This alternative assumes development of the site according to land use designations and development standards of the North Sphere Specific Plan (NSSP), which is the current Specific Plan regulating development within the Project area. Buildout of Alternative A would result in the development of a 5-story hotel with a maximum of 500 rooms totaling 665,000 square feet (including 100,000 square feet of meeting/hall space), as well as 300,000 square feet of landscaping/pool/recreation facilities, and 660 parking spaces. Alternative B – Mixed Use Alternative: This alternative assumes development of the site according to existing General Plan land use designations and standards. At buildout, Alternative B would include approximately 77,100 square feet of commercial development, 177 dwelling units, and 817 parking spaces. Alternative C – Residential Alternative: This alternative assumes the entire site will build out as a residential development, allowing the maximum residential density under the existing Planned Residential District (PR-5) zoning standards. At buildout, Alternative C would include approximately 89 dwelling units and 178 parking spaces. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-7 Definition of Impacts The following discussion briefly summarizes each category of analysis, including existing conditions, project impacts and applicable mitigation measures recommended to reduce impacts to acceptable or insignificant levels. Levels of impact include the following: Potentially Significant Impacts: Those impacts which, prior to the implementation of mitigation measures, could potentially adversely impact environmental conditions. Less Than Significant Impacts: Those impacts, which, by virtue of the environmental conditions, predisposing existing development, or the implementation of mitigation measures, are reduced to acceptable or “insignificant” levels. No Impacts: Those conditions where the proposed Project will not impact the environmental condition. Areas of Controversy There are no known areas of controversy in the project’s physical characteristics that are not resolved by project design, development management and operation, mitigation measures or standard on-going monitoring. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-8 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation Section 2.2 Aesthetics a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-9 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant AES-1: In order to assure that lighting levels at the Lagoon Villas do not exceed City standards, architectural plans for these villas will be accompanied by a lighting plan that demonstrates that the interior lighting level at the windows located facing the lagoon does not exceed 1.0 footcandle. Less Than Significant Section 2.3 Air Quality a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Potentially Significant AQ-1: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations At least 5% of all vehicle parking spaces shall include EV charging stations. AQ-2: Delivery Vehicle Idling Time Delivery vehicle idling time shall be limited to no more than five minutes. For any delivery that is expected to take longer than five minutes, the vehicle’s operator shall be required to shut off the engine. The Project proponent shall notify vendors of these idling requirements at the time the delivery purchase order is Significant and unavoidable DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-10 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation issued and again when vehicles enter the facility. Signs shall be posted at entry to the facility’s delivery area stating that idling longer than five minutes is not permitted. AQ-3: Employee Commute Any employer than employs 250 or more employees at a work site, on a full or part-time basis, shall implement an Employee Commute Reduction Program (ECRP) under SCAQMD Rule 2202, On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Option. AQ-4: Paving and Roofing Materials Light-colored paving and roofing materials shall be utilized onsite, to the greatest extent practical. AQ-5: Energy Star Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances shall be installed onsite to the greatest extent practical. AQ-6: Sweepers Electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters shall be used onsite to the greatest extent practical. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-11 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation AQ-7: Lawn Maintenance Electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers shall be used onsite to the greatest extent practical. AQ-8: Cleaning Products Water-based or low VOC cleaning products shall be used to the greatest extent practical. AQ-9: Dust Control Plan: SCAQMD Rule 403.1 SCAQMD Rule 403 (403.1 specific to the Coachella Valley): A Dust Control Plan shall be prepared and implemented by all contractors during all construction activities, including ground disturbance, grubbing, grading, and materials import and export. Said plan shall include but not be limited to the following best management practices: • Treated and stabilized soil where activity will cease for at least four consecutive days; • All construction grading operations and earth moving operations shall cease when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; • Water site and equipment morning and evening and during all earth-moving operations; • Operate street-sweepers on impacted paved roads adjacent to site; DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-12 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation • Establish and strictly enforce limits of grading for each phase of construction; • Wash off trucks as they leave the project site to control fugitive dust emissions • Cover all transported loads of soils, wet materials prior to transport, provide freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck) to reduce PM10 and deposition of particulate matter during transportation • Use track-out reduction measures such as gravel pads at project access points to minimize dust and mud deposits on roads affected by construction traffic. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-13 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation Section 2.4 Biological Resources a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Potentially Significant BIO-1: Payment of CVMSHCP Fees The Project proponent shall be required to pay the CVMSHCP local development mitigation fee to mitigate for impacts to covered species and natural communities within the Project site. BIO-2: MBTA Compliance For any grading or other site disturbance or tree or vegetation removal occurring during the nesting season between February 1st and August 31st, a qualified biologist shall conduct at least one nesting bird survey, and more if deemed necessary by the consulting biologist, immediately prior to initiation of project- related ground disturbing activities. If nesting birds are present, no work shall be permitted near the nest until the young birds have fledged. While there is no established protocol for nest avoidance, when consulted, the CDFW generally recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds-of-prey, and 100 – 300 feet for songbirds . BIO-3: Burrowing Owl Surveys A qualified biologist shall conduct two (2) take avoidance pre- construction burrowing owl surveys onsite. The first shall occur between 14 and 30 days prior to ground disturbance, and the Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-14 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation second shall occur within 24 hours of ground disturbance. If burrowing owls are detected, the project proponent shall consult with CDFW to determine what course of action is needed, such as the use of exclusion devices (if applicable) to discourage owls from using burrows that are believed to be in jeopardy of being impacted by implementation of the project. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-15 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-16 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Section 2.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Cultural Resources a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5. No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5. Potentially Significant CUL-1: Worker Education Program Prior to commencing any phase of Project ground disturbance, all personnel working onsite shall be required to complete a worker education program performed by a qualified archaeologist that describes potential archaeological artifacts, human remains, and other cultural materials that could be unearthed during the Project development process, and the procedures required in the event such a discovery is made. CUL-2: Monitoring If buried cultural materials are encountered inadvertently during any earth-moving operations associated with the Project, all work Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-17 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation within 50 feet of the discovery should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. The archaeologist shall prepare a findings report summarizing the methods and results of the investigation, including an itemized inventory and detailed analysis of recovered artifacts upon completion of field and laboratory work. The report shall include an interpretation of the cultural activities represented by the artifacts and discussion of their significance. The submittal of the report to the City and Tribal representative, as appropriate, along with final disposition of the recovered artifacts in a manner consistent with determination of the lead agency, Project archaeologist, and consulting tribes, will signify the completion of the monitoring program and, barring unexpected findings of significance, the mitigation of potential project impacts on cultural and tribal resources. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries Potentially Significant CUL-3: Human Remains Should buried human remains be discovered during grading or other construction activities, in accordance with State law, the County coroner shall be contacted. If the remains are determined to be of Native American heritage, the Native American Heritage Commission and the appropriate local Native American Tribe shall be contacted to determine the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). Less Than Significant Tribal Cultural Resources DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-18 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1h, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the Potentially Significant CUL-1: Worker Education Program Prior to commencing any phase of Project ground disturbance, all personnel working onsite shall be required to complete a worker education program performed by a qualified archaeologist that describes potential archaeological artifacts, human remains, and other cultural materials that could be unearthed during the Project development process, and the procedures required in the event such a discovery is made. CUL-2: Monitoring If buried cultural materials are encountered inadvertently during any earth-moving operations associated with the Project, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. The archaeologist shall prepare a Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-19 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation resource to a California Native American tribe. findings report summarizing the methods and results of the investigation, including an itemized inventory and detailed analysis of recovered artifacts upon completion of field and laboratory work. The report shall include an interpretation of the cultural activities represented by the artifacts and discussion of their significance. The submittal of the report to the City and Tribal representative, as appropriate, along with final disposition of the recovered artifacts in a manner consistent with determination of the lead agency, Project archaeologist, and consulting tribes, will signify the completion of the monitoring program and, barring unexpected findings of significance, the mitigation of potential project impacts on cultural and tribal resources. Section 2.6 Energy a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-20 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact Section 2.7 Geology and Soils a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-21 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Potentially Significant GEO-6: Conventional Shallow Spread Footings Adequate support for the proposed resort buildings and surf lagoon enclosed walls will be provided through Conventional Shallow Spread Footings. GEO-7: Slabs-on-Grade Concrete slabs-on-grade must be placed on compacted engineered fill to provide uniform support. Sladden Engineering has recommended a minimum slab thickness of 4-inches and a minimum reinforcement consisting of #3 bars at 18-inches on center in each direction. GEO-10: Asphalt Concrete Pavement This should be designed in accordance with Topic 608 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual to meet the following thickness for the site: Pavement Material Recommended Thickness Asphalt Concrete Surface Course 3 inches Class II Aggregate Base Course 4 inches Compacted Subgrade Soil 12 inches Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-22 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation GEO-12: Utility Trench Backfill All utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90%. GEO-13: Exterior Concrete Flatwork The subgrade soil below concrete flatwork areas should first be compacted to minimum relative compaction of 90 percent to minimize cracking of concrete flatworks. GEO-19: Prior to ground disturbing activities, all employees at the construction site shall be trained in earthquake preparedness and identify safe places near the construction site to facilitate emergency evacuation. iii) Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? Potentially Significant GEO-1: Site Clearing Prior to commencement of remedial grading within the site, all existing vegetation, associated root systems, and debris should be cleared. Areas planned to receive fill should be cleared of old fill and any irreducible matter. GEO-2: At Grade Structure Areas Requirements All undocumented artificial fill and low-density native surface soil should be removed and re-compacted for the at-grade structures (e.g., spa building and cabanas). Over-excavation Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-23 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation should extend to a minimum depth of 3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. The exposed native soil should be moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Removals should extend at least 5 feet laterally beyond the footing limits. GEO-3: Fill Placement and Compaction Engineered fill should be free of organic material, debris, and other deleterious substances, and should not contain irreducible matter greater than 3-inches in maximum dimensions. The imported fill should meet the following criteria: Plastic Index <12 Liquid Limit <35 % Soil Passing #200 Sieve Between 15% - 35% Maximum Aggregate Size 3 inches GEO-4: Shrinkage and Subsidence Volumetric shrinkage of the material should be between 10 and 15 percent. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-24 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation GEO-5: Temporary Excavation Temporary excavation up to 20 feet in depth may be required to accomplish the proposed construction. Excavations to depth of 20 feet should have slope cuts no steeper than horizontal to one vertical (1:1). iv) Landslides? No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Potentially Significant GEO-16: All project grading plans shall include a soil erosion prevention/dust control plan. Blowing dust and sand during excavation and grading operations shall be mitigated by adequate watering of soils prior to and during excavation and grading, and limiting the area of dry, exposed and disturbed materials and soils during these activities. To mitigate against the effects of wind erosion after site development, a variety of measures shall be implemented, including maintaining moist surface soils, planting stabilizing vegetation, establishing windbreaks with non-invasive vegetation or perimeter block walls, and using chemical soil stabilizers. GEO-17: There shall be a cessation of grading activities during rainstorms or high wind events. The project contractor shall install flow barriers and soil catchments (such as straw bales, silt fences, and temporary detention basins) during construction to control soil erosion. Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-25 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation GEO-18: All materials transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of spillage or dust. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Potentially Significant GEO-3: Fill Placement and Compaction Engineered fill should be free of organic material, debris, and other deleterious substances, and should not contain irreducible matter greater than 3-inches in maximum dimensions. The imported fill should meet the following criteria: Plastic Index <12 Liquid Limit <35 % Soil Passing #200 Sieve Between 15% - 35% Maximum Aggregate Size 3 inches Less Than Significant d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-26 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Potentially Significant GEO-15: If buried paleontological materials are discovered inadvertently during any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. Less Than Significant Section 2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the Potentially Significant GHG-1: The Project shall implement the policies of the Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan applicable to its development. The Project shall adhere to the following principals, goals, and Significant and unavoidable DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-27 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. actions: • Adherence to California Building Code, Title 24; • Assess potential for light-colored surfaces and shading to reduce urban heat island effect; • Incorporate solar power; • Use water efficient technologies to reduce water waste; • Require mandatory waste diversion of 100% inert and 75% other debris from residential, commercial, and construction debris; • Promote programs that replace turf with native low water- use plants, trees, ground cover and “hard-scapes,” including the redesign of golf courses to reduce the amount of irrigation required; • Use “desert style landscaping” and require “time-of-use” irrigating to reduce evaporation. Section 2.9 Hazards & Hazardous Materials a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-28 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-29 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-30 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Potentially Significant TRANSP-5 through TRANSP -14 and TRANSP -15 through -19. (Section 2.15 Transportation) Less Than Significant g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact Section 2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control Potentially Significant HYD-1 : BMPs, as described in the Project-specific WQMP, shall be implemented to ensure that water quality impacts resulting from the Project meet the City’s NPDES standards. HYD-2: Exposed soil from excavated areas, stockpiles, and other areas where ground cover is removed shall be stabilized by wetting or other approved means to avoid or minimize the inadvertent transport by wind or water. Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-31 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. HYD-3: The Project shall be subject to NPDES Construction General Permit requirements. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Potentially Significant HYD-4: The Turf Reduction Program shall be completed prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for the surf center. Less Than Significant c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Potentially Significant HYD-1: BMPs, as described in the Project-specific WQMP, shall be implemented to ensure that water quality impacts resulting from the Project meet the City’s NPDES standards. Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-32 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows. Potentially Significant HYD-1: BMPs, as described in the Project-specific WQMP, shall be implemented to ensure that water quality impacts resulting from the Project meet the City’s NPDES standards. HYD-2: Exposed soil from excavated areas, stockpiles, and other areas where ground cover is removed shall be stabilized by wetting or other approved means to avoid or minimize the inadvertent transport by wind or water. HYD-3: The Project shall be subject to NPDES Construction General Permit requirements. Less Than Significant d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-33 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation Section 2.11 Land Use/Planning a) Physically divide an established community. No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Section 2.12 Noise a) Generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-34 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation b) Result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact Section 2.13 Population and Housing a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-35 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact Section 2.14 Public Services a) The project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-36 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: • Fire protection • Police protection Potentially Significant PS-1: All components of the Project shall be required to employ on- site private security. PS-2: Per the City’s Municipal Code Sections 5.87.180 and 5.100.0201, at least two weeks prior to a special event at the lagoon area, the applicant shall file a “Special Event Temporary Entertainment Permit.” Event notifications and specifics shall be approved in advance with the RCSD and Fire Marshall prior to scheduled events. PS-3: Project facilities shall be designed and maintained to maximize public safety, including providing secure facilities access and Less Than Significant 1 Palm Desert Municipal Code 5.87.180 (Special events notification required) and 5.100.020 (Special event temporary entertainment permit required). DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-37 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation parking, adequate nighttime lighting, maximization of defensible space and minimization of “dead zones,” and professional security personnel. The Project proponent shall coordinate with the Police Department to assure the Project is designed to address these and other safety concerns. PS-4: During construction, excavation areas, construction staging, and storage areas shall be fenced and locked. All equipment shall be returned to staging and storage areas at the end of each work day. • Schools Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant • Parks Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant • Other public facilities Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Section 2.15 Transportation a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Site Access Improvements TRANSP-1: The Project proponent shall pay its fair share of the costs of installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive. The fair share amount shall be 12.1%, as defined in Table 1-5 of the “Desert Wave Traffic Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-38 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” prepared by Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. Signal timing shall be coordinated with the traffic signal at the intersection of Cook Street and Country Club Drive. TRANSP-2: The Project shall extend the eastbound left turn lane on Market Place Drive at Cook Street to provide a minimum of 165 feet of storage. Special Event Traffic Management TRANSP-5: The Project proponent shall coordinate with City staff to prepare, refine, and approve a Special Event Traffic Management Plan that facilitates the safe and efficient movement of special event traffic, shuttles, and pedestrians. A master management plan shall be prepared that details all potential measures required for a special event, which shall be supplemented with individual plans addressing specific special events based on their size and duration. The Special Event Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to the City prior to certificate of occupancy for the Surf Center. Individual management plans for specific special events shall be submitted at least 30 days DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-39 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation prior to the start of the event. The Special Event Traffic Management Plan shall include the measures identified in Mitigation Measures TRANSP-6 through 14, below. TRANSP-6: Shuttle service shall be provided to transport spectators between the Project site and overflow parking lot via Desert Willow Drive, and for any other off-site parking location required to accommodate the parking requirements for each special event. The calculation for number of parking spaces required shall be based on the number of planned attendees, divided by 2.4, and multiplied by 0.70 (70%) (as described in Section 1.10 of the “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” prepared by Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019). Shuttle routes and stops shall be identified in the Special Event Traffic Management Plan. TRANSP-7: In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the Project proponent shall include the use of portable changeable message signs (CMS) along Country Club Drive and Cook Street to facilitate event traffic to and from on- site and off-site parking DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-40 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation TRANSP-8: In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the Project proponent shall include the use of law enforcement personnel and/or special event flaggers to direct traffic at the following locations: 1) Desert Willow Drive & Country Club Drive, 2) Cook Street & Market Place Drive, 3) Desert Willow Drive & Market Place Drive, and 4) Desert Willow Drive & Project entrance. Any plans involving law enforcement personnel shall be coordinated with the Palm Desert Police Department. TRANSP-9: In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the Project proponent and City shall include the use of public service announcements (PSA) to provide information to event guests prior to the event. Examples include, but are not limited to, online event information (i.e., suggested routes, parking, etc.), changeable message signs (CMS) prior to the event, and brochures. TRANSP-10: The City shall provide traffic signal timing adjustments based on the expected peak arrival and departure periods of the special event at the following locations: 1) Desert Willow Drive & Country Club Drive, 2) Cook Street & Market Place Drive, and 3) Cook Street & Country Club Drive. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-41 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation TRANSP-11: In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the Project proponent shall include the designation of convenient and accessible drop-off and pick-up areas to promote ridesharing and reduce parking demands. The Plan may also include short-term parking with time restrictions of 10-15 minutes for staging areas for ridesharing vehicles. TRANSP-12: In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the Project proponent shall include providing off-site parking facilities for employees to increase available on-site parking for guests. Employee parking sites shall be served by shuttles that transport employees to and from the Project site. TRANSP-13: In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the Project Proponent shall include implementing valet parking to increase available on-site parking capacity. TRANSP-14: The Project proponent shall demonstrate availability of additional parking spaces at Desert Springs Marketplace, the Indian Wells Tennis Garden or other location(s) prior to each special event. Shuttle service to/from the Project site shall be provided to serve all off-site parking locations. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-42 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). No Impact No mitigation is required. No Impact d) Result in inadequate emergency access. Emergency Access TRANSP-15: Prior to site disturbance, construction staging plans shall be approved by the Public Works, Fire, and Police Departments to assure they adequately consider and account for temporary detours, changing access to business and residential areas, and emergency access, and that they cause minimal disruption to adjoining streets and land uses, during all phases of Project development. TRANSP-16: The Construction Manager shall be required to identify and promptly repair any Project-related damage to existing Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-43 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation public roads upon completion of each phase of Project development. The Construction Manager shall monitor the condition of these routes throughout the construction process and, in the event of an accidental load spill or other Project-related incident, shall arrange for the immediate clean-up of any material with street sweepers or other necessary procedures. TRANSP-17: The final location and design of the site access points and internal circulation improvements shall comply with City of Palm Desert access and design standards and be reviewed by the City Engineer and Fire and Police Departments. TRANSP-18: Parking adjacent to the surf lagoon, surf center, hotel, villas, and other buildings shall be prohibited, where necessary, to provide unobstructed access by emergency service vehicles and first responders. TRANSP-19: The Police and Fire Departments shall be provided with a Knox Box or other master key or access code that enables immediate entry to the Project’s secured emergency access gate on Willow Ridge. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-44 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation Section 2.16 Utilities a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Executive Summary ES-45 TABLE M-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Impact Before Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance after Mitigation provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Introduction and Project Description 1-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000- 21189.57) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15000-15387) establish and guide the environmental review process for all projects in California. This document has been prepared in conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the DSRT SURF Specific Plan Project (proposed Project). Lead Agency CEQA defines the “Lead Agency” as the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15367). The proposed action evaluated in this EIR constitutes a “project”, as defined by Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the City of Palm Desert. The Lead Agency contact person and mailing address regarding are: Mr. Eric Ceja Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Mr. Ceja’s telephone number and email address are: (760) 346-0611; eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org. Background The City of Palm Desert completed construction of the Desert Willow Golf Resort in 1998. In addition to the two 18-hole golf courses, remainder parcels were planned for a wide range of resort and residential development on a total of 515± acres. Development within the project has been governed by the North Sphere Specific Plan (NSSP), which established multiple planning areas within the project area. Multiple planning areas have developed, including the DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Introduction and Project Description 1-2 hotels and restaurants located at the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Cook Street; condominium units on the west side of the golf course and east of Portola Avenue; and resort residential projects in the southern half of the project area. Four vacant development pads within the NSSP remain today, centered around Desert Willow Drive and generally located east and south of the existing clubhouse. The proposed Project generally occurs within Planning Area 10 of the NSSP. The proposed Project site consists of three irregular shaped lots (Assessor’s Parcel No. 620-420- 023, 620-400-024 and -620-400-008) totaling 17.69 acres. The land is partially developed with clubhouse parking lots in its northwest corner, on approximately 3 acres. The balance of the site (approximately 14.7 acres), is vacant desert land, which was previously graded as part of the mass grading of the golf course, but has since renaturalized. The Project site is designated as Resort and Entertainment District on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, which allows bed and breakfast inns, recreational facilities, small retail, large retail, lodging, support retail, and commercial services along with specialized entertainment with a commercial floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 0.10, and multi-family residential land uses of up to 10 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). The City’s Zoning Map designates the site as Planned Residential (PR-5), allowing 5 units per acre. Project Description The Project proposes the development of a surf lagoon of up to 6 acres in size, and surf center facilities to include restaurant, bar, retail and similar facilities, up to 350 hotel rooms, and up to 88 resort residential villas on the site. The Project will be implemented in two phases: The Surf Lagoon Planning Area will include the development of the surf lagoon and associated amenities on 11.85 acres. The surf lagoon will be a pie-shaped water pool (Exhibit 2.2-2). The Project would include a wave machine located in the central pier of the lagoon and in the mechanical building at the southeastern portion of the site (Exhibit 2.2-2, 2.2-10 and 2.2-11). The Hotels and Villas Planning Area will result in the construction of the hotel(s) and villas on approximately 5.84 acres. Although the two Planning Areas are expected to be developed separately, rough grading of the entire site will occur with the first phase of development, including the likely redistribution of soil on- and off-site to provide level construction areas. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan that will guide the development of the Project overall; a Precise Plan for the lagoon and surf center; a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the site; and a Disposition and Development Agreement. The Specific Plan will set forth the planning principles, land use policies, development standards, and design guidelines for the proposed development and public improvements within the Specific Plan area. The Project’s Specific Plan will also address maximum development densities. The land use, design, and development standards of the surf lagoon will be regulated through a Precise Plan based on the City’s Municipal Code Section 25.72.030 (Precise Plan). A Precise Plan is similar to a Specific Plan, but further defines the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan to provide specific designs DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Introduction and Project Description 1-3 and plans that ultimately regulate the construction of the Project. As described below, a Precise Plan application has been filed for the Lagoon and Surf Center, and is part of this Project. No Precise Plan application(s) have been filed for hotels and villas at this time. The Precise Plan application includes facilities within the Lagoon and Surf Center Planning Area, including a 5.5 acre lagoon, restaurants, bars, retail space and entertainment facilities (Table 1- 2, Exhibit 1-7), Parking will be provided in both surface and underground parking areas. The Surf Center also proposes the installation of solar panels onsite which could generate an estimated 1,700,000 kWh per year. Table 1-1 Specific Plan Land Uses and Development Standards DSRT SURF Lagoon and Resort Planning Area 1 Surf Lagoon Planning Area (11.85 acres) Max/Min Allowed Surf Lagoon Max 6 acres Surf Center Building Max 35,000 SF ; Max Height 50 feet Café Juice Bar Max 1,750 SF Restaurant (120 Occupants w/seats) Max 2,250 SF* Bar (83 Occ w/seats, 180 Occs w/o seats) Max 1,250 SF** Events (233 Occ w/seats, 500 Occs w/o seats) Max 2,750 SF*** Ancillary Restrooms/Changing Rooms/Locker Buildings Max 1,500 SF Ancillary Rental Building(s) Max 1,500 SF East Lagoon Café and Bar Max 2,750 SF Maintenance and Equipment Buildings Max 12,500 SF Landscaping/OS/Pool /Recreational Space Minimum 20% Planning Area site coverage Parking Surf Lagoon: 1.5 per surfer (max. 95 surfers) Restaurant/Bar/Lounge: 8 per 1,000 SF Planning Area 2 Hotel and Villas Planning Area (5.84 acres) Max/Min Allowed Hotels Max 350 rooms, Max 200,000 SF; Max Height 50 feet Hotel Spa Max 12,500 SF Villas 15 units per acre/87 villas max. Villa Clubhouse Max 3,125 SF Maintenance and Equipment Buildings Max 2,500 SF Landscaping/OS/Pool/Recreational Space Minimum 25% Planning Area site coverage Parking Hotel: 1 per room Villas: 2 per unit DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Introduction and Project Description 1-4 Table 1-2 Surf Lagoon Precise Plan Land Uses and Development Standards DSRT SURF Lagoon and Resort Land Use/Building SF AC Surf Lagoon 239,580 5.50 Surf Center Building 31,500 0.88 Café Juice Bar 1,500 Restaurant (120 Occupants w/seats) 2,000* Bar (83 Occ w/seats, 180 Occs w/o seats) 1,000** Events (233 Occ w/seats, 500 Occs w/o seats) 2,500*** Ancillary Restrooms/Changing Rooms/Locker Buildings 1,070 0.02 Ancillary Rental Building(s) 640 0.01 East Lagoon Café and Bar 1,000 0.06 Maintenance and Equipment Buildings 1,600 0.21 Landscape/OS/Pools/Rec./Amenities 104,789 2.41 Roadways/Driveways/Parking (asphalt paved areas) 120,307 2.76 90 Surface Parking 160 Underground Parking (not incl. in site total AC) TOTALS 35,810 11.85 * Restaurant = 2,000 SF built space plus 1,000 SF exterior non-built space, total of 3,000 SF of usable space. ** Bar = 1,000 SF built space plus 500 SF exterior non-built space, total of 1,500 SF of usable space. ***Events = 2,500 SF built space plus 1,000 SF exterior non-built space, total of 3,500 SF of usable space. The Tentative Tract Map will subdivide the site into 5 parcels, including the perimeter roadway, the surf lagoon and its associated buildings and facilities, the hotel(s) parcel, and multiple parcels for the residential villas (please see Exhibit 8). Further subdivision may occur in the future, as specific project plan(s) are proposed for Planning Area 2. The Disposition and Development Agreement will facilitate the sale of the property, currently owned by the City of Palm Desert, and establish responsibilities of both parties in the development process, including: • Infrastructure, public parking and overflow parking improvements • Performance requirements for the applicant to contribute fair share monies for the installation of the traffic signal at Market Place Drive, and for the City to install the signal prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the surf center • Various easements including: DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Introduction and Project Description 1-5 o Resort storm water drainage into the Mountainview Golf Course waste areas just south of the site o Lagoon Evacuation Line, though the City’s Moutainview Golf Course and within the existing Embarc 40’ Easement to the southeast of the Project site; o Access to Mountainview Golf Course well water and supply line, located to the south of lagoon; o Access to off-site parking lot (Lot E) for overflow parking • Off-site grading and turf reduction on the Desert Willow Golf Course Circulation and Access Desert Willow Drive is a public street that provides access to the existing Desert Willow Clubhouse from Country Club Drive to the south. Desert Willow Drive terminates with a traffic circle at the clubhouse entrance, immediately northeast of the Project site. Public parking is provided adjacent to the clubhouse and is currently accessed via the Desert Willow Drive traffic circle. The existing Desert Willow Golf Course parking lot will be reconfigured and a portion of the existing parking will be part of the Project. Two access drives are proposed on Desert Willow Drive – one on the west side of the traffic circle, and one south of the traffic circle. An emergency access will also be provided at the southwestern portion of the Project, from the adjacent Westin project Willow Ridge roadway. The Project will be served by a new perimeter drive that will provide access to all components of the Project. Drainage Project drainage will be integrated into the master drainage plan established for the Desert Willow project at its inception, and will convey storm water to existing “waste areas” located in the existing golf course. In addition, a system of on-site underground tanks, pipes and drywells will be installed to drain daily backwash from Project pools and the Lagoon. These aspects of the Project are discussed in Section 2.10. Off-site Improvements: The Project will also include some off-site improvements as follows: 1. Stormwater Management: The Project is required to have offsite storm drain improvements to accommodate the Project’s stormwater. Stormwater runoff from the site will be designed to transfer into the Desert Willow Golf Course (artificial) Lake, located half mile south of the site between Willow Ridge and Desert Willow Drive through an underground connection. 2. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: The water from the Project’s pools and a lagoon will be drained to Desert Willow Golf Course Lake, located south of the site between Willow Ridge and Desert Willow Drive. 3. Lagoon Water Source: The Project may provide water for the lagoon in one of three ways: a well may be dug at the southeastern corner of the site; underground pipes may be constructed to connect from the southeastern corner of the site to the existing DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Introduction and Project Description 1-6 Desert Willow well located south of the site near Country Club Drive; or the lagoon may utilize potable water from CVWD water lines existing in Desert Willow Drive. 4. Golf Course Turf Reduction: The existing turf in the Desert Willow Golf Course will be removed and replaced with desert landscaping in order to reduce the demand for water, so that little to no water is required. 5. Landscaping Improvements: Some areas of the land along the edge of the site will require landscaping improvements where grading will occur. 6. Special Events Parking: The Project includes one offsite parking and shuttle location to accommodate parking demand during special events. That off-site parking would be located west of the existing Ralph’s building between Country Club Drive and Market Place Drive (Exhibit 1-4) located half mile south of the site, which will consist of approximately 500 parking spaces. 7. Soil Removal/Storage: The site will require levelling, which will result in the extraction of the soil from the site. The 5-acre lagoon will require digging to a depth of 8 feet. Excavated soils and excess material would be transported off-site to approved disposal sites. Surf Lagoon Operational Details: Category Description Hours of Operation Surf Lagoon (surfers in water): 6:00 AM - 12:00 AM Surf Center: 6:00 AM - 2:00 AM Music Events: Outdoor: Ends at 12:00 AM (Friday - Sunday) Indoor: Ends at 12:00 AM (Friday - Sunday) Ticketing Beach Pass Surf Pass Public Access/No Pass Access to the surf lagoon, pool areas, recreational areas, taco bar, and surf shack/bar Surf lessons/surf sessions in addition to Beach Pass Surf center building, shopping, and surf center restaurants Lagoon Capacity Regular Days Special Events Up to 95 surfers Up to 75 surfers Special Events Special Events may also be held that could result in 3,500 ticketed spectators. Although the number of special events is not known, it has been assumed that one event per month would occur, for a total of 12 events annually. Parking overflow during special events will be located off- site on “Pad E,” which has a capacity for 500 vehicles, and at established parking lots elsewhere, including the Indian Wells tennis garden parking facilities. A shuttle service will be provided during special events to transport visitors to the Surf Lagoon. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Introduction and Project Description 1-7 1.1. Project Location The Project consists of three Assessor’s Parcels: 620-420-023, 620-400-024 and -620-400-008. The Project is located on the west side of Desert Willow Drive, north of Country Club Drive in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. The irregularly shaped site is bounded by golf course on its west, south and east sides, and by the Desert Willow Clubhouse parking lot on the north. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Introduction and Project Description 1-16 1.2. Statement of Project Objectives CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a project that would feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives, but that would avoid or substantially lessen any identified significant adverse environmental effects of the project. The EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the project. Specifically, Section 15126.6 sets forth criteria for selecting and evaluating alternatives. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the project description includes a statement of objectives. The purpose of the objectives is to assist the City in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in this EIR. These objectives are intended to explain the purpose of the project, and to aid the decision-makers in determining which alternative would best meet the objectives, while reducing environmental impacts. The objectives of the proposed Project are: • Continue the mission of the Desert Willow Golf resort by providing a world-class recreational opportunity unique to the Coachella Valley. • Expand the City’s tourism economy and expand transient occupancy tax revenues. • Implement water conservation and recycling measures to minimize the impacts to water supply from lagoon and golf course water use. • Energy efficient resort development to meet the City’s sustainability goals. 1.3. Project Alternatives Introduction Section 3 of this DEIR presents the alternatives analysis for the proposed Project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe and evaluate the comparative merits of a range of alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the project. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. The CEQA Guidelines further state that the specific alternative of “no project” shall also be evaluated. The alternatives considered in this EIR are based on the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the North Sphere Specific Plan, and the development patterns in this part of the City. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Introduction and Project Description 1-17 Alternative A – No Project – Northern Sphere Specific Plan Alternative A, the No Project Alternative, assumes the site will build out according to land use designations and development standards of the North Sphere Specific Plan (NSSP), which is the current Specific Plan regulating development within the Project area. The Project site is located in Planning Area 10 (PA 10) of the NSSP. According to the Section 4 North Sphere EIR, PA 10 was planned for a “Luxury Hotel” with a maximum of 500 rooms. Buildout of Alternative A would result in the development of a 5-story hotel with a maximum of 500 rooms totaling 665,000 square feet (including 100,000 square feet of meeting/hall space), as well as 300,000 square feet of landscaping/pool/recreation facilities, and 660 parking spaces. Table 1-3 “No Project” Alternative A: Northern Sphere Specific Plan (Assumes conformance to Northern Sphere SP: PA 10 Luxury Hotel) Land Use (Total 17.69 AC) SF Max 500 Rooms, 5 stories (incld. 100,000SF meeting/hall space) 665,000 SF Landscaping/pool/recreation 300,000 SF Parking 660 The majority of the site (15 AC) is classified as Planning Area 10 (PA 10) within the NSSP. See Table 4.1 Statistical Summary Table, Section 4 North Sphere Screencheck EIR. Alternative B – Mixed Use Alternative Alternative B, the Mixed Use Alternative, assumes the entire Project site will be developed according to existing General Plan land use designations and standards. The site is currently designated as Resort and Entertainment on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, which allows bed and breakfast inns, recreational facilities, small retail, large retail, and lodging, support retail and commercial services along with specialized entertainment with a commercial floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 0.10, and multi-family residential land uses of up to 10 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). For analysis purposes, it is assumed site standards are applied to the entire site acreage (as opposed to dividing the acreage in half) for both commercial and residential land uses. At buildout, Alternative B would include approximately 77,100 square feet of commercial development, 177 dwelling units, and 817 parking spaces. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Introduction and Project Description 1-18 Table 1-4 Mixed Use Alternative B (Assumes buildout under existing GP land use) Land Use SF/DU Commercial (17.69 AC) Commercial (0.10 FAR) 77,100 SF *Parking (6 per 1,000 SF) 463 Residential (17.69 AC) Residential (10 DU/AC) 177 units Parking (2 per unit) 354 The site is currently designated as Resort and Entertainment District on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, which allows bed and breakfast inns, recreational facilities, small retail, large retail, and lodging, support retail and commercial services along with specialized entertainment with a commercial floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 0.10, and multi-family residential land uses of up to 10 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). Assumes site standards are applied to entire site for both commercial and residential, with Council approval. *Parking Standards per PDMC. Commercial: Restaurants = 8 per 1,000SF; Shopping Centers 4 per 1,000 SF. Assumes 6 per 1,000 SF. Alternative C – Residential Alternative Alternative C, the Residential Alternative, assumes the entire site will build out as a residential development, allowing the maximum residential density under the existing Planned Residential District (PR-5) zoning standards. The purpose of this district is to provide for flexibility in residential development by encouraging creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities (4.0 – 40.0 du/ac), mixed housing types, and community facilities. City staff has indicated that it will not allow multi-family, apartment style development on the Project site due to its location within the Desert Willow property, which has been designed to expand the resort residential opportunities available within the City. Therefore, the maximum density in the PR-5 zone allowed for the Project site is 5 dwelling units per acre. At buildout, Alternative C would include approximately 89 dwelling units and 178 parking spaces. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Introduction and Project Description 1-19 Table 1-5 Residential Alternative C (Assumes buildout under max res. density allowed under PR-5 zoning) (Total 17.69 AC) DU Residential (5 DU/AC) 89 units Parking (2 per unit) 178 Planned Residential District (PR). The purpose of this district is to provide for flexibility in residential development, by encouraging creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities (4.0—40.0 du/ac), mixed housing types, and community facilities. The maximum project density shall be as expressed in dwelling units per gross acre of not more than the number following the zoning symbol PR (5 DU/AC). 1.4. Other Alternatives Considered But Not Further Analyzed The following Project alternatives were considered by the City, but were not further analyzed because it was determined they would not meet one or more of the Project objectives described in Section 1.3. Alternative Site The applicant considered other available sites within the Desert Willow Golf Course, prior to entering into negotiations with the City for the proposed Project site. Two vacant parcels located east of Desert Willow Drive were evaluated. The parcel furthest to the southeast, and adjacent to the existing commercial shopping center, was not of adequate size to accommodate the Project components, and was rejected for that reason. The site closest to the proposed Project was of a similar size, but was rejected because the access to the site is restricted and its expansion would require reconstruction of existing golf course holes. In addition, the site’s proximity to existing single family residential development to the northeast would have resulted in greater impacts to these residents, particularly as related to noise, traffic and air quality. All-Retail Alternative An alternative that would have resulted in an all-retail specialty shopping center was considered and rejected. This alternative would have resulted in up to 250,000 square feet of mixed retail development, including restaurants and shopping opportunities. This alternative, however, would not meet the Project’s objectives for world-class recreational facilities and transient occupancy tax generation, considered key in the development of Desert Willow pad sites when the City conceived of the project. These goals have been critical in leading the City’s efforts toward development of the remaining pad sites for the long term economic viability of the Desert Willow project area. In addition, the intensity of development would result in greater impacts associated with traffic and air quality. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Introduction and Project Description 1-20 1.5. CEQA Process California Environmental Quality Act In accordance with Sections 15063, 15064 and 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palm Desert prepared the DSRT SURF Initial Study to identify potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed Project. Based on the preliminary assessment, the City determined that an EIR should be prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the Project. (please see Appendix A). This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (as amended), pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15121: • An EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The public agency shall consider the information in the EIR along with other information which may be presented to the agency. • While the information in the EIR does not control the agency’s ultimate discretion on the project, the agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the EIR by making findings under Section 15091 and if necessary by making a statement of overriding consideration under Section 15093. • The information in an EIR may constitute substantial evidence in the record to support the agency’s action on the project if its decision is later challenged in court. Under State CEQA Guidelines §15123, this section presents a summary of the proposed Project and Project alternatives evaluated in this Draft EIR, including those that would avoid potentially significant effects; issues of concern/areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency; and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and how best to mitigate the potentially significant effects. 1.5.1. Notice of Preparation The process of determining the appropriate scope, focus, and content of an EIR is known as “scoping” (Public Resources Code § 21083.9 and CEQA Guidelines § 15082). The first step in the scoping process is conducting a preliminary assessment of the Project and the issuance of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report to solicit input from agencies and other parties of interest, including the general public. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Introduction and Project Description 1-21 The NOP (see Appendix A) was submitted on January 22, 2019 to the Riverside County Clerk for 30-day posting. The NOP was also submitted to the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH), which circulated the NOP to state agencies for a 30-day review and comment period. A public notice was also published in a newspaper of local circulation. The City received comments from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission and the South Coast Air Quality Management District during the public review and comment period for the NOP. The agencies/ who provided comments will receive proper notification and DEIR materials during the public comment period process. 1.5.2. Draft EIR This Draft EIR is being circulated for public review for a 45-day review period, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15085. 1.5.3. Final EIR Following the public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, the City will prepare written responses to all written comments received on the Draft EIR. Where necessary, the Draft EIR may be revised and together with the Response to Comments, will constitute the Final EIR. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090-15097, the City of Palm Desert City Council will then consider certifying the Final EIR and approving the Project during a noticed public hearing. CEQA also requires the adoption of findings prior to approval of a project where a certified Final EIR identifies significant unmitigated environmental effects that would be caused by implementation of a project. If the project that is approved would result in significant unmitigated effects that are identified in the Final EIR and that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened, the City shall so state in writing in a “statement of overriding considerations” the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. If the Project is approved, the City would file a Notice of Determination (NOD) with the County Clerk and State Clearinghouse within five working days following Project approval. 1.5.4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) at the same time a Final EIR is certified. The MMRP is a verification tool for use by the Lead Agency that lists the mitigation program task, entity responsible for implementation, timing of compliance, and record of date of compliance. Once the Final EIR is certified and the MMRP adopted, the mitigation measures become conditions of the Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Introduction and Project Description 1-22 1.5.5. Organization of the Draft EIR The organization of the Draft EIR is as follows: Environmental Summary - Summary of Project description, alternatives, impacts and mitigation, and the level of impact after the imposition of these mitigation measures. Section 1 – Introduction and Project Description. The section includes a description of the proposed Project and Project Alternatives, and summarizes construction and operational characteristics of the proposed channel improvements. Alternatives that would reduce or avoid the significant impacts of the Project are summarized. Areas of controversy are also identified. This section describes the CEQA process and the organization of this document. Section 2 – Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The environmental setting discussion provides important background data and information on all CEQA analysis categories on a regional and area-wide basis. This section of the EIR serves to establish the physical context within which the Project is being considered and analyzed. It also presents the physical and regulatory setting by environmental resource category, identifies impact significance criteria, and analyzes potential impacts of the Project, including potential cumulative impacts. Mitigation measures and monitoring and reporting programs are identified, where applicable. Section 2 analyzes the following resource areas: • Introduction and Project Description (Section 2.1) • Aesthetics (Section 2.2) • Air Quality (Section 2.3) • Biological Resources (Section 2.4) • Cultural and Tribal Resources (Section 2.5) • Energy (Section 2.6) • Geology and Soils (Section 2.7) • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Section 2.8) • Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Section 2.9) • Hydrology and Water Quality (Section 2.10) • Land Use and Planning (Section 2.11) • Noise (Section 2.12) • Population and Housing (Section 2.13) • Public Services (Section 2.14) • Transportation (Section 2.15) • Utilities and Service Systems (Section 2.16) As analyzed in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation, the Project will not impact Agriculture and Forest Resources and Mineral Resources, therefore, these two sections will not be discussed further in the EIR. Individual questions within each of the above subsections for DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2019011044) Introduction and Project Description 1-23 which No Impact was determined in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation are identified individually in each subsection of Section 2. Section 3 – Project Alternatives Analysis. This section describes alternatives to the proposed Project and compares their impacts to those of the Project. This section also identifies which alternative is environmentally superior on a categorical basis and overall. Section 4 – Unavoidable Significant Impacts. This section discusses significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the Project is implemented, and significant irreversible environmental changes associated with the Project. This section also provides a summary of cumulative impacts that are discussed in the resource sections. Section 5 – Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. This section evaluates the Project’s effects on natural resources, including energy and water, and the level of commitment of these resources associated with the Project. Section 6 – Growth Inducing Impacts. This section discusses the Project’s potential to induce growth both locally and regionally. Section 7 – Organizations, Persons and Documents Consulted. This section describes and lists the various parties, agencies, documents and other resources used in preparing the subject EIR. Technical Appendices - provide information in support of the above sections and are identified in the Table of Contents. 1.6. Permits and Approvals The City of Palm Desert serves the CEQA Lead Agency. The City is empowered with reviewing and permitting the proposed Project. However, other agencies have the authority to issue permits specific to their jurisdiction. In this case, the proposed Project will also require permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (waste discharge and water quality) and the Coachella Valley Water District (water and sewer infrastructure). DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.1-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 2.1 Introduction and Summary of Analysis 2.1.1 Introduction This section of the EIR provides an overview of the regional environmental setting in which the proposed DSRT SURF Specific Plan is located, the impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project, and the mitigation measures required to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. As prescribed by CEQA, the analysis is conducted on a categorical basis. Each discussion includes a description of the thresholds of significance considered in the analysis, regulatory framework, environmental setting, and existing conditions in the project area. These discussions are followed by an analysis of the impacts of the proposed Project, including a determination of the level of impact (less than significant, less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures, or significant and unavoidable). Mitigation measures are provided where necessary to reduce impacts to the greatest extent possible. Where feasible mitigation measures are not possible, or where the feasible mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts of the Project to less than significant levels, the impact is determined to be significant and unavoidable. 2.1.2 Summary of Analysis The following resource topics are assessed for potential impacts associated with the proposed Project: • Aesthetics in Section 2.2 • Air Quality in Section 2.3 • Biological Resources in Section 2.4 • Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources in Section 2.5 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.1-2 • Energy in Section 2.6 • Geology and Soils in Section 2.7 • Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Section 2.8 • Hazards and Hazardous Materials in Section 2.9 • Hydrology and Water Resources in Section 2.10 • Land Use and Planning in Section 2.11 • Noise in Section 2.12 • Population and Housing in Section 2.13 • Public Services in Section 2.14 • Transportation in Section 2.15 • Utilities and Service Systems in Section 2.16 Three resource areas were determined to have “No Impact” as they relate to the proposed Project: • Agricultural and Forestry Resources: The Project site is within the urban core of the City, and contains neither of these resources. Nor is there any zoning for such resources in the City. • Mineral Resources: The Project site is within the urban core of the City, and does not contain mining operations. No mining of mineral resources occurs within the vicinity of the Project site, and no zoning appropriate for such resources occurs within the City. • Wildfire: The Project site is located within the urban core of the City, and does not contain wildlands. The City occurs in an arid desert environment, and does not contain forested areas subject to wildfire. Threshold of Significance: This subsection identifies the CEQA thresholds that are applicable to the resource topic and the Project. Regulatory Framework: This subsection provides a brief discussion of federal, State, and local regulations and policies that are applicable to the resource topic and the Project. Environmental Setting: This subsection provides an overview of the regional environmental setting in which the proposed Project is located, with particular emphasis on the environmental constraints and resources most likely to be affected by implementation of the Project. Existing Conditions: This subsection presents a description of the existing physical environmental conditions at and in the immediate vicinity of the Project site with respect to each resource area, at an appropriate level of detail to understand the impact analysis. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.1-3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures: This subsection analyzes the specific impacts of the proposed Project on each question provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended in 2019. The analysis focusses on the Project’s components, including both on- and off-site project-related activities. Where necessary, mitigation measures are included to reduce identified significant impacts to less than significant levels to the greatest extent possible. Cumulative Impacts: This subsection addresses the proposed Project’s cumulative impacts, when considered with General Plan build out or other factors identified for each resource area. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.2 Aesthetics 2.2.1 Introduction Aesthetic resources are typically defined as components of both the natural and built environments of an area that contribute to the public’s enjoyment and appreciation of the environment. A visual or aesthetic impact may occur depending on the extent to which the construction or operation of a project would alter the visual character of the area in which it is located. Considerations include changes to visual character, quality, and the sensitivity of viewers to any changes that occur. This section describes the existing visual resources in the Project vicinity and analyzes potential impacts on visual resources resulting from Project implementation. 2.2.2 Thresholds of Significance Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to aesthetics would be significant if the proposed Project would: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-2 2.2.3 Regulatory Framework State California Scenic Highway Program In 1963, the State of California established the Scenic Highway Program to develop a system of State roadways whose adjacent corridors contained scenic resources worthy of protection and enhancement. Sections 260 through 263 of the State Streets and Highways Code establish the Scenic Highways Program and require local government agencies to take the following actions to protect the scenic appearance of a scenic corridor: • regulate land use and density of development, • provide detailed land and site planning, • prohibit off-site outdoor advertising and control onsite outdoor advertising, • pay careful attention to and control earthmoving and landscaping, and • scrutinize the design and appearance of structures and equipment. Regional/Local Palm Desert General Plan The Palm Desert General Plan includes the following policies pertaining to visual resources that are relevant to the proposed Project. Chapter 3, Land Use and Community Character • Policy 2.6 Lighting. Require all new street lights in commercial areas to be pedestrian- oriented and scaled, attractively designed, compatible in design with other street furniture, and to provide adequate visibility and security in accordance with best practices for night sky protection. Chapter 6, Environmental Resources • Policy 2.1 View Corridor Preservation. Protect and preserve the existing, signature views of the hills and mountains from the city. • Policy 2.2 Scenic Roadways. Continue to minimize the impact on views by restricting new billboards along the City’s roads and highways. Electronic and animated billboards should be prohibited except in rare and special circumstances. • Policy 2.5 Dark Sky. Limit light pollution from outdoor sources, especially in rural, hillside and mountain areas, and open spaces, to maintain darkness for night sky viewing. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-3 Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 24.16.015 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code establishes outdoor lighting requirements for the purpose of minimizing light pollution and light trespass on neighboring properties and preserving the nighttime environment. It establishes lighting standards and restrictions for various land uses, including commercial and residential zones and outdoor recreational facilities. 2.2.4 Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is a low desert basin surrounded by dramatic mountainous terrain created by the active geology that is characteristic of Southern California. The overall gradient of the Valley is from northwest to southeast, gently sloping from the San Gorgonio Pass, at approximately 2,600 feet above mean sea level, to the Salton Sea, which has a surface elevation of approximately 228 feet below mean sea level. The Valley and the Salton Sea are located within the Salton Trough, a fault-controlled valley formed by the San Andreas Fault Zone. The Salton Trough is located within the Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province, which is bounded to the southwest by the Peninsular Ranges province, to the north by the eastern Transverse Ranges province, and to the northeast by the southeastern portion of the Mojave Desert province. The surrounding provinces contain some of the highest mountain peaks in the state and the region. Surrounding mountains include the San Jacinto Mountains, the foothills and slopes of which ascend from the Valley floor and form the westerly boundary of the Coachella Valley. At its peak, Mount San Jacinto rises to an elevation of 10,834 feet above mean sea level. The Santa Rosa Mountains, with Toro Peak at an elevation of 8,715 feet above mean sea level, generally form the southerly boundary of the valley. The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, which encompasses portions of each of these mountain ranges, was established in 2000. In the northerly portion of the valley are the Indio Hills, with elevations rising to about 1,600 feet, and the Little San Bernardino Mountains further north, forming the northeasterly boundary of the valley. Emanating from the mouths of mountain canyons are numerous alluvial fans. Surrounding mountain views are of high aesthetic value across all of the Coachella Valley, including the City of Palm Desert. 2.2.5 Existing Conditions The Project site is generally flat and lies on the valley floor at an elevation of about 250 feet above mean sea level. It is located on the Palm Springs Sand Ridge which rises 50 to 100 feet above the valley floor and extends from Cathedral City southeast to Indian Wells. From the Project site, foreground views to the north, south, and east include golf course greens, cart paths, and desert landscaping of the surrounding Desert Willow Golf Course, as well as the clubhouse and parking lot to the northeast. Views to the west include two-, three- and four-story residential villas and parking lots of the Westin Desert Willow villas. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-4 Distant views include the middle and upper elevation slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains approximately 3 miles to the south and southwest, and the San Jacinto Mountains approximately 10 miles to the west. In some locations, the Indio Hills (5 miles to the north) and Little San Bernardino Mountains (8 miles to the north) are visible. Predominant views from the Project site are of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south. The aesthetic value of the other mountain ranges is somewhat diminished due to distance from the Project site and intervening development and landscaping. The Project site is not located along a designated State scenic highway.1 It contains no scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. The northeasterly portion of the site is developed with a paved parking lot used by the Desert Willow Golf Course clubhouse; the parking lot contains pole-mounted lighting. The remainder of the site was previously graded and improved with an irrigation system. It has since re-naturalized and contains sparse desert vegetation; it remains vacant and is not lighted. The proposed overflow parking lot is not improved and contains no lighting. 2.2.6 Project Impacts a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Surf Lagoon and Surf Center Construction Impacts Construction of the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center will require the use of heavy equipment for grading, paving and excavation, and the use of standard construction methods for the construction of the one- and two-story buildings on the site. During construction, short term views from the golf course areas located immediately north and east of the Project may be impacted by heavy equipment and construction activities. However, as golf course viewers move through the area, they will be impacted for short periods and will move on to other areas of the course. Residents of the Montecito and Retreat developments, to the northeast and northwest of the site, may see some construction activities, but they will be limited by distance. For residents of the Montecito project, this could impact their views to the south, including views of the lower ranges of the Santa Rosa range. Views of the peaks of the range will remain. For residents of the Retreat project to the northwest of the Project site, views to the southeast beyond the intervening golf course could include equipment and two-story construction activities. However, in both cases, the impacts will be limited by distance, and occur only while construction is active. For the Westin Desert Willow project to the west of the Project site, construction of the lagoon and its buildings will have limited impact due to distance and grade. 1 California Scenic Highway Mapping System, www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic-highways/, accessed February 2019. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-5 The Westin’s guests immediately adjacent to the Project site, and in third or fourth story units, could view the construction activities to the east. However, the views of the mountains to the north, and the Valley panorama available from these locations would be unaffected. As with all construction related impacts described above, these limited view impacts will stop when construction is complete. Operational Impacts The surf lagoon will be low-lying and generally flush with the ground surface and will not block or adversely impact views of the surrounding mountains. Proposed building heights are shown on Exhibit 2.2-1. The 2-story surf center, at the north end of the Project site, and 2-story equipment building at the southeast corner of the Project site, will be the tallest buildings at 42± feet, although the Project Precise Plan allows a maximum height of 50 feet for the surf center. The 2-story control tower on the north end of the lagoon will be 31± feet. Changing areas, equipment rental, and the trash enclosure will be single-story and approximately 21 feet. The south bar will be single-story and 13 to 15 feet. These building heights are consistent with the Desert Willow Golf Course Clubhouse and other nearby resort development, including the two- to four-story Westin Desert Willow villas to the immediate west and southwest. The site plan preserves the most prominent views -- the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south -- by clustering the surf center, swimming pools, event lawn, and other gathering spaces in the northerly portion of the site and orienting them toward the surf lagoon and scenic views to the south (Exhibit 2.2-2). No perimeter fencing, walls, or other barriers that would obstruct scenic views are proposed. The Project will lie immediately southeast of the Desert Willow Golf Course clubhouse and parking lot and will diminish the golf course patrons’ views of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the southeast to a limited extent, and only when they are northeast of the Project site (Exhibit 2.2- 3, clubhouse and parking lot are visible behind the proposed surf center). Views to the southwest, west and north will be unaffected. Most of the golf course lies further north, east, and south of the Project, and the Project will have no impact on mountain views from those locations, and therefore no impact on views from most of the golf course. Portions of the golf course located immediately east of the surf center and equipment building will experience some blockage of views due to the location of two-story buildings. However, the building size is relatively small in the context of the golf course fairways, and views through the site, between the surf center and equipment buildings, will be generally unaffected, as the lagoon will be low- lying. Views of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains from the Westin Desert Willow villas west and southwest of the Project will be unaffected by the Project because mountain views are to the west and south, and the Project site is to the east. Similarly, views of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains from the Retreat project to the west of the Project site will be unaffected by the Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-6 Views from the single family residential Montecito project, located approximately 1,575 feet to the northeast of the Project site at its closest point, are to the west, north and south. The top of the surf center building may be visible through existing golf course landscaping, as shown in Exhibits 2.2-13 and 2.2-14, but the distance between Montecito and the proposed Project will reduce the potential impacts to scenic vistas to less than significant levels. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-10 Hotel and Villas Construction Impacts Construction of the Hotel and Villa components of the Project will require the use of heavy equipment for grading, paving and excavation, and the use of standard construction methods for the construction of the one- to four-story buildings on this portion of the site. During construction, short term views from the golf course areas located immediately north and south of the Project may be impacted by heavy equipment and construction activities. However, as golf course viewers move through the area, they will be impacted for short periods and will move on to other areas of the course. For residents of the Montecito project, construction activities could impact their views to the west, including views of the lower ranges of the San Jacinto range. Views of the peaks of the range will remain. For residents of the Retreat project to the northwest of the Project site, views to the southeast beyond the intervening golf course could include equipment and construction activities. However, in both cases, the impacts will be limited by distance, and occur only while construction is active. For the Westin Desert Willow project to the west of the Project site, construction of the hotel and villa buildings will occur in close proximity to the buildings on its eastern boundary. The Westin’s guests immediately adjacent to the Project site, and in third or fourth story units, will view the construction activities to the east. Buildings planned adjacent to these existing units will be one- and two-story spa and villas, with the hotel buildings occurring beyond. The Westin guests will experience obstruction of low range views to the east, but will still see views of the mountain peaks above. These view obstructions will be mobile, in the case of construction equipment, and will not result in long term view obstructions. Operational Impacts No development application(s) for Specific Plan Planning Area 2 (hotel and villas) have been filed at this time, so specific architectural plans are not available. However, the Project Specific Plan allows the hotel building(s) to have a maximum height of 50 feet. As shown in Exhibit 2.2- 4, the hotels are envisioned as 3- and 4-story buildings, and the villas are envisioned as 2-story units. These heights are consistent with the proposed surf center, Desert Willow Golf Course clubhouse to the north, and Westin Desert Willow villas to the west. The hotel(s) and villas will have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas. The most prominent scenic views in the Project area are of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south. The hotel(s) and villas along the northwesterly property boundary will be immediately south of some portions of the Desert Willow Golf Course and will block or diminish mountain views from those locations. However, views from the golf course are already blocked, to some extent, by the Westin Desert Willow villas to the south and southwest. Views from this portion of the golf course (north of the Project site), are primarily to the west and southwest, and will be unaffected by the proposed Project. Views from the golf course areas located to the south of DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-11 the proposed Project are to the south and west, and will be unaffected by the proposed Project. Views to the north, of the San Bernardino Mountains, will be reduced as regards the foothills, but the peaks and the extent of the range will still be visible above the hotel and villa buildings (see Exhibit 2.2-15 and 2.2-16). Views from the golf course areas located to the east of the proposed Project are to the south and west. Views to the south will be unaffected by the hotel(s) and villas due to distance. Views to the west, as described above, will be marginally reduced by the surf center buildings, but would be unaffected by the hotel(s) and villas due to distance. Most of the golf course is located further north, east, and south of the Project site, and views from those locations will be unaffected by hotel and villa development. Scenic views from the Westin Desert Willow villas to the immediate west will be unaffected by the hotel and villas because views are to the west and south, and the Project site lies to the east. The Montecito project to the east is located approximately 2,200 feet from the closest point of the hotel(s) component. At a height of 50 feet, the top of the hotel buildings may be visible through golf course landscaping, but would not block views of the mountains to the southwest. Views to the south will be unaffected, because the hotel(s) buildings occur to the west of the Montecito project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-20 Off-Site Improvements Construction Impacts All of the off-site Project components consist of ground-level or below-grade activities necessary to install Project-related infrastructure. As a result, although the equipment needed to excavate trenches and lay pipe may have temporary impacts on viewers from surrounding areas, the impacts to scenic vistas will be limited and of short duration. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. Operational Impacts Stormwater Management: Stormwater management infrastructure will be underground and will have no impact on a scenic vista. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Pool/lagoon discharge infrastructure will be underground and will have no impact on a scenic vista. Golf Course Turf Reduction: Removal of golf course turf and installation of desert landscaping materials will have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas. New vegetation will be similar in height, scale, and density to existing golf course landscaping and will not block views of the mountains. Landscaping Improvements: Desert landscaping along the edge of the Project site will have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas. Vegetation will be similar in height, scale, and density to existing landscaping in the Project area and will not block views of the mountains. Overflow Parking: The overflow parking lot will be paved and improved to City standards. New lighting fixtures and trees will be evenly spaced throughout the site and will not block views of the mountains. Impacts will be less than significant. b) Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Surf Lagoon and Surf Center The 11.85-acre surf lagoon and surf center site is not located adjacent to a state scenic highway and does not contain scenic resources. No impact will occur. Hotel and Villas The 5.84-acre hotel and villas site is not located adjacent to a state scenic highway and does not contain scenic resources. No impact will occur. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-21 Off-Site Improvements Stormwater Management: Stormwater management infrastructure will be under ground, and will not be located within a state scenic highway. No impact will occur. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Discharge facilities will be located underground, and will not be located within a state scenic highway. No impact will occur. Golf Course Turf Reduction: The Desert Willow Golf Course, on which the turf replacement program will occur, is not adjacent to a state scenic highway. No impact will occur. Landscaping Improvements: Neither the Project site nor adjacent areas where landscaping will be installed are adjacent to a state scenic highway. No impact will occur. Overflow Parking: The overflow parking lot at the southeast corner of Desert Willow Drive and Market Place Drive is not adjacent to a state scenic highway. No impact will occur. c) In non-urbanized areas, would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Surf Lagoon and Surf Center Construction Impacts The development of the lagoon and surf center would have short-term impacts on the visual character of the site due to the presence of heavy equipment and related construction activities. However, construction activities are permitted during prescribed hours in the Municipal Code, and the Project will be required to conform to those requirements. The views from the surrounding golf course of construction equipment will end once construction is complete, and will not permanently impact scenic quality. Impacts will be less than significant. Operational Impacts The Project site is in an urbanized area and consistent with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality because the site is designated as Resort and Entertainment District on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map and Planned Residential (PR-5) on the Zoning Map. It is contained within the North Sphere Specific Plan which established multiple planning areas, several of which have been developed with hotel, restaurant, and resort residential uses. The Project site was also envisioned to be developed with hotel development in that Specific Plan, and the proposed Project continues to implement that Plan. The Project includes a site- specific Specific Plan that will guide overall development, including maximum development densities, standards, and design guidelines. The Project is consistent with the visual character and scenic quality of the area, which is characterized by resort development, native and DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-22 drought-tolerant landscaping, and architectural themes, materials, and colors that complement the desert environment. It will not conflict with City policies preserving signature view corridors or scenic roadways. The Specific Plan includes provisions for pole lighting at the surf lagoon that are inconsistent with the City’s existing standards for outdoor recreational facilities. Specifically, Municipal Code Section 24.16.015 specifies that outdoor recreational facilities are limited to lights of 30 feet in height. The Specific Plan and Precise Plan for the surf lagoon propose heights of up to 80 feet. The Precise Plan lighting plan for the lagoon (see Exhibit 2.2-20) shows a total of 11 pole lights, ranging in height from 40 to 80 feet. Of this total, one is proposed at 40 feet, three at 60 feet, four at 70 feet, and three at 80 feet in height, distributed on all sides of the lagoon, and on the central pier. Given the heights proposed, these pole lights have the potential to impact the visual character of the area, because the maximum building height within both the proposed Project and surrounding projects ranges to approximately 50 feet. In order to analyze the potential impacts to visual character and public views, visual simulations were prepared to demonstrate where the poles would be located, and their visual impact from several locations on the outer edge of the public golf course. (Please also see additional analysis of light and glare provided under question (d), below.) Exhibit 2.2-12 provides a Key Map of the simulation locations. Each of the seven simulation locations is described individually below. Location M1 (Exhibit 2.2-13) Location M1 is located approximately 1,750 feet east of the site , on the cart path on the east edge of the golf course adjacent to the Montecito community. At this location, the current character and public view of the Project site is of dense landscaping and berms. Depiction M1 shows, as seen by the red lines outlining buildings and light poles, that the tops of buildings at the surf center will be visible through the landscaping from the public golf course. Light poles will also be seen through the landscaping, but at this distance will not significantly change the visual character of the area, because they will be light in color, and will be obscured by existing and proposed landscape materials. Impacts to visual character and public views will be less than significant at this location. Location M2 (Exhibit 2.2-13) Location M2 depicts the view from the golf course cart path at the eastern edge of the course, a distance of approximately 1,600 feet east of the Project. At this location, which is at a low point in the course, and at approximately the same elevation as the homes at Montecito, the top of the surf center building will be marginally visible through landscaping, and some of the tops of the light poles will be visible. Similar to view M1, the light color of the poles will cause them to blend into the views to the southwest from this location, and the visual character of the area will not be significantly affected. Impact to visual character and public views from this location will be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-23 Location M3 (Exhibit 2.2-14) Location M3 occurs at a distance of approximately 2,300 feet from the proposed Project, at the southern boundary of the Montecito development. This view is to the west, through considerable golf course area. As can be seen in this view, existing mature trees will almost completely block the proposed buildings and light poles, and only the top of the surf center will be visible through the landscaping on the left of the picture. As show, the light poles will not be visible from this viewpoint. Impacts associated with visual character and public views at location M3 will be less than significant. Location R1 (Exhibit 2.2-14) Location R1 is approximately 910 feet northwest of the proposed Project , immediately west of the Retreat residential project, on a golf course cart path. From this area, the villas and hotel components of the project are visible through landscaping on the golf course in the center of the view. The buildings, however, do not dominate the view, and mountains of the Santa Rosa range are visible through and to the right at this location. Lagoon light poles can also be seen from this location, but are not significant elements of the viewshed, due to their light color and intervening landscaping. The public view at this location will be similar to that seen from the golf course to the Westin Desert Willow villas, which have a similar mass and scale as this portion of the proposed Project. The proposed Project is consistent with the visual character of the Desert Willow project, and impacts associated with both visual character and public views will be less than significant. Location R2 (Exhibit 2.2-15) Location R2 depicts views to the south, from the western edge of the golf course, approximately 1,020 feet from the Project site. From this location, the hotel building will be the closest structure, and the top of the hotel will be visible through existing landscaping. The visual character of the area will not be substantially affected, insofar as the mountain views which dominate the viewshed will continue to do so. The berming and landscaping on the golf course will mask much of the hotel’s building mass, and no surf lagoon light poles will be visible from this location. Impacts to visual character and public views from this location will be less than significant. Location W1 (Exhibit 2.2-15) Location W1 depicts a northerly view from the golf cart path at a distance of approximately 560 feet. This location is also immediately north of the Westin Desert Willow villas, whose existing structure is visible on the left of the photo. At this location, the hotel building is visible through landscaping on the left, and villas and the surf center’s terrace canopy are visible through the center and right side of the view. From this location, the proposed Project will be visible, including light poles around the surf lagoon. The light poles are not prominent because of their light color, and do not significantly impact the view, which is dominated by the Project’s structures. The structures, however, are similar in scale and mass to the existing Westin building visible on the left, and will not substantially change the visual character in this area. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-24 The buildings will mask the views of the San Bernardino foothills to the north, but the peaks are still visible above the structures. Impacts associated with visual character and public views will be less than significant at this location. Location W2 (Exhibit 2.2-16) Location W2 shows a view to the northeast, from the southern edge of the golf course, immediately north of the Westin Desert Willow villas. From this location, which occurs at a lower elevation than the Project site, the hotel building will be visible through landscaping on the left, and villas and surf center buildings will be seen on the right. The surf lagoon lights are also clearly visible from this location. The mass and scale of buildings is consistent with the mass and scale of buildings at the Westin, and partially block views of the San Bernardino mountains to the north. The mountains will still be visible through the Project site, however, and the peaks of the range remain visible from the golf course. The surf lagoon light poles will be clearly seen from this location, but their impact on the visual character of the area is not significant, because their mass is limited and their occurrence does not impact views to the northeast. Impacts to visual character and public views at location W2 will be less than significant. Impacts to existing scenic quality or the visual character of public views will be less than significant. Hotel and Villas Construction Impacts The development of the hotel and villas components of the Project would have short-term impacts on the visual character of the site due to the presence of heavy equipment and related construction activities. However, construction activities are permitted during prescribed hours in the Municipal Code, and the Project will be required to conform to those requirements. The views from the surrounding golf course of construction equipment will end once construction is complete, and will not permanently impact scenic quality. Impacts will be less than significant. Operational Impacts The hotel and villas portion of the Project will be subject to the Specific Plan regulations, and the City’s Municipal Code. It will be consistent with the prevailing desert-themed architectural styles of other hotel and resort development in the region, including the Westin project to the west and southwest, which includes two-, three- and four-story buildings. As described under question (a), above, the hotel’s size and mass will not significantly block scenic vistas. As described above for visual simulations R1 and R2, and W1 and W2, the construction of the hotels and villas will not significantly impact the visual character of the area, or impact public views, because the mass and scale of the proposed Project are consistent with existing development within the Desert Willow golf course, and the mass of the structures will be softened and blocked by existing golf course landscaping. Impacts associated with visual character and public views will be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-25 This component of the Project will not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality, including those aimed at preserving view corridors, scenic roadways, and night skies. Impacts will be less than significant. Off-Site Improvements Construction Impacts The construction of the off-site infrastructure for the Project would have short-term impacts on the visual character of portions of the golf course due to the presence of heavy equipment and digging of trenches and similar activities. However, construction activities are permitted during prescribed hours in the Municipal Code, and the Project will be required to conform to those requirements. The views from the surrounding golf course of construction equipment will end once infrastructure facilities are complete, and will not permanently impact scenic quality. Impacts will be less than significant. Operational Impacts Stormwater Management: Stormwater infrastructure will be buried underground and will have no impact on visual character or regulations governing scenic quality. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Pool/lagoon discharge infrastructure will be buried underground and will have no impact on visual character or regulations governing scenic quality. Golf Course Turf Reduction: The replacement of golf course turf with desert landscaping will have no impact on visual character or regulations governing scenic quality. Landscaping Improvements: Installation of desert landscaping along the edge of the Project site will be consistent with and a continuation of existing desert landscaping in the Project area. No impact will occur. Overflow Parking: The overflow parking lot has already been disturbed by vehicle use and is consistent with existing parking lots to the south and southeast. Paving and improvement of the lot will have no impact on visual character or regulations governing scenic quality. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-31 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Surf Lagoon and Surf Center The surf lagoon will increase light and glare from the following sources: 1. Pole-mounted lighting is proposed along the central pier and both sides of the outer boardwalk (see Exhibit 2.2-2). This includes a total of 34 luminaires mounted on eleven (11) galvanized steel poles that will be 40 to 80 feet in height. Of this total, one is proposed at 40 feet, three at 60 feet, four at 70 feet, and three at 80 feet in height, distributed on all sides of the lagoon, and on the central pier (see Exhibit 2.2-20). Section 24.16.015(F) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code states that the maximum pole heights for sport courts shall be thirty (30) feet. The proposed Specific Plan allows for the construction of light poles of up to 80 feet in height. Section 24.16.015(E) of the Municipal Code requires that sports lighting fixtures use the latest technology to control spill light from the lighting fixture. Each luminaire will be fitted with a light/glare control visor that directs light downward onto the lagoon and reduces glare and light spillage.2 Section 24.16.045(C) of the Municipal Code states that outdoor recreational sports lighting shall be turned off at 10:00 pm with partial lighting remaining on until 10:30 pm to allow participants to safely vacate the field/venue. The Specific Plan proposes surf lagoon operational hours that allow surfers in the water until 12:00 am on holidays, weekends and during special events, and 10 pm on weekdays. 2. Other proposed lighting fixtures include lights mounted in the concrete pony wall along the entire boardwalk (18 inches above the boardwalk deck), and fixtures mounted on handrail vertical posts along the entire pier (20 inches above the pier deck), as well as landscaping lighting throughout the Planning Area.3 3. The Project would involve the installation of photovoltaic (PV) solar panels, which would convert sunlight directly into electricity. 4. Vehicles accessing and parking onsite will generate new sources of light and glare. 2 Exhibits SP6.1 and SP6.2, Light Fixture Cutsheets, DSRT Surf Precise Plan Package, March 25, 2019. 3 Exhibit LT1.0, Site Lighting Plan, DSRT Surf Precise Plan Package, March 25, 2019. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-32 Light sources will also include interior and exterior building lights, 36-inch tall bollards for low- level path lighting, 14-foot tall lighting poles along the Promenade roadway, 12-foot lighting poles to illuminate swimming pool areas and the event lawn, 12-foot tall lighting poles for the surf center entry plaza, and fixtures mounted at 7 feet above-grade on a temporary wood fence near the surf lagoon.4 Vehicles accessing and parking onsite will also generate new sources of light and glare. Light generated from these fixtures will meet the City’s requirements for screening and limitations associated with light levels being non-existent at the property line. Exhibit 2.2-17 through Exhibit 2.2-19 show the extent of light spillage anticipated from all light sources. As shown, light will illuminate the Promenade roadway, parking lots, surf lagoon boardwalk and pier, and common areas around the surf center, including ancillary buildings, swimming pools, and the event lawn. Lighting of these features is intentional for after-dark activities, safety, and security. The lighting plans for these fixtures incorporates standards of the Municipal Code, will be typical of the lighting provided at other developments within the area, and will not significantly impact the lighting environment of the Desert Willow Golf Resort. Specialized and stronger lighting is proposed for the surf lagoon. As shown in Exhibit 2.2-20, pole lights ranging from 40 to 80 feet in height are proposed at this location. They will occur on all sides of the lagoon, and along the central pier to illuminate the water and allow night surfing. Exhibit 2.2-20 also shows the levels of light occurring on the lagoon to its edge, while Exhibit 2.2-21 depicts the levels of light generated by the light poles in the areas surrounding the lagoon. The Precise Plan application provided the design of the lighting fixtures for the light poles, including a large focusing visor which significantly limits light spillage, depicted here. The visor will limit light spillage and direct the LED luminaires down to the water surface. As shown in Exhibit 2.2-21, lighting levels at the property line will be reduced to imperceptible levels to the north and south of the site at the property line, conforming to City standards. Light pole luminaires will emit a total of 112,455 lumens, which is less than the 130,000 lumens allowed for commercial light poles in Municipal Code Section 24.16-015, Outdoor Lighting Requirements. The lighting impacts associated with the proposed lagoon lighting as it relates to light fixture outputs will therefore be less than significant. 4 Ibid. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-33 Glare generated by the surf center and ancillary buildings will be less than significant. The surf center building is designed with oversized windows on its north, south, and west-facing exposures (Exhibit 2.2-5 and Exhibit 2.2-6); however, most of the windows are recessed under an overhanging roofline. Other building materials include wood, concrete and stone, which are non-reflective (Exhibit 2.2-7). Ancillary buildings, including the beach pavilion, south bar, wave machine, and control tower, propose non-reflective building materials and few windows (Exhibit 2.2-8 through 2-Exhibit 2.2-11). Solar panels are proposed for the roof of the surf center building. By nature, PV panels are designed to absorb as much of the solar spectrum as possible in order to convert sunlight to electricity, and are furnished with anti-reflective coating for that purpose. Reflectivity levels of solar panels are significantly lower than standard glass or galvanized steel, and should not pose a reflectance hazard to area viewers. Furthermore, these solar panels would be directed upward so would not be reflecting any sunlight to cause glare. Impacts associated with glare from the structures at the surf lagoon area are expected to be less than significant. The lighting generated by the light poles proposed for the lagoon also have the potential to generate glare resulting from lights reflected from the water. In order to determine the level of glare that could occur, and as part of the design of the lagoon pole lighting system, an analysis was undertaken based on the actual location of the light poles, the luminaires proposed, and the height of the poles. As shown in Exhibit 2.2-22, two potential conditions were studied. The first, depicted on the right side of the Exhibit, was the glare generated by the proposed light poles. The second, depicted on the right side of the Exhibit, was a potential reduction in light pole height from the proposed 40 to 80 feet, to heights of 40 to 60 feet. As shown in the Exhibit, the proposed Project lighting plan (with poles of 40-80 feet in height) will result in low to moderate glare on the property, but will not cause glare at the clubhouse parking lot or the Westin Desert Willow villas, which are both adjacent to the proposed Project. This results from the taller poles allowing for the direct downward lighting of the lagoon, which minimizes glare off the lagoon. With DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-34 the implementation of lower height poles (40 to 60 feet) would require the angling of the luminaires, resulting in low to moderate glare occurring beyond the property boundary, and affecting the Westin Desert Willow villas. This condition has also been illustrated within the City at Freedom Park, where 80 foot poles, utilizing an older LED technology, have been employed to light the baseball field. At this location, as shown here, the glare edge of the lights falls off rapidly due to the higher height poles allowing for a direct downward fixture angle. The City does not have specific numeric standards for glare. However, based on the findings of Exhibit 2.2-17, the lagoon lighting as proposed (40-80 foot tall poles) will result in minimal glare off-site, and impacts will be less than significant. Hotel and Villas No development application(s) for Specific Plan Planning Area 2 have been filed at this time and, therefore, architectural elevations for the hotel and villas are not available. However, as required by the Specific Plan, building styles and materials will complement those used for the surf center (Exhibit 2.2-4). The Specific Plan also requires that this component of the Project comply with the City’s lighting standards, which require that light be shielded and not spill onto adjoining properties. Windows will increase glare to some extent; however, exterior surfaces will be non-reflective, and impacts related to glare will be less than significant. Typical interior and exterior lighting will be installed. The lighting plan prepared for the perimeter of the site, which includes all areas of the Project, included photometric analysis of the proposed outdoor lighting. As shown in Exhibits 2.2-17 through 2.2-19, lighting levels at the site boundary will be imperceptible, and will meet City standards. Vehicles accessing and parking onsite will also generate new sources of light and glare. Lighting from the light poles at the surf lagoon will spill onto the Villas along the southwest edge of the surf lagoon, and to the hotel and villas to the west of the lagoon. It will not spill onto Desert Willow Drive, the clubhouse parking lot, or the Westin Desert Willow resort to the immediate southwest. As shown in Exhibit 2.2-21, the highest lighting level on along the south edge of the lagoon, where the villas are located, will range from 2.1 to 4.7 footcandles. The City’s standard for illumination in lighting plans is 1 to 3 footcandles (Municipal Code Section 24.16.035). Lighting levels at the rear patios and balconies of the Lagoon Villas will be higher in some locations. The architectural plans for these villas are not part of this application, but the concepts provided in the Specific Plan are illustrated in Exhibit 2.2-4. They show deep covered balconies and patios that will shield the interior of these villas from the light levels occurring at these locations. However, since these architectural plans are not definitive, the impacts from the surf lagoon light poles to interior spaces of the villas along the south edge of the lagoon could be significant, and should be mitigated. As provided in Mitigation Measure AES-1, the architectural plans for the villas at this location will be required to demonstrate that interior light levels in those villas will not exceed 1 footcandle, the lower allowable standard under the City’s standards. This mitigation measure will assure that impacts associated with lighting at the south Lagoon Villas will be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-35 To the west of the surf lagoon, the hotel buildings would occur at a distance of at least 50 feet from the lagoon edge (see Exhibit 1-6). At this distance lighting levels shown on Exhibit 2.2-21 will range from 1.0 to 2.4 footcandles. As described above, the City’s range is 1.0 to 3.0 footcandles. Therefore, light levels from lagoon lighting at the hotel buildings will be within the City’s standards, will maintain lighting levels at lower standards that are typical of residential interior spaces, and less than significant impacts will result. The City will review and approve all lighting plans prior to development to assure they provide sufficient safety and security and comply with the Palm Desert Municipal Code. With implementation of these standard requirements, impacts will be less than significant. Off-Site Improvements Stormwater Management: Stormwater management infrastructure will be buried underground and will not create any sources of light or glare. No impact will occur. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Pool/lagoon discharge improvements will be buried underground and will not create any sources of light or glare. No impact will occur. Golf Course Turf Reduction: Turf removal and replacement with desert landscape materials will not generate new sources of light or glare. No impact will occur. Landscaping Improvements: No lighting is proposed for off-site landscaping improvements. No impact will occur. Overflow Parking: The overflow parking lot is already impacted by occasional vehicle use. It will be improved to City standards, including new pole-mounted lighting to enhance visibility and security. Lighting will be required to comply with Chapter 24.16, Outdoor Lighting Requirements, of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and the City will review and approve the lighting plan prior to development. With implementation of these standard requirements, impacts will be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.2-42 2.2.7 Mitigation Measures AES-1 In order to assure that lighting levels at the Lagoon Villas do not exceed City standards, architectural plans for these villas will be accompanied by a lighting plan that demonstrates that the interior lighting level at the windows located facing the lagoon does not exceed 1.0 footcandle. 2.2.8 Significance After Mitigation With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1, impacts associated with aesthetics will be less than significant. 2.2.9 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are those resulting from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, combined with the potential visual impacts of this Project. Visual resources in Palm Desert at build out of the General Plan were considered to determine the extent to which the proposed Project would impact the resources. General Plan and zoning policies and standards relating to visual resources and lighting were also evaluated. The hillsides and the slopes of surrounding mountain ranges are a defining feature of the Coachella Valley and highly valued by residents and visitors. The Project site is on the valley floor and not within or near a scenic roadway or view corridor that showcases scenic views. It is in an urban area characterized by commercial, residential, resort, and other development that generates traffic and light sources. The Project is consistent with these land uses and golf course and resort residential development in the immediate vicinity, as well as building heights and architectural styles in the area, and permitted in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. It will not significantly change the visual character of the area or contribute to cumulative increases in visual effects. Aesthetic impacts associated with the Project will be less than cumulatively considerable. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.3 Air Quality 2.3.1 Introduction The following section describes existing air quality in the Coachella Valley and analyzes the potential impacts associated with the DSRT SURF Specific Plan. A variety of local and regional data and information, ranging from research and analysis conducted for the Project site to regional-scale planning and environmental documents, have been used in researching and analyzing the project and its potential effects on air quality. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report was prepared for the Project and is provided in Appendix B of this EIR. 2.3.2 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds or criteria are derived from Appendix G of the Guidelines and are used to determine if and to what extent a project may have a potentially significant impact on air quality. The project would have a significant effect to air quality if it would: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-2 2.3.3 Regulatory Framework Federal and state agencies have adopted air quality standards for a variety of pollutants. In 1971, the USEPA established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for managing criteria pollutants. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) became effective on January 1, 1989 and mandated health-based air quality standards at the state level. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for enforcing state standards, which are generally more stringent than federal standards. One of the ways standards are applied is through State Implementation Plans (SIP), which are prepared to assist regional air quality management districts in meeting the federal and state ambient air quality standards in accordance with the deadlines specified in the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and emission reduction targets of the California Clean Air Act. Regional and local agencies have also assumed some responsibility for assuring that state and federal air quality standards are achieved. California is divided geographically into air basins for the purpose of managing air resources. The Coachella Valley is in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for establishing air quality measurement criteria and relevant management policies for the SSAB. The SSAB, including the Coachella Valley, is subject to the provisions of the SCAQMD Rule Book,1 which sets forth policies and other measures designed to meet federal and state ambient air quality standards. These rules, along with SCAQMD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, are intended to satisfy the planning requirements of both the federal and State Clean Air Acts. The SCAQMD also monitors daily pollutant levels and meteorological conditions throughout the District. The 2003 PM10 Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan (CVSIP) was jointly developed by the SCAQMD, Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and its member cities and was approved by the USEPA. The 2003 PM10 CVSIP updated the 1990 plan, which was drafted as a requirement of the federal Clean Air Act to demonstrate expeditious attainment of PM10 standards.2 On April 18, 2003, the USEPA approved the updated CVSIP. Air Quality Standards Federal and state air quality standards established for specific pollutants, which are called “criteria pollutants,” are designed to protect the general population and especially that segment of the population that is most susceptible to respiratory distress or infection, including the elderly, children, asthmatics, or those weak from disease or illness. The following air pollutants are collectively known as criteria air pollutants and are defined as pollutants for which established air quality standards have been adopted by federal and state governments: 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules and Regulations, Adopted February 4, 1977. 2 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan, August 1, 2003. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-3 Ozone (O3) is a pungent, colorless, toxic gas, and a component of photochemical smog. It is formed when byproducts of combustion react in the presence of ultraviolet sunlight. This process takes place in the atmosphere where oxides of nitrogen combine with reactive organic gases, such as hydrocarbons. Exposure to ozone can result in diminished breathing capacity, increased sensitivity to infections, and inflammation of the lung tissue. Children and people with pre-existing lung disease are most susceptible to the effects of ozone. The SSAB is in non- attainment for the federal 8-hour O3 standard. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas and a byproduct from the partial combustion of fossil fuels, most notably from automobiles and other motor vehicles. Carbon monoxide passes through the lungs directly into the blood stream and reduces the amount of oxygen reaching the vital organs, such as the heart, brain, and tissues. In high concentrations, carbon monoxide can contribute to the development of heart disease, anemia, and impaired psychological behavior. Individuals that have heart and blood diseases, smokers, babies in utero, and people with chronic hypoxemia are most susceptible to the effects of CO. The SSAB is in attainment for CO. Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) includes Nitric oxide (NO) and Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which are the primary oxides of nitrogen, and combined are known as nitrogen oxides. These oxides are produced at high temperatures during combustion as byproducts of motor vehicles, power plants, and off-road equipment. NOx contributes to the formation of ozone serving as the primary receptor of ultraviolet light and initiating the photochemical reaction. Short-term exposure to nitrogen dioxide can result in airway constriction and diminished lung capacity and is highly toxic by inhalation. Populations living near roadways are more likely to experience the effects of nitrogen oxides due to elevated exposure to motor vehicle exhaust. The SSAB is in attainment for NO2. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) results from the combustion of high-sulfur content fuels, such as coal and petroleum. Sources include motor vehicle fuel combustion, chemical manufacturing plants, and sulfur recovery plants. Sulfur dioxide is a colorless, pungent, extremely irritating gas that can cause airway constriction and severe breathing difficulties in asthmatics. High levels of exposure can cause fluid accumulation in the lungs, damage to lung tissue, and sloughing off of cells lining the respiratory tract. The SSAB is in attainment for SO2. Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of fine suspended particles of ten microns or smaller in diameter, and are the byproducts of road dust, sand, diesel soot, windstorms, and the abrasion of tires and brakes. The elderly, children, and adults with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular disease are most susceptible to the effects of PM. Elevated PM10 and PM2.5 levels are also associated with an increase in mortality rates, respiratory infections, occurrences and severity of asthma attacks, and hospital admissions. The SSAB is a non-attainment area for PM10 and is classified as attainment/unclassifiable for PM2.5. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-4 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are also known as Reactive Organic Gas (ROG). This class of pollutants has no state or federal ambient air quality standards and is not classified as criteria pollutants; however, they are regulated because they are responsible for contributing to the formation of ozone. They also contribute to higher PM10 levels because they transform into organic aerosols when released into the atmosphere. VOCs pose a health threat when people are exposed to high concentrations. Benzene, for example, is a hydrogen component of VOC emissions known to be a carcinogen. Lead (Pb) occurs in the atmosphere as particulate matter resulting from the manufacturing of batteries, paint, ink, and ammunition. Exposure to lead can result in anemia, kidney disease, gastrointestinal dysfunction, and neuromuscular and neurological disorders. Babies in utero, infants, and children are especially susceptible to health risks associated with exposure to lead by impacting the central nervous system and causing learning disorders. The SSAB is in attainment for lead. The air quality of a particular locale is considered to be in attainment if the measured ambient air pollutant levels for O3, CO, SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO2, and PM10 and PM2.5 are not exceeded and all other standards are not equaled or exceeded at any time in any consecutive three-year period. Attainment also assumes the national standards (other than O3, PM10, and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not exceeded more than once per year. The O3 standard is in attainment when the fourth highest eight-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when 99 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. The following table shows the state and national ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-5 Table 2.3-1 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant State Standards National Standards** Avg. Time Concentration Avg. Time Concentration Ozone (O3) 1-hour 8-hour 0.09 ppm 0.07 ppm 1-hour 8-hour None 0.070 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-hour 8-hour 20.0 ppm 9.0 ppm 1-hour 8-hour 35.0 ppm 9.0 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-hour AAM 0.18 ppm 0.030 ppm 1-hour AAM 0.10 ppm 0.053 ppm Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-hour 24-hour AAM 0.25 ppm 0.04 ppm None 1-hour 24-hour AAM 0.075 ppm 0.14 ppm 0.03 ppm Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-hour AAM 50 µg/m3 20 µg/m3 24-hour AAM 150 µg/m3 None Particulate Matter (PM2.5) AAM 24-hour 12 µg/m3 None AAM 24-hour 12 µg/m3 35 µg/m3 Lead 30-day Avg. 1.5 µg/m3 3-month Avg. 0.15 µg/m3 Visibility Reducing Particles 8-hour No standard No Federal Standards Sulfates 24-hour 25µg/m3 Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm Vinyl Chloride 24-hour 0.01 ppm Source: California Air Resources Board, last checked 1/3/19. Notes: ppm = parts per million; ppb= parts per billion; µg/ m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air; AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean. Regional Air Quality Monitoring The South Coast Air Quality Management District operates and maintains three air quality monitoring stations within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30 (Coachella Valley). SR 30 includes the Indio, Palm Springs, and Mecca monitoring stations, which have been operational since 1985, 1987, and 2013, respectively. Both Indio and Palm Springs stations monitor for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The Mecca station monitors for PM10. The following tables show the maximum concentration and number of days annually that state and federal standards for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) were exceeded between 2010 and 2017 in the Coachella Valley. Table 2.3-2 shows that federal and state 24-hour standards for PM10 were exceeded more frequently at the Indio station between 2010 and 2017. Limited 24-hour state data has been provided from all three stations over the past several years; however, it is assumed that PM10 levels continue to exceed state standards until otherwise reported. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-6 Table 2.3-2 PM10 Monitoring Data for the Coachella Valley Monitoring Station Year Maximum Concentration (µg/m3/24 hours) ** No. Days Exceeding 24-hr. Standards Annual Average (µg/m3) Federal1 State2 AAM3 Palm Springs 2010 144.8 0.0 0.0 19.4 2011 396.9 2.0 0.0 21.7 2012 143.4 0.0 0.0 19.9 2013 185.8 1.0 13.1 23.1 2014 313.8 1.1 * 25.4 2015 199.0 1.0 * 20.9 2016 447.2 1.1 * 23.1 2017 105.6 0.0 * 22.1 Indio 2010 107.0 0.0 23.9 28.8 2011 375.9 2.0 18.6 32.6 2012 270.6 * 43.2 33.6 2013 255.2 3.0 85.2 37.5 2014 322.3 6.1 94.9 43.5 2015 381.0 * * 44.0 2016 393.2 * * 37.0 2017 198.6 1.0 * 34.8 Mecca 2014 * * * * 2015 306.4 5.0 * 44.2 2016 468.9 * * 41.1 2017 477.6 * 81.5 47.5 Source: Annual air quality site monitoring reports per ARB. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/, accessed November 2018. 1 = > 150 µg/m3 in 24 hour period; 2 = > 50 µg/m3 in 24 hour period; 3 Federal Annual Average Standard AAM > 50µg/m3 revoked December 17, 2006. State standard is AAM > 20µg/m3 4 State Annual Average Standard = AGM > 20µg/m3 * There are insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value. ** Data may include exceptional events. Table 2.3-3 shows that both the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard and the AAM state standard of >12 µg/m3 have not been exceeded at the Palm Springs and Indio monitoring stations from 2010 to 2017. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-7 Table 2.3-3 PM2.5 Monitoring Data for the Coachella Valley Monitoring Station Year Max Concentration (µg/m3/24 hours) No. Days Exceeding 24-hr. Federala Standards Annual Average (µg/m3) AAM b, c Palm Springs 2010 12.8 0.0 5.9 2011 26.3 0.0 6.0 2012 15.5 0.0 6.4 2013 18.5 0.0 6.5 2014 15.5 ** ** 2015 22.7 ** ** 2016 14.7 0 5.4 2017 14.5 0 6.0 Indio 2010 16.0 0.0 6.8 2011 35.4 0.0 7.1 2012 18.4 0.0 7.6 2013 25.8 0.0 8.3 2014 18.3 ** ** 2015 24.6 ** ** 2016 25.8 0 7.6 2017 18.8 ** ** Source: Annual air quality site monitoring reports, ARB. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/,accessed November 2018. a = > 35 µg/m3 in 24 hour period, Federal standard as of December 17, 2006. b Federal Annual Average Standard = AAM > 15µg/m3 c State Annual Average Standard = AAM > 12µg/m3 as of July 5, 2003. ** There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value. Table 2.3-4 shows that the Palm Springs monitoring station exceeds the 8-hour federal and state ozone standards more frequently than the Indio site. This exceedance is attributable to the Palm Springs station's location closer to the San Gorgonio Pass where ozone is imported into the SSAB from air basins to the west. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-8 Table 2.3-4 Ozone Monitoring Data for the Coachella Valley Monitoring Station Year Max. Concentration No. Days Standard Exceeded Federal1 State2 1 Hour ppm 8 Hour ppm 8 Hour 1 Hour 8 Hour Palm Springs 2010 0.114 0.099 76 20 78 2011 0.124 0.098 66 21 69 2012 0.126 0.100 76 17 79 2013 0.113 0.104 76 10 82 2014 0.108 0.093 55 9 61 2015 0.102 0.092 47 3 51 2016 0.103 0.092 46 6 48 2017 0.113 0.097 57 18 63 Indio 2010 0.100 0.087 45 6 45 2011 0.099 0.090 40 3 42 2012 0.102 0.089 43 2 45 2013 0.105 0.087 35 2 38 2014 0.095 0.091 24 2 30 2015 0.093 0.085 11 0 12 2016 0.099 0.089 27 3 29 2017 0.107 0.093 44 8 47 Source: ARB Annual Air Quality Data Tables. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/, accessed November 2018. 1 = > 0.070 parts per million for the 8 hour standard. 2 = > 0.09 and 0.070 parts per million in 1 hour and 8 hour, respectively. Criteria Air Pollutant Designations Air quality in the SSAB exceeds state and federal standards for fugitive dust (PM10) and ozone (O3) and is in attainment/unclassified for PM2.5. Ambient air quality in the SSAB, including the project area, does not exceed state and federal standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxides, sulfur dioxide, lead, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, or Vinyl Chloride. The following table shows the basin’s federal and state attainment status for criteria pollutants. Table 2.3-5 Salton Sea Air Basin Designation Status Criteria Pollutants Federal Designation State Designation Ozone – 8-hour standard Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment PM10 Nonattainment Nonattainment PM2.5 Attainment Attainment Source: CARB Air Quality Planning Branch, June 2013. This information has been cross-checked with the U.S. EPA Green Book last updated December 2018, accessed January 2019. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-9 Palm Desert General Plan The following General Plan air quality policies are relevant to the proposed Project: Chapter 4: Health and Wellness • Policy 6.2 Healthy Buildings. Require new development to meet the State’s Green Building Code standards for indoor air quality performance, and promote green building practices that support “healthy buildings,” such as low VOC materials, environmental tobacco smoke control, and indoor air quality construction pollution prevention techniques. Chapter 6: Environmental Resources • Policy 8.1 Sources of Pollutants. Minimize the creation of new sources of air pollutants within the City. • Policy 8.2 Land use patterns. Promote compact, mixed-use, energy efficient and transit-oriented development to reduce air pollutants associated with energy and vehicular use. • Policy 8.4 Electric vehicles. Encourage the use of electric vehicles (EV), including golf carts and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV), by encouraging developments to provide EV and NEV charging stations, street systems, and other infrastructure that support the use of EVs. Similarly, encourage the use of renewable energy sources to power EV plug-in stations. • Policy 8.5 Construction-related emissions. Require construction activities, including on-site building and the transport of materials, to limit emissions and dust. • Policy 8.7 Transportation demand management. Encourage employers to provide transit subsidies, bicycle facilities, alternative work schedules, ridesharing, telecommuting, work-at-home programs, employee educations and preferential parking for carpools/vanpools. Chapter 8: Safety • Policy 5.6 Wind Barriers. Encourage the preservation and establishment of additional wind barriers in the form of hedges and tree lines to reduce the effects of dust and sand. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-10 Palm Desert Dust Control Ordinance The Palm Desert Dust Control Ordinance3 was enacted in 2003 to comply with SCAQMD requirements. It requires a Fugitive Dust Control Plan for all projects requiring a grading permit, disturbing more than 5,000 square feet of soils, or importing/exporting more than 100 cubic yards of material per day. Each plan must describe dust control actions to be implemented onsite during various project phases, as well as mapping, signage, and recordkeeping requirements. 2.3.4 Environmental Setting Air pollution is any chemical, physical, or biological process that modifies the chemistry and other characteristics of the atmosphere. The primary contributor to air pollution is the production of byproducts from the combustion of fossil fuels containing a number of air polluting substances. These emissions are responsible for the poor air quality that is evident in industrial centers and elsewhere worldwide. Topographic or geomorphic conditions in the Coachella Valley have had a profound effect on, and are an integral part of, the climate and diverse environments found in the region. The mountains create a “rain shadow,” effectively isolating the valley from the prevailing cooler and wetter marine conditions along the coast, and creating a dry, subtropical desert environment. The area is subject to daily temperature extremes ranging from approximately 30°F to 80°F in winter and summer daytime temperatures ranging between 75°F and 120°F. In the surrounding mountains, temperatures are generally cooler than those on the valley floor, with an approximate 5°F decrease per 1,000 feet of elevation increase. In general, the valley floor is characterized by low humidity and rainfall, and a high percentage of days of sunshine. Winter brings the most rainfall, although occasional intense storms occur in late summer or early fall that can make substantial contributions to annual rainfall. These are sometimes intense storms that result in rainfall on surrounding mountain slopes rather than on the valley floor. Mean annual rainfall averages between 2 to 4 inches on the upper desert floor and about 15 inches in the nearby mountains. When the desert floor heats up and the air mass rises, the resulting thermal low pressure draws in cooler, denser marine air from the west that is funneled through the narrow San Gorgonio Pass. This effect produces strong and sustained winds, which constitute a major influence on the regional climate. As they pass through the valley, these winds often lift and transport large quantities of sand and dust, impacting visibility and air quality, and constituting a significant health threat. 3 Ordinance 1056, Title 24, Chpt. 12, Palm Desert Municipal Code. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-11 Air inversions cause a layer of stagnant air that is trapped near the ground and loaded with pollutants from motor vehicles and other sources. Inversions occasionally occur in the Coachella Valley due to local geological and climatic conditions. Inversions create conditions of haziness caused by suspended water vapor, dust, and a variety of chemical aerosols. Due to local climactic conditions, inversion layers generally form at 6,000 to 8,000 feet above the desert floor. 2.3.5 Existing Conditions The proposed Project area lies on the valley floor of the central Coachella Valley where wind erosion can be severe. The highest wind erosion susceptibility areas extend from Palm Springs to Indio. The Project area and vicinity have a Very High Wind Erodibility Rating.4 As discussed in Sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4, strong winds lift and transport large quantities of sand and dust and contribute to regional exceedances of PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds. A small portion of the Project site is developed with a paved parking lot, but the remainder of the site is undeveloped, sparsely vegetated, and characterized by fine sandy soils. Most of the land in the vicinity of the Project site is developed. Surrounding parcels are largely developed with golf courses and resort facilities of the Desert Willow Golf Resort. Land in the broader project area is developed with residential, commercial, and other urban land uses. Native soils have been replaced with buildings, paved surfaces, and urban landscaping, and wind erosion hazards have been reduced to some extent. However, the surrounding area also contains undeveloped land that is highly susceptible to wind erosion due to sparse vegetation and alluvial and aeolian soils and sands that are easily transported by strong winds. Several pockets of undeveloped land are within ¼-mile of the Project site in the Desert Willow Golf Resort. Larger expanses of undeveloped land extend on both sides of the I-10 corridor, from the San Gorgonio Pass to the City of La Quinta. 2.3.6 Project Impacts The following analysis addresses potential air quality impacts associated with Project development. Proposed Project components with the potential to impact air quality include the following: • Surf Lagoon and Surf Center – demolition of existing parking lot, grading, excavation, soil export, construction, operational energy use, operational and construction-related vehicle and haul trips for soil export. o Assumes 12 special events per year for analysis purposes. 4 Figure 8.3, Palm Desert General Plan, adopted November 10, 2016. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-12 • Hotel and Villas – grading, excavation, soil export, construction, operational energy use, operational and construction-related vehicle and haul trips for soil export. • Off-Site Improvements: o Stormwater Management – grading, excavation, potential soil export o Pool/Lagoon Discharge – grading, excavation, potential soil export o Golf Course Turf Reduction – soil disturbance o Landscaping Improvements – soil disturbance o Special Events Parking – limited grading, paving, soil disturbance associated with landscape improvements o Soil Removal/Storage – soil export and storage Due to the cumulative nature of assessing air quality impacts, the following discussion and analysis addresses the entire Project as a whole and the combined impacts associated with the components listed above. a) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Under CEQA, a significant air quality impact could occur if the Project is not consistent with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) or would obstruct the implementation of the policies or hinder reaching the goals of that plan. The proposed Project site is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) and will be subject to SCAQMD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (2003 CV PM10 SIP). The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that establishes control strategies and guidance on regional emission reductions for air pollutants. The AQMP is based, in part, on the land use plans of the jurisdictions in the region. The proposed Project site is designated as Resort and Entertainment District on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, which allows theme parks, hotels, sports facilities, bed and breakfast inns, recreational facilities, small retail, large retail, lodging, support retail, and commercial services along with specialized entertainment with a commercial floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 0.10, and multi-family residential land uses of up to 10 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). The City’s Zoning Map designates the site as Planned Residential (PR-5), allowing 5 DU/AC. The proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and will result in the development of a recreational surf lagoon, surf center and ancillary facilities; up to 350 hotel rooms, and 88 resort residential villas. The 2016 AQMP is based in part on the land use plans of local jurisdictions, including the City of Palm Desert’s General Plan. Therefore, it is expected that the proposed Project will result in emissions consistent with those anticipated in the 2016 AQMP. The SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments, and cooperates actively with all State and federal government agencies. SCAG adopted the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-13 Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) to comply with metropolitan planning organization (MPO) requirements under the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act. The Growth Management chapter of the RTP/SCS forms the basis of land use and transportation controls of the AQMP. Projects that are consistent with the projections of population forecasts are considered consistent with the AQMP. The proposed Project is consistent with the City’s land use designations and would not impact population, as employees of the proposed Project are expected to be residents of the City and region and the villas are anticipated to be for vacation purposes, not permanent residents. However, the land use designation allows for permanent residency; therefore, the AQMP has already accounted for a slight population increase for the site. The proposed Project would be implemented in accordance with all applicable air quality management plans to ensure impacts to air quality are reduced to the greatest extent possible. Actions include, but are not limited to, the preparation of a standard dust control management plan in compliance with the CVSIP, and the enforcement of mitigation measures in the event that criteria pollutant thresholds are exceeded during construction activities. In conclusion, the proposed Project is consistent with the assumptions underlying the AQMP and will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. No impact is anticipated. b) Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Buildout of the proposed Project will result in the direct and indirect generation and emission of air pollutants during construction and operation. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2, was used to estimate potential air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project. CalEEMod output tables are provided in Appendix B of this EIR. Assumptions are based on buildout of the Specific Plan and represent potential maximum emissions. Project-Related Construction Emissions Based on the current applications under review by the City, and considered as part of this EIR, the Surf Lagoon Planning Area is expected to be constructed first. For analysis purposes, however, construction of the entire Project, including all components of the Specific Plan, is assumed to be continuous and will occur over a two-year period starting in mid-2019 with buildout in mid-2021. This approach provides a conservative projection of maximum daily emissions with the potential for multiple Project components to be under construction at one time. Construction-related criteria pollutant emissions will be temporary and will end once construction is complete. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-14 The proposed Project would result in approximately 17.69-acres of disturbance. Construction would require the export of approximately 103,000 cubic yards5 of surplus earthen material to the Classic Club, which has a designated fill site for excess soils and is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the subject property6. Therefore, it is assumed that each haul round trip would be approximately 5 miles. This represents a worse-case hauling distance, since the City may also allow the off-loading of Project-related soil export within vacant areas of the Desert Willow project, which are much closer than the 5 miles associated with the Classic Club location. Additional assumptions include: • Surf lagoon: 6-acre “recreation swimming pool” (CalEEMod terminology, model inputs have been adjusted to reflect Project specifics) • General Retail: 45,000 square feet. This includes the Surf Center and square footage for mechanical rooms, changing room, and other ancillary buildings proposed for Phase 1 • Restaurant/Bars: 11,250 square feet. This only accounts for Phase 1 restaurant space; however, CalEEMod assumes “hotels” will include restaurant space for Phase 2. • Hotel: 438 rooms (350 hotel rooms and 88 villas), assumes 500,000 square feet • Parking: 520 parking spaces, multi-level structure with elevator • Other asphalt: 1 acre for off-site parking and internal roadways The following table describes pollutant emissions during construction of the proposed Project. Data represent maximum daily emissions expected over the 2-year buildout period. Table 2.3-6 Construction Emissions Summary Proposed Project (lbs./day) CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 Max. Daily Emissions 65.67 99.43 65.90 0.14 9.58 6.11 SCAQMD Threshold* 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this EIR for detailed tables. Value shown represents the average unmitigated emissions of summer and winter outputs. * Source: “SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds” prepared by SCAQMD. Note: PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are shown as “mitigated” in the CalEEMod output tables; however, the mitigation used is standard dust control requirements, such as watering exposed onsite soil 3 times per day. 5 Based on Project Grading Plan. Assumes grading of entire project (both Planning Areas). 6 CalEEMod assumes the average haul load is 20 tons (or 16 cy) per trip. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-15 As shown in the table above, SCAQMD daily thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, SOx, PM10 and PM2.5 will not be exceeded during construction of the proposed Project. Impacts will be less than significant. Project-Related Operational Emissions Operational emissions are those released over the long-term life of the proposed Project. They include emissions generated by area, energy, and mobile sources. Area sources include consumable products, such as building maintenance and cleaning supplies, kitchen and restroom supplies, pavement off-gassing, and periodic reapplication of architectural coatings. Energy sources include the direct and indirect use of fossil fuels for energy, including natural gas and electricity use in buildings, parking lot lighting, ventilation equipment, and elevators. Mobile emissions are generated by motor vehicle trips. The following table identifies the unmitigated pollutant emissions during operation of the proposed Project. Data represent maximum daily emissions. Separate emissions estimates are provided for typical operations versus special event operations. As explained in Section 1, the Project could host special events that attract up to 3,500 spectators and require use of an overflow parking lot and shuttle service. It is currently unknown how many special events will be held annually. However, it is assumed that 12 special events would be held annually. Trip generation numbers are those reported in the Project-specific traffic impact analysis (Appendix H of this EIR): 5,496 weekday daily trips during typical operations, and 7,288 weekend daily trips during special events. It is also assumed that the average trip length is 25 miles to account for visitors traveling to the project site from greater distances throughout the valley7. As shown in the table, Project-generated operational emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for CO, ROG, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 during typical operations or special events. However, Project-generated NOx emissions will exceed SCAQMD thresholds during both types of operations. 7 It is assumed as an average of local commuters (workers and valley residents traveling an average of 7 miles) and regional/southern california commuters traveling approximately 75-100 miles, most of whom will be staying at the propsoed hotels. Hotel guests will commute 75-100 miles to and from the project site, but the duration of their stay will be local and limted to approximately 2-5 miles. Therefore, a daily length of 25 miles was applied to provide an average trip length. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-16 Table 2.3-7 Unmitigated Operational Emissions Summary Proposed Project: Typical Operation vs. Special Events (lbs./day) CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 Typical Operation: Area 0.13 0.00 14.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 7.48 8.91 0.98 0.05 0.68 0.68 Mobile 129.16 107.65 12.85 0.45 26.60 7.35 TOTAL: 136.77 116.56 27.99 0.50 27.28 8.03 SCAQMD Threshold* 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds Threshold No Yes No No No No Special Event Operation: Area 0.13 0.00 14.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 7.48 8.91 0.98 0.05 0.68 0.68 Mobile 173.61 143.63 17.13 0.61 35.96 9.94 TOTAL: 181.22 152.54 32.27 0.66 36.64 10.62 SCAQMD Threshold* 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds Threshold No Yes No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this DEIR for detailed tables. Value shown represents the average emissions of summer and winter outputs. * Source: “SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds” prepared by SCAQMD. Projected NOx exceedances are largely associated with the number of vehicle trips expected to be generated at Project buildout. Approximately 94 percent of Project-related NOx emissions are due to motor vehicle trips. Because Project-related NOx emissions are directly linked to motor vehicle trip generation rates associated with the proposed land uses, there are no feasible ways to mitigate NOx emissions without changing project land uses, or project density. The number of vehicle trips could be reduced, to some extent, by the use of alternative modes of transportation by those accessing the Project site. A Sunline Transit Agency bus stop is located immediately adjacent to Desert Willow Golf Resort, at the intersection of Country Club Drive and Desert Willow Drive. A Class III bike lane extends along Country Club Drive, just outside the Desert Willow Golf Resort. Use of these facilities by Project patrons and employees would reduce Project-related vehicle trips and consumption of fossil fuels. However, the elective use of alternative modes of transportation by Project patrons cannot be confidently quantified and applied as a mitigation measure. Therefore, operational impacts will continue to exceed NOx emissions, and impacts will be significant and unavoidable. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-17 Health Impacts As shown in Table 2.3-7, the project will exceed NOx emissions under both typical operations and during special events. During typical operations, the Project traffic is expected to exceed NOx emissions by 16.56 lbs. per day. During special events, which is assumed to be 12 times a year, the Project traffic is expected to exceed NOx emissions by 52.54 lbs. per day. As it relates to health impacts, short-term exposure to NOx can result in airway constriction and diminished lung capacity and is highly toxic by inhalation. Populations living near roadways are more likely to experience the effects of nitrogen oxides due to elevated exposure to motor vehicle exhaust. With today’s technology, it is not scientifically possible to calculate the degree to which exposure to various levels of NOx emissions will impact an individual’s health. Although there is a scientific consensus that there are health risks associated with exposure to elevated levels of NOx, there are several factors that make predicting a Project-specific numerical impact difficult: • Not all individuals will be affected equally due to medical history. Some may have medical pre-dispositions and diet and exercise levels tend to vary across a population. • Due to the dispersing nature of the pollutant and transient nature of vehicles (the emission source), it is difficult to locate and identify which group of individuals will be impacted, either directly or indirectly. • There are currently no approved methodologies or studies to base assumptions on, such as baseline health levels or NOx emission level-to-health risk ratios. On-site health risks associated with NOx are expected to be less than significant because the project is not located in proximity to a major roadway and will not be directly be exposed to concentrated vehicle emissions or elevated levels of NOx. However, for the reasons stated above, it is uncertain how the Project will impact health in the region. Because the Project’s NOx exceedances are due to motor vehicle travel, and motor vehicle travel increases with population growth, it can be assumed that individuals in the region are already exposed to increasing levels of NOx emissions and that the Project with only marginally contribute to existing conditions. Additionally, Project emissions assume full capacity traffic conditions. In reality, the Project site will not reach capacity most days, especially in the winter months due to the seasonal nature of Project activities (surfing). Due to the limitations described above, the extent to which the Project poses a health risk is uncertain but unavoidable. It is anticipated that impacts associated with NOx will be less than significant overall, and will only pose a significant risk during summer special events due to the seasonal nature of Project activities and the reality that the Project is not expected to reach maximum capacity often, thus generating fewer vehicle trips. Cumulative Contribution: Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants A significant impact could occur if the project would make a considerable cumulative contribution to federal or State non-attainment pollutants. The Coachella Valley portion of the DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-18 SSAB is classified as a “non-attainment” area for PM10 and ozone. Cumulative air quality analysis is evaluated on a regional scale (rather than a neighborhood scale or city scale, for example) given the dispersing nature of pollutant emissions and aggregate impacts from surrounding jurisdictions and air management districts. Any development project or activity resulting in emissions of PM10, ozone, or ozone precursors will contribute, to some degree, to regional non-attainment designations of ozone and PM10. The SCAQMD does not currently recommend quantified analyses of construction and/or operational emissions from multiple development projects nor provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess the significance of cumulative emissions generated by multiple cumulative projects. However, it is recommended that a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts should be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project-specific impacts. Furthermore, SCAQMD states that if an individual development project generates less than significant construction or operational emissions, then the development project would not generate a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. As shown in the tables above, Project-related PM10 emissions are projected to be well below established SCAQMD thresholds. Emissions will be further reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-9 which requires implementation of a Dust Control Plan in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403.1. Therefore, the proposed Project will result in incremental, but not cumulatively considerable impact on regional PM10 levels. CO, NOx, and ROG are precursors to ozone, for which the Coachella Valley is in non-attainment. The Project will not exceed thresholds for CO or ROG; however, it will contribute to increased regional NOx emissions. As shown in Table 2.3-7, Project-related NOx emissions will exceed SCAQMD thresholds during typical operations and special event operations. Motor vehicle trips are the primary source of NOx emissions during operation and cannot be mitigated through traditional means. Mitigation measures AQ-1 through 8 provide a number of strategies to reduce operational air emissions to the greatest extent possible, including but not limited to the provision of electric charging stations, the limitation of idling delivery vehicle times, and the creation of Employee Commute Reduction Programs for large employers within the Project, such as the future hotels. However, as previously mentioned, even with the implementation of these measures, impacts associated with operations of the proposed Project at build out will remain significant and unavoidable. The Project’s contribution to cumulative increases in PM10, ozone, and ozone precursors (CO, NOx, and ROG) is discussed further in Section 2.3.9, below. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-19 c) Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The purpose of analyzing Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) is to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts to the nearest exposed individual or sensitive receptor. Land uses that are sensitive receptors include, but are not limited to schools, churches, residences, hospitals, day care facilities, and elderly care facilities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed Project are resort residences approximately 150 feet to the west, in the Westin Desert Willow villas project. Analysis of LSTs by a local government is voluntary and is designed for projects that are less than or equal to five acres. The maximum area of disturbance associated with buildout of the proposed Project is approximately 17.69 acres, and it is assumed that buildout would occur over the course of two years. Although the total project area is greater than five acres, the area of daily disturbance (for purposes of LST analysis only) is limited to five acres or less per day at any given location. As such, the five-acre look up table is appropriate under the SCAQMD’s methodology to screen for potential localized air quality impacts.8 The Mass Rate Look-Up tables for LSTs were used to determine if the proposed Project would have the potential to generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts during construction. The LST for Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30 (Coachella Valley) was used to determine LST emission thresholds. The distance from the emission source and the maximum daily site disturbance also determines emission thresholds. For analysis purposes, the worst- case scenario of a sensitive receptor being within 25 meters was used. The following table shows that LST thresholds are not expected to be exceeded for any criteria pollutant during construction. Because the proposed land uses do not include major stationary polluters (such as a landfill, chemical plant, oil field, refineries etc.), LST analysis was not conducted or required for Project operation. Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors will be less than significant. Table 2.3-8 Localized Significance Thresholds 25 Meters, 5 Acres (lbs per day) CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 Construction 65.67 99.43 9.58 6.11 LST Threshold* 2,292.00 304.00 14.00 8.00 Exceed? No No No No Source of Emission Data: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2, see Appendix B of this DEIR. Source of LST Threshold: LST Mass Rate Look-up Table, 25 meters, 5 acres, SCAQMD. 8 South Coast AQMD, “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds.” DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-20 e) Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed Project has the potential to result in short-term odors associated with operation of heavy equipment during grading, excavation, and other construction activities. However, construction-related odors would be temporary and quickly dispersed below detectable levels as distance from the construction area increases. During Project operation, odors may be emitted from onsite restaurants and food service facilities; however, all facilities would be equipped with proper ventilation systems to effectively remove grease, smoke, and other odors. Impacts associated with odors will be less than significant. The Project is not expected to result in other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people. 2.3.7 Mitigation Measures The following are mitigation measures identified to improve operational air emissions. However, even with the implementation of these identified measures, mobile NOx emissions will not be reduced to less than significant levels. As previously discussed, there are no feasible ways to mitigate for NOx emissions that are directly linked to a land use vehicle trip rate. Therefore, operational impacts will continue to exceed NOx emissions under the current analysis methods, and impacts will be significant and unavoidable. AQ-1 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations At least 5% of all vehicle parking spaces shall include EV charging stations. AQ-2 Delivery Vehicle Idling Time Delivery vehicle idling time shall be limited to no more than five minutes. For any delivery that is expected to take longer than five minutes, the vehicle’s operator shall be required to shut off the engine. The Project proponent shall notify vendors of these idling requirements at the time the delivery purchase order is issued and again when vehicles enter the facility. Signs shall be posted at entry to the facility’s delivery area stating that idling longer than five minutes is not permitted. AQ-3 Employee Commute Any employer than employs 250 or more employees at a work site, on a full or part- time basis, shall implement an Employee Commute Reduction Program (ECRP) under SCAQMD Rule 2202, On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Option. AQ-4 Paving and Roofing Materials Light-colored paving and roofing materials shall be utilized onsite, to the greatest extent practical. AQ-5 Energy Star Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances shall be installed onsite to the greatest extent practical. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-21 AQ-6 Sweepers Electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters shall be used onsite to the greatest extent practical. AQ-7 Lawn Maintenance Electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers shall be used onsite to the greatest extent practical. AQ-8 Cleaning Products Water-based or low VOC cleaning products shall be used to the greatest extent practical. AQ-9 Dust Control Plan: SCAQMD Rule 403.1 SCAQMD Rule 403 (403.1 specific to the Coachella Valley): A Dust Control Plan shall be prepared and implemented by all contractors during all construction activities, including ground disturbance, grubbing, grading, and materials import and export. Said plan shall include but not be limited to the following best management practices: • Treated and stabilized soil where activity will cease for at least four consecutive days; • All construction grading operations and earth moving operations shall cease when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; • Water site and equipment morning and evening and during all earth-moving operations; • Operate street-sweepers on impacted paved roads adjacent to site; • Establish and strictly enforce limits of grading for each phase of construction; • Wash off trucks as they leave the project site to control fugitive dust emissions • Cover all transported loads of soils, wet materials prior to transport, provide freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck) to reduce PM10 and deposition of particulate matter during transportation • Use track-out reduction measures such as gravel pads at project access points to minimize dust and mud deposits on roads affected by construction traffic. 2.3.8 Significance After Mitigation With the exception of threshold item b), all thresholds are considered less than significant and do not require mitigation measures. Item b) is considered to be “Significant and Unavoidable” because operational NOx emissions related to mobile sources will exceed SCAQMD thresholds, and there is no feasible way to reduce patron vehicle trips through mitigation measures. Item b) impacts remain Significant and Unavoidable and approval of the proposed Project will require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-22 2.3.9 Cumulative Impacts Project-related cumulative impacts are addressed below and in Section 2.3.6.b, above. The SSAB is designated as nonattainment under both the CAAQS and the NAAQS for ozone and PM10. Emissions of CO, NOx, and ROG that exceed the SCAQMD operational thresholds would contribute to the ozone nonattainment designation, while emissions of PM10 that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds would contribute to the PM10 nonattainment designation of the SSAB. Cumulative potential impacts to air quality are assessed on a regional scale given the dispersing nature of pollutant emissions and aggregate impacts from surrounding jurisdictions and air management districts. Any activity resulting in emissions of PM10, ozone, or ozone precursors will contribute, to some degree, to regional non-attainment designations of ozone and PM10. However, the level of cumulative impact a single project may have on regional air quality is difficult to measure. The Coachella Valley is subject to the SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality Management Plan and the 2003 PM10 Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan (CVSIP) to ensure levels of criteria pollutants are regulated and minimized to the best of the region’s ability. The 2016 AQMP has set forth attainment deadlines and future emission level projections for criteria pollutants within the project area, which satisfy Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the CEQA guidelines for analyzing cumulative impacts. These regional plans provide guidelines and rules for achieving state and federal air quality standards, which aim to reduce cumulative impacts, particularly through the enforcement of SCAQMD daily thresholds and implementation of time-sensitive reduction strategies to achieve attainment status. Regulation of Ozone As previously discussed, SCAQMD studies indicate that most ozone is transported to the Salton Sea Air Basin from the upwind sources in the South Coast Air Basin. The amount of ozone contributed from other air basins is difficult to quantify; however, improved air quality in the project area depends upon reduced ozone emissions in the South Coast Air Basin. Therefore, cumulative impacts to ozone are better managed on a multi-regional scale as opposed to single projects. The SCAQMD 2016 AQMP provide current and future measures to reduce both stationary and mobile source ozone emissions. Proposed measures to reduce ozone include emission reductions from coatings and solvents, RECLAIM facilities, early transitions to cleaner mobile technologies, and incentives to adopt net zero and near zero technologies.9 CalEEMod does not calculate ozone emissions directly and therefore emissions of ozone precursors (CO, NOx, and ROG) were evaluated to determine Project-related impacts to ozone. 9 Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2016. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.3-23 Ozone precursors are the primary pollutants involved in the chemical reaction process that forms ozone. The proposed Project will not exceed thresholds for CO, NOx, or ROG during construction. During operation, the Project will not exceed thresholds for CO or ROG; however, it will exceed thresholds for NOx, largely due to mobile sources. As discussed above, operational NOx emissions cannot be reduced through conventional mitigation measures. Because NOx is a precursor to ozone, impacts are considered Significant and Unavoidable and will have cumulatively considerable impacts to regional non-attainment designation for ozone. Regulation of PM10 Similar to ozone, PM10 is regulated through the SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality Management Plan and 2003 PM10 Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan (CVSIP). Additional PM10 reduction measures include applicable state code and AQMD Rules, such as Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which enforces fugitive dust compliance for all activities within the SSAB. As shown in Section 2.3.6.b, the proposed Project will not exceed local daily thresholds for PM10 during construction or operation. Therefore, cumulative impacts to PM10 are considered less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.4 Biological Resources 2.4.1 Introduction This section provides an overview of the current biological resources conditions within the Project area and region. Thresholds of significance and the regulatory environment are also described. The proposed Project’s potential biological impacts are discussed, and mitigation measures are set forth where needed. This discussion is based on the Project-specific Biological Resource Assessment Report prepared by Wood Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.1 The report is appended to this EIR as Appendix C. The Project site was surveyed on foot on July 18, 2018; the findings of the survey are included in the report. 2.4.2 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance or criteria are derived from Appendix G of CEQA, which is used to determine if and to what extent a project may have a potentially significant impact on biological resources. The proposed Project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it is determined that the Project will: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1 “Habitat Assessment and Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Report, Desert Willow Golf Resort Project Site, City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California,” Wood Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., September 24, 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-2 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Initial Study determined that the Project would result in “No Impact” for threshold questions b through f, above. Therefore, they are not analyzed further in this EIR. 2.4.3 Regulatory Framework Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service are the designated federal agencies accountable for administering the ESA. ESA defines species as “endangered” or “threatened” and provides regulatory protection at the federal level. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the “take” of listed (i.e. endangered or threatened) species. The ESA definition of take is “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct.” Recognizing that take cannot always be avoided, Section 10(a) includes provisions for take that is incidental to, but not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Specifically, Section 10(a)(1)(A) permits (authorized take permits) are issued for scientific purposes. Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits (incidental take permits) are issued for the incidental take of listed species that does not jeopardize the species. Section 10(a) of the ESA also establishes standards for the content of habitat conservation plans, such as the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). Section 7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to evaluate a proposed Project with respect to species currently listed or proposed to be listed, and their respective critical habitat (if applicable). Federal agencies must employ programs for the conservation of listed species and are prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that would jeopardize a listed DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-3 species or destroy or modify its critical habitat. As defined by the ESA, “individuals, organizations, states, local governments, and other non-federal entities are affected by the designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on federal lands, require a federal permit, license, or other authorization, or involve federal funding.” Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Treaties signed by the U.S., Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the countries of the former Soviet Union make it unlawful to pursue, capture, kill, or possess, or attempt to engage in any such conduct to any migratory bird, nest, egg, or parts thereof listed in this document. The Secretary of the Interior can issue permits for incidental take of migratory bird species. As with the ESA, the MBTA also allows the Secretary of the Interior to grant permits for the incidental take of these protected migratory bird species. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act This section of the Clean Water Act, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into “waters of the United States.” The USACE has created a series of nationwide permits that authorize certain activities within waters of the U.S. provided that the proposed activity does not exceed the impact threshold of 0.5 acre for nationwide permits, takes steps to avoid impacts to wetlands, and provides compensation for any remaining, unavoidable impacts through activities to restore or create wetlands. For projects that exceed the threshold for nationwide permits, individual permits under Section 404 can be issued. An inspection of the Project site to determine the presence or absence of potential jurisdictional wetlands and waters was conducted during the above-mentioned project-specific biological assessment; no such features are present onsite. State California Endangered Species Act (CESA) The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) is similar to the federal ESA, but it is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CFDW). The CDFW is authorized to enter into “memoranda of understanding” with individuals, public agencies, and other institutions to import, export, take, or possess state-listed species except as otherwise provided by state law. Unlike the federal ESA, the CESA applies the take prohibitions to species currently petitioned for state listing status (candidate species). Lead agencies are required to consult with CDFW to ensure that actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any state-listed species or result in the destruction or degradation of occupied habitat. The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) The NPPA includes measures to preserve, protect, and enhance rare and endangered native plant species. Definitions for "rare” and “endangered" are different from those contained in CESA. However, the list of species afforded protection in accordance with the NPPA includes those listed as rare and endangered under CESA. NPPA provides limitations on take as follows: “no person will import into this state, or take, possess, or sell within this state” any rare or endangered native plants, except in accordance with the provisions outlined in the act. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-4 If a landowner is notified by CDFW, pursuant to section 1903.5, that a rare or endangered plant is growing on their property, the landowner shall notify CDFW at least 10 days prior to the changing of land uses to allow CDFW to salvage the plants. Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program The NCCP, which is managed by the CDFW, is intended to conserve multiple species and their associated habitats, while also providing for compatible use of private lands. Through local planning, the NCCP planning process is designed to provide protection for wildlife and natural habitats before the environment becomes so fragmented or degraded by development that species listing are required under CESA. Instead of conserving small, often isolated “islands” of habitat for just one listed species, agencies, local jurisdictions, and/or other interested parties have an opportunity through the NCCP to work cooperatively to develop plans that consider broad areas of land for conservation that would provide habitat for many species. Partners enroll in the programs and, by mutual consent, areas considered to have high conservation priorities or values are set aside and protected from development. Partners may also agree to study, monitor, and develop management plans for these high value “reserve” areas. The NCCP provides an avenue for fostering economic growth by allowing approved development in areas with lower conservation value. The Project site is in a combined Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/NCCP (see Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/NCCP, below). Sections 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code The California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through 1603 regulate all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife resources. Under State code, CDFW jurisdiction is assessed in the field based on one, or a combination, of the following criteria: • At minimum, intermittent and seasonal flow through a bed or channel with banks and that also supports fish or other aquatic life. • A watercourse having a surface or subsurface flow regime that supports or that has supported riparian vegetation. • Hydrogeomorphically distinct top-of-embankment to top-of-embankment limits. • Outer ground cover and canopy extents of, typically, riparian associated vegetation species that would be sustained by surface and/or subsurface waters of the watercourse. The CDFW requires that public and private interests apply for a “Streambed Alteration Agreement” for any project that may impact a streambed or wetland. The CDFW has maintained a “no net loss” policy regarding impacts to streams and waterways and requires replacement of lost habitats on at least a 1:1 ratio. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-5 Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code Under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW authorizes individuals or public agencies to import, export, take, or possess state endangered, threatened, or candidate species in California through permits or memoranda of understanding. These acts, which are otherwise prohibited, may be authorized through permits or “memoranda of understanding” if (1) the take is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, (2) impacts of the take are minimized and fully mitigated, (3) the permit is consistent with regulations adopted in accordance with any recovery plan for the species in question, and (4) the applicant ensures suitable funding to implement the measures required by the CDFW. The CDFW shall make this determination based on the best scientific information reasonably available and shall include consideration of the species’ capability to survive and reproduce. Section 3505.5 of the California Fish and Game Code Section 3505.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey, e.g.: owls, hawks, eagles, etc.) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any bird-of-prey. Regional/Local Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP)/ NCCP Subsequent to the establishment of the Fringe-toed Lizard HCP in the early 1980s, continued growth in the Coachella Valley impacted other species and their habitats. Several species that occur in the Coachella Valley have been listed as threatened or endangered, and several more have been proposed for listing or identified as candidates for listing. A scoping study was prepared for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) by the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy (Conservancy) in 1994. It was recommended that a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) be prepared for the entire Coachella Valley and surrounding mountains to address potential state and federal Endangered Species Act issues in the proposed MSHCP area. Subsequently, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was developed to govern the preparation of the MSHCP. In late 1995 and early 1996, the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage, Coachella Valley Water District, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Imperial Irrigation District, the County of Riverside, USFWS, CDFW, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U. S. Forest Service (USFS), and the National Park Service (NPS) signed the MOU to initiate the planning effort. In late 1996 and early 1997 the parties to the MOU approved an amendment stipulating that the MSHCP will meet the intent of the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act as well as the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), and, further, that the MOU constitutes an agreement to prepare a NCCP. Final state and federal resource agency approval and permitting for the CVMSHCP occurred in September and October 2008. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-6 The CVMSHCP/NCCP encompasses approximately 1.1 million acres and conserves approximately 240,000 acres of open space. It addresses the conservation needs of a variety of plant and animal species and plant communities. It establishes a system of preserves outside of urbanized areas to protect lands with high conservation values and streamlines development permit processing by providing the Plan’s Permittees with long-term (75-year) incidental take permits under state and federal endangered species acts. Palm Desert is a Plan Permittee; as such, the City must comply with all applicable terms and conditions of the CVMSHCP/NCCP, including the collection of local developer mitigation fees. Palm Desert General Plan Chapter 6 (Environmental Resources) of the Palm Desert General Plan includes the following policies pertaining to biological resources: • Policy 3.1 Open space network. Require new development to comply with requirements of the CVMSHCP. • Policy 3.3 Preservation of natural land features. Preserve significant natural features and incorporate into all developments. Such features may include ridges, rock outcroppings, natural drainage courses, wetland and riparian areas, steep topography, important or landmark trees and views. • Policy 4.1 Buffers from new development. Require new development adjacent to identified plant and wildlife habitat areas to maintain a protective buffer. • Policy 4.2 Wildlife corridors. Support the creation of local and regional conservation and preservation easements that protect habitat areas, serve as wildlife corridors and help protect sensitive biological resources. • Policy 4.3 Landscape design. Continue to encourage new developments to incorporate native vegetation materials into landscape plans and prohibit the use of species known to be invasive according to the California Invasive Plant Inventory. 2.4.4 Environmental Setting The City of Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley are located at the western edge of the Colorado Desert subdivision of the Sonoran Desert. This region is characterized by an extremely hot and dry climate, with a low elevation valley floor bordered by rocky mountain slopes and ranges. The unique geomorphic and geographic terrain has created an environment that supports many diverse species that have adapted to the extreme climatic conditions. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-7 A wide range of common plant species, such as mesquite, smoke tree, desert holly, creosote bush, and palo verde, are supported by the conditions present in the valley, as are a wide range of wildlife species. Bird species include golden eagle, western burrowing owl, and others. There are also a range of sensitive plant and animal species present in the Coachella Valley, some of which have been listed as threatened or endangered by federal and state agencies. Within the Coachella Valley region, some plant species that are federally listed as endangered include the Coachella Valley milkvetch and triple-ribbed milkvetch. Threatened or endangered wildlife species include the Peninsular bighorn sheep, Casey's June beetle, Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, arroyo southwestern toad, and mountain yellow-legged frog. Sensitive bird species include the least Bell’s vireo and southwestern flycatcher, both listed as endangered. In addition, there are several species of birds considered “sensitive” by state and federal wildlife resource agencies. 2.4.5 Existing Conditions The Project site lies at an elevation of 247 to 263 feet above mean sea level and is surrounded by a mix of golf resort development, residential areas, and commercial operations. The Project site is surrounded by the existing Desert Willow Golf Resort. It consists of three parcels: the two northern parcels consist of existing parking lots and have no native vegetation, while the southerly 14.65-acre parcel has been significantly impacted by development activities, including recent grading and the installation of irrigation systems. This parcel does contain some native vegetation dominated by brittle bush scrub. However, its disturbed condition results in poor quality native habitat. The Project site is within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP/NCCP but is not within any designated Conservation Area. Soils According to the USDA online Web Soil Survey, the Project site contains two distinct types of soils (see Exhibit 2.4-1, Soil Types): • Myoma fine sand (MaB) – A nearly level soil (0 to 5 percent slopes) that is found on alluvial fans, lacustrine basins, and flood plains of the Coachella Valley. This soil type is found on nearly all of the Project site, except the southeasterly edge. • Myoma fine sand (MaD) – A moderately sloping to rolling soil (5 to 15 percent slopes) that is found on dunes and alluvial fans. This soil type is found along the southeasterly edge of the Project site. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-8 Vegetation Communities and Flora Species Onsite vegetation types are shown on Exhibit 2.4-2. A total of twenty-three (23) plant species were identified during the field survey, which occurred on July 18, 2018. The vegetation that occurs on the project site most closely resembles Desert Scrub, dominated by brittle bush scrub (Encelia farinosa). Other native plants observed include: scattered broom baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides), California croton (Croton californicus), scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum), Emory’s indigo bush (Psorothamnus emoryi), and desert twinbugs (Dicoria canescens). DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-11 Wildlife During the reconnaissance survey on July 18, 2018, a total of thirteen (13) vertebrate wildlife species (twelve birds and one reptile) and eight dragonfly species were detected. Among the bird species observed were western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), Berwick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), common raven (Corvus corax), greater roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus), and Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae). No nesting birds were detected. One reptile, the desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), was observed, and other common species, including side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) and Great Basin whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris tigris), not seen during the site survey are likely to occur in the survey area. None of these are sensitive species. Given the disturbed nature of the site, including conversion to asphalt parking areas, clearing, and installation of irrigation systems, the site is an island of poor-quality habitat surrounded by non-native developed areas. This results in poor habitat for native species, as many of these species require natural habitats of better quality. Sensitive Species The classification of “sensitive” is given to species which are typically rare or have been locally depleted and are vulnerable due to human activities. While a sensitive species may not be significantly threatened, it is considered at risk and is often a candidate for future listing. The Coachella Valley is home to a wide range of sensitive biological resources, including plant and animal species that are endemic to the region. The continued conversion of natural habitats within the region to other land uses and the resulting reduction in acreage and processes of those available habitats has placed many species at the brink of extinction. Due to the loss of viable habitat, some of these species have been listed as threatened or endangered by federal and State agencies. “Endangered” species are those with such limited numbers that they are considered in imminent danger of extinction, while “threatened” species are those that are likely to become endangered, particularly on a local scale, within the foreseeable future. In addition to Wood Environment & Infrastructure biologists’ knowledge of the Project area, a literature review was conducted to identify sensitive biological resources known from the Project vicinity. The results indicated that there is a potential for as many as 43 sensitive species to occur in the Project vicinity. Tables 2.4.1 through 2.4.3 identify listed species that have the potential to occur in the Project area or adjacent areas. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-12 Table 2.4-1 Sensitive Plants Species Protective Status Habitat Flowering Period Occurrence Probability Abronia villosa var. aurita Chaparral sand- verbena F: ND C: ND CNPS: List 1B.1 State Rank: S2.1 CVMSHCP: No Annual herb found in sandy areas in chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitats, at 262 to 5,249 feet January - August Absent (marginal habitat present on one parcel but species not observed during survey). Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae Coachella Valley milk- vetch F: END C: ND CNPS List: 1B.2 State Rank: S2.1 CVMSHCP: Yes Annual/Perennial herb found in sandy flats, washes, alluvial fans, sand field, dunes and dune edges, at 130 to 2,150 feet, a CA endemic. February - May Low (Remnant, loose sand areas are present, species not observed during surveys.) Astragalus preussil var. laxiflorus Lancaster milk- vetch F: END C: ND CNPS List: 1B.2 State Rank: S2 CVMSHCP: No Perennial herb found on alkaline clay flats, gravelly or desert washes; occurs almost always under natural conditions in non- wetlands in California. March-May Absent (Habitat not present on site); nearest CNDBB is historical (1928) and is over ten miles southeast of site. Astragalus tricarinatus Triple-ribbed milk- vetch F: END C: ND CNPS List: 1B.2 State Rank: S1 CVMSHCP: Yes Rocky canyon slopes, edges of boulder- strewn desert washes, at 1,400 to 2,600 feet elevation February - May Absent (No suitable habitat (rocky canyon slopes) on site. Site is well below known elevation range of species). Ditaxis claryana Glandular ditaxis F: ND C: ND CNPS List: 2B.2 State Rank: S1 CVMSHCP: Yes Sandy soils in creosote bush scrub of the Sonoran and Mojave deserts below 1,500 feet. Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and Arizona and northern Mexico. October - March Very low (Disturbed scrub habitat is present onsite; however nearest CNDBB is historical (1906) and is over three miles south of site). Ditaxis serrata var. californica California ditaxis F: ND C: ND CNPS List: 3.2 State Rank: S2? CVMSHCP: No On sandy washes and alluvial fans of the foothills and lower desert slopes. 100- 3,280 feet elevation. March - December Absent (no habitat onsite, no Ditaxis species observed onsite during survey, CNDDB records are from >4 mi. S of site in foothills and mtn. slopes) Eremothera boothii ssp. boothii Booth’s evening- primrose F: ND C: ND CNPS List: 2B.3 State Rank: S2 CVMSHCP: No Annual herb found in Joshua tree woodland, pinyon and juniper woodland at 2,670 to 7,875 feet elevation. April- September Absent (no habitat onsite, site is below elevation range of species). Euphorbia abramsiana Abrams’ spurge F: ND C: ND CNPS List: 2B.2 State Rank: S2 CVMSHCP: No Annual herb found in sandy Mojavean desert scrub and Sonoran Desert scrub at 15 to 4,300 feet elevations. (August) September- November Low (Marginally suitable habitat onsite, historic (1968) CNDDB record from ~ 2 mi. E of site, but now developed, not observed onsite). Euphorbia arizonica F: ND C: ND CNPS List: 2B.3 Perennial herb found in sandy Sonoran Desert March-April Absent (Low quality habitat onsite, but site is below elevational range of species, DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-13 Table 2.4-1 Sensitive Plants Species Protective Status Habitat Flowering Period Occurrence Probability Arizona spurge State Rank: S3 CVMSHCP: No scrub habitat at 492 to 2,950 feet elevations. extensively disturbed). Euphorbia platysperma Flat-seeded spurge F: ND C: ND CNPS List: 1B.2 State Rank: S1 CVMSHCP: No Annual herb found in desert dunes and Sonoran desert scrub habitat at 210 to 330 feet elevations. February- September Very Low (Marginal habitat onsite, not found during survey). Marina orcuttii var. orcuttii California marina F: ND C: ND CNPS List: 1B.2 State Rank: S1 CVMSHCP: No Pinyon and Juniper woodland, Sonoran Desert scrub, Chaparral, 1,200-3,805 feet elevation May - October Absent (No suitable habitat and site too low in elevation) Matelea parvifolia spear-leaf matelea F: ND C: ND CNPS List: 2B.3 State Rank: S3 CVMSHCP: No Dry rocky ledges and slopes in Sonoran Desert scrub, 1.590 – 4,725 feet elevation. March – May (July) Absent (No suitable habitat and site too low in elevation) Nemacaulis denudata var. gracilis slender cottonheads F: None C: None CNPS: List 2B.2 State Rank: S2 CVMSHCP: No Sandy places in coastal dunes, desert dunes, & Sonoran Desert scrub. 164-1312 ft. Mar – May Low (Dune habitats lacking, 1978 CNDDB record from ~ 5 mi. SE of site, now developed) Petalonyx linearis Narrow-leaf sandpaper- plant F: ND C: ND CNPS: List 2B.3 State Rank: S2 CVMSHCP: No Perennial shrub found in Sonoran desert scrub and/or Mojavean desert scrub in sandy or rocky canyons at 82 to 3,660 feet elevation. (January- February) March-May (June- December) Absent (No suitable habitat onsite, site is not in or near canyons, species not observed during surveys). Pseudorontium cyathiferum Deep Canyon snapdragon F: ND C: ND CNPS: List 2B.3 State Rank: S1 CVMSHCP: No Rocky sites in Sonoran Desert scrub, 0- 2,625 feet. February - April Absent (No suitable habitat on site, in CA only known from Deep Canyon) Selaginella eremophila desert spike-moss F: None C: None CNPS: List 2B.2 Global Rank: G4 State Rank: S2S3 CVMSHCP: No Chaparral, Sonoran Desert scrub; shaded sites, gravelly soils, crevices or among rocks. 656-2953 ft. elevation May–July Absent (No habitat present, Site below elevation range of species) Stemodia durantifolia purple stemodia F: None C: None CNPS: List 2B.1 State Rank: S2 CVMSHCP: No Mesic sites on sandy soils in Sonoran Desert scrub; 591-984 ft. elevation. Jan-Dec Absent (Mesic habitat lacking; site below elevation range of species) DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-14 Table 2.4-1 Sensitive Plants Species Protective Status Habitat Flowering Period Occurrence Probability Xylorhiza cognata Mecca-aster F: ND C: ND CNPS: List 1B.2 State Rank: S2 CVMSHCP: Yes Perennial herb that grows on steep canyon slopes on sandstone and clay substrates, 65 to 1,000 feet elevation January - June Absent (No suitable habitat (steep canyon slopes on sandstone and clay substrates) onsite). Table 2.4-2 Sensitive Habitats Habitat Protective Status (F=Federal, C=California) Occurrence Probability Desert Fan Palm Oasis Woodland F: ND C: ND State rank: S3.2 CVMSHCP: No Absent Table 2.4-3 Sensitive Wildlife Species Species Protective Status (F=Federal, C=California) Habitat Occurrence Probability Invertebrates Dinacoma caseyi Casey’s June beetle F: END C: None State Rank: S1 CVMSHCP: No Restricted to Palm Canyon Wash and the adjacent floodplain of Palm Canyon in sandy soils. Absent (Site is not located within known range of species, site is ~ 6.4 mi. E/SE of Official Survey Area) Macrobaenetes valgum Coachella Giant Sand Treader Cricket F: ND C: ND State rank: S1S2 CVMSHCP: Yes Wind-swept deposited sand dune ridges, winter/spring- dampened sandy areas. Restricted to Coachella Valley. Absent (No suitable habitat present on-site [wind- swept deposited sand dune ridges], nearest CNDDB record [1959], ~ 2 mi. SW of site, now developed). Stenopelmatus cahuilaensis Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket F: None C: None State Rank: S1S2 CVMSHCP: Yes Wind-deposited (aeolian) sand dunes, drift sands and water deposited (alluvial) gravelly/sandy soils Absent (Habitat lacking [too disturbed], CNDDB record from ~ 4.2 mi. NW of site) Oliarces clara Cheeseweed Owlfly (cheeseweed moth lacewing) F: ND C: ND State rank: S2 CVMSHCP: No Known from lower Colorado River drainage, Associated with creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) in desert scrub; creosote is suspected larval host. Found under rocks or in flight over streams. Absent (Habitat not present, no river drainages or washes occur on the site). Fish Cyprinodon macularius Desert Pupfish F: END C: END State rank: S1 CVMSHCP: Yes Desert ponds, springs, marshes, and streams Absent (No natural desert ponds, springs, marshes, and streams). Reptiles Crotalus ruber red diamond rattlesnake F: None C: SSC State Rank: S3 CVMSHCP: No Chaparral, woodland, grassland, desert in rocky areas & dense vegetation, Needs burrows, rock cracks, or surface cover objects. Absent (Habitat not present, in the Coachella Valley typically only known from southern edge near toe of slope of Mtns.) DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-15 Table 2.4-3 Sensitive Wildlife Species Species Protective Status (F=Federal, C=California) Habitat Occurrence Probability Phrynosoma mcallii Flat-tailed horned lizard F: ND S: CSC State rank: S2 CVMSHCP: Yes Fine sand in desert washes and flats with vegetative cover and ants, generally below 600 feet elevation in Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. Absent (habitat degraded, site is cut off from sand sources, Nearest CNDBB record is approximately 2.5 miles NW of the site) Uma inornata Coachella Valley fringe- toed Lizard F: THR C: END State rank: S1 CVMSHCP: Yes Sandy areas of the Coachella Valley (dunes and sand field habitats) Absent (habitat degraded, site is cut off from sand sources.) Birds Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl F: BCC C: CSC State rank: S2 CVMSHCP: Yes Inhabits a variety of open habitats (including edges of ag. fields), often occupies unused ground squirrel burrows Very Low (Project site is disturbed and portions are paved; however southern parcel has potential habitat for species). Nearest CNDBB record (2007) ~ 2.7 mi. NE of site. Empidonax traillii extimus Southwestern willow flycatcher F: END C: END State rank: S1 CVMSHCP: Yes Obligate breeder in extensive riparian areas of dense willows or (rarely) tamarisk, usually with standing water, in the southwestern United States. Absent (Suitable habitat is not present on or near site). Nearest CNDBB (2002) record is >6 mi. NE of site in the Coachella Valley Preserve. Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon F: BCC C: WL State rank: S3 CVMSHCP: No Inhabits a variety of open terrain, nests on cliffs Low (Foraging only, no nesting habitat present) Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike F: BCC C: CSC State rank: S4 CVMSHCP: No Prefers open fields with scattered trees or shrubs, open country with short vegetation, pastures, old orchards, cemeteries, golf courses, riparian areas, and open woodlands. Low (Both foraging and nesting habitat present, primarily in more densely planted golf course edges) Polioptila californica californica California gnatcatcher F: THR C: SSC State Rank: S2 CVMSHCP: No Coastal sage scrub and areas of chaparral adjacent to coastal sage scrub below 2500 ft. Nesting: Absent (On-site habitat lacking) Foraging: Absent (1918 CNDDB record from ~10 mi. NW of site, thought to represent vagrant individual from Banning/Cabazon) Polioptila melanura Black-tailed gnatcatcher F: ND S: ND State rank: S3S4 CVMSHCP: No Nests in wooded desert wash habitat containing mesquite, palo verde, ironwood, and acacia. May also occur in areas with salt cedar, especially when adjacent to native wooded desert wash habitat. Also occurs in desert scrub habitat in winter. Low Mesquite and palo verde occur onsite, however optional habitat (wooded areas in desert wash) is not present on site. Nearest CNDBB (historical, 1919) record is 4.4 miles southeast of site, now developed. Pyrocephalus rubinus Vermilion flycatcher F: ND S: CSC State rank: S2S3 CVMSHCP: No Inhabits cottonwood, willow, mesquite, and other vegetation in desert riparian habitat adjacent to irrigated fields, irrigation ditches, pastures, and other open, mesic areas. Sporadic breeder in desert oases west and north to Morongo Valley and the Mojave Narrows, San Bernardino County. Very Low (Suitable (desert wash and/or riparian) habitat not present on site, but author has observed this species in association w at least three other golf courses in valley) Toxostoma crissale Crissal thrasher F: ND S: CSC State rank: S3 CVMSHCP: Yes Dense thickets of shrubs or low trees in desert riparian and desert wash habitats. Southeastern California to Texas and Absent (Suitable habitat not present on site, CNDDB record is from 1932: ~ 4.4 mi. SE of site, now DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-16 Table 2.4-3 Sensitive Wildlife Species Species Protective Status (F=Federal, C=California) Habitat Occurrence Probability northern Mexico. developed as golf course) Toxostoma lecontei LeConte’s thrasher F: BCC C: CSC (San Joaquin population only) State rank: S3 CVMSHCP: Yes Resident of open desert wash, scrub, alkali scrub, succulent scrub habitats, nests in dense spiny shrubs and cacti in washes Absent (Habitat too degraded, too close in proximity to golf course and human activity, CNDDB records near site all from 1919 -1921) Mammals Chaetodipus fallax pallidus Pallid San Diego pocket mouse F: ND C: CSC State rank: S3S4 CVMSHCP: No Found in sandy herbaceous areas, usually associated with rocks or coarse gravel in desert wash, desert scrub, desert succulent scrub, pinyon-juniper woodlands, etc. in desert border areas of Southern California into Mexico. Absent. (No suitable habitat present on site for this species; site highly disturbed by human disturbance, CNDDB records are from Thousand Palms Cyn. and Deep Cyn.). Dipodomys merriami collinus Earthquake Valley Merriam’s kangaroo rat F: ND C: ND State rank: S1S2 CVMSHCP: No Subspecies of Dipodomys merriami parvus (San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat). Known only from San Diego & Riverside Counties; associated with Riversidean sage scrub, chaparral, & non- native grassland habitats. Absent. (No suitable habitat present on site for this species). Nearest CNDBB record is 2.4 miles northeast of site. Lasiurus xanthinus (ega) Western yellow bat F: ND C: SSC State rank: S3 CVMSHCP: Yes WBWG: H Found in a variety of habitats: Valley foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis habitats. Known in palm oasis but believed to be expanding their range with the increased usage of ornamental palms in landscaping. Low – roosting Low - foraging (Palms present to provide suitable roosting habitat on site; if present would be expected to forage in project vicinity). CNDBB records (historical, none more recent than 1987) Nearest occurrence ~ 3 mi. SW of site, now developed. Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert woodrat F: ND C: CSC State rank: S3 CVMSHCP: No Often in coastal scrub habitats, but enters desert areas. Usually prefers moderate to dense canopies near rocky areas. Absent (Suitable habitat is not present on site for this species). Nyctinomops femorosaccus pocketed free-tailed bat F: None C: SSC State Rank: S3 WBWG: M CVMSHCP: No Roosts in crevices on rugged cliffs, on high rocky outcrops and slopes. May also roost in buildings, caves, and under roof tiles. Roosting: Absent (Lack of habitat on-site) Foraging: Low (If roosting nearby) Perognathus longimembris bangsi Palm Springs Pocket Mouse F: ND C: CSC State rank: S2 CVMSHCP: Yes Most common in creosote- dominated scrub, but also in desert riparian, scrubs, wash, and sagebrush habitats Absent (Habitat is degraded, also correct habitat is largely lacking). Nearest CNDBB record is ~2.75 miles E/NE of the site. Xerospermophilus tereticaudus chlorus Coachella Valley (Palm Springs) round-tailed ground squirrel F: None C: SSC State Rank: S1S2 CVMSHCP: Yes Prefers open, flat, grassy areas in fine- textured, sandy soil in desert succulent scrub, desert wash, desert scrub, alkali scrub, & levees. Absent (Habitat degraded. Not observed during survey, Nearest CNDBB record (1954) is ~ 3.7 mi. NW of site, now developed) Definitions of status designations and occurrence probabilities. Federal designations: (federal Endangered Species Act, US Fish and Wildlife Service): END: Federally listed, Endangered. THR: Federally listed, Threatened. BCC: Birds of Conservation Concern DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-17 Table 2.4-3 Sensitive Wildlife Species Species Protective Status (F=Federal, C=California) Habitat Occurrence Probability C: Candidate for Federal listing ND: Not designated. BCC: Bird of Conservation Concern. State designations: (California Endangered Species Act, California Dept. of Fish and Game) END: State listed, Endangered. THR: State listed, Threatened. RARE: State listed as Rare (Listed "Rare" animals have been re-designated as Threatened, but Rare plants have retained the Rare designation.) CSC: California Special Concern Species. WL: Watch List Species. ND: Not designated. CVMSHCP designations Yes: Conserved by the CVMSHCP No: Not Specifically Conserved by the CVMSHCP C: Considered, but not included in the CVMSHCP California Native Plant Society (CNPS) designations: (Non-regulatory, compilation by a non-profit organization which tracks rare plants) CNPS California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) Note: According to the CNPS (http://www.cnps.org/programs/Rare_Plant/inventory/names.htm), ALL plants on Lists 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B meet definitions for state listing as threatened or endangered under Secs. 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code. Certain plants on Lists 3 and 4 do as well. The CDFW (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/t_e_spp/nat_plnt_consv.shtml) states that plants on Lists 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B of the CNPS Inventory consist of plants that may qualify for listing, and recommends they be addressed in CEQA projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15380). However, a plant need not be in the Inventory to be considered a rare, threatened, or endangered species under CEQA. In addition, CDFW recommends, and local governments may require, protection of plants which are regionally significant, such as locally rare species, disjunct populations of more common plants, or plants on the CNPS Lists 3 and 4. List 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California. List 1B: Plants rare and endangered in California and throughout their range. List 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere. List 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. List 3: Plants for which more information is needed. List 4: Plants of limited distribution; a "watch list." CA Endemic: Taxa that occur only in California CNPS Threat Code: .1 - Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 – Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) .3 – Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known) Note: All List 1A (presumed extinct in California) and some List 3 (need more information- a review list) plants lacking any threat information receive no threat code extension. Also, these Threat Code guidelines represent a starting point in the assessment of threat level. Other factors, such as habitat vulnerability and specificity, distribution, and condition of occurrences, are also considered in setting the Threat Code. Definitions of occurrence probability: Occurs: Observed on the site by AMEC personnel, or recorded on-site by other qualified biologists. High: Observed in similar habitat in region by qualified biologists, or habitat on the site is a type often utilized by the species and the site is within the known range of the species. Moderate: Reported sightings in surrounding region, or site is within the known range of the species and habitat on the site is a type occasionally used by the species. Low: Site is within the known range of the species but habitat on the site is rarely used by the species. Absent: A focused study failed to detect the species, or, no suitable habitat is present. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-18 Table 2.4-3 Sensitive Wildlife Species Species Protective Status (F=Federal, C=California) Habitat Occurrence Probability CDFW CNDDB rankings: Animals S1 = Extremely endangered: <6 viable occurrences or <1,000 individuals, or < 2,000 acres of occupied habitat S2 = Endangered: about 6-20 viable occurrences or 1,000 - 3,000 individuals, or 2,000 to 10,000 acres of occupied habitat S3 = Restricted range, rare: about 21-100 viable occurrences, or 3,000 – 10,000 individuals, or 10,000 – 50,000 acres of occupied habitat S4 = Apparently secure; some factors exist to cause some concern such as narrow habitat or continuing threats S5 = Demonstrably secure; commonly found throughout its historic range SH = all sites are historical, this species may be extinct, further field work is needed CDFW CNDDB rankings: Plants and Vegetation Communities S1 = Less than 6 viable occurrences OR less than 1,000 individuals OR less than 2,000 acres S1.1 = very threatened S1.2 = threatened S1.3 = no current threats known S2 = 6-20 viable occurrences OR 1,000-3,000 individuals OR 2,000-10,000 acres S2.1 = very threatened S2.2 = threatened S2.3 = no current threats known S3 = 21-80 viable occurrences or 3,000-10,000 individuals OR 10,000-50,000 acres S3.1 = very threatened S3.2 = threatened S3.3 = no current threats known S4 = Apparently secure within California; this rank is clearly lower than S3 but factors exist to cause some concern; i.e. there is some threat, or somewhat narrow habitat. S5 = Demonstrably secure to ineradicable in California. Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) designations: The Western Bat Working Group is comprised of agencies, organizations and individuals interested in bat research, management and conservation from the 13 western states and provinces. Its goals are (1) to facilitate communication among interested parties and reduce risks of species decline or extinction; (2) to provide a mechanism by which current information on bat ecology, distribution and research techniques can be readily accessed; and (3) to develop a forum to discuss conservation strategies, provide technical assistance and encourage education programs. H: High: Species which are imperiled or are at high risk of imperilment based on available information on distribution, status, ecology and known threats. M: Medium: Species which warrant a medium level of concern and need closer evaluation, more research, and conservation actions of both the species and possible threats. A lack of meaningful information is a major obstacle in adequately assessing these species' status and should be considered a threat. L: Low: Species for which most of the existing data support stable populations, and for which the potential for major changes in status in the near future is considered unlikely. There may be localized concerns, but the overall status of the species is believed to be secure. Conservation actions would still apply for these bats, but limited resources are best used on High and Medium status species. P: Periphery: This designation indicates a species on the edge of its range, for which no other designation has been determined. As indicated in the above tables, many of the species known to occur in the general Project area are not expected to occur onsite or have “Very low” to “Low” occurrence probabilities due to lack of habitat, incorrect elevational range, degraded nature of the site, or other reasons. No sensitive species were observed or detected on the Project site during the biological survey. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-19 2.4.6 Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The Project proposes the following improvements, the construction of which will result in the direct disturbance and/or removal of soils, vegetation, and plant and animal species occupying the site. Surf Lagoon and Surf Center Development of the surf lagoon and surf center will involve demolition of the existing parking lot, grading of 11.85 acres, and construction of the lagoon, buildings, and associated improvements. Hotel and Villas Development of the hotel and villas will result in grading and construction on 5.84 acres. Off-Site Improvements Stormwater Management: This Project component will require excavation of soils, installation of stormwater management infrastructure, and replacement of soils within existing golf course areas. The golf course consists of ornamental vegetation and turf. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: This Project component will require excavation of soils, installation of discharge pipes, and replacement of soils within existing golf course areas. The golf course consists of ornamental vegetation and turf. Golf Course Turf Reduction: This Project component will involve removal of existing golf course turf and replacement with drought-tolerant ornamental landscape materials. Landscaping Improvements: This Project component will involve installation of drought-tolerant ornamental landscape materials immediately adjacent to the proposed Project, and within existing golf course areas. Overflow Parking: The overflow parking lot is already graded and disturbed by vehicle use. This Project component will result in paving and improvements, including the creation of landscaped planter areas containing ornamental landscaping. The development of the Project will result in the disturbance of the entire site. Impacts to biological resources, as discussed below, would be consistent across all components of the proposed Project. The following discussion, therefore, applies to all components of the proposed Project equally. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-20 Tables 2.4.1 through 2.4.3 summarize information on all special-status species that have been reported in the Project vicinity, or that have the potential to occur onsite based on geographic distribution and presence of potentially suitable habitat. Given the level of existing disturbance onsite from parking lot development, grading, installation of irrigation systems, development of surrounding parcels, and daily disturbances of human activity on the adjacent Desert Willow Golf Resort, there is a low potential for the proposed Project to adversely impact sensitive biological species. No sensitive plant species were observed or detected on the Project site during the biological field survey on July 18, 2018. The following sensitive plant species have a very low or low potential to occur on the Project site: 1) Coachella Valley milk-vetch, 2) Glandular ditaxis, 3) Abrams’ spurge, 4) Flat-seeded spurge, and 5) slender cottonheads. However, only marginally suitable habitat occurs onsite, and due to the degraded nature of the site, Project-related impacts would be less than significant. Further, Coachella Valley milk-vetch and Glandular ditaxis are covered species under the CVMSHCP, and any Project-related impacts to them would be further mitigated through the payment of standard CVMSHCP developer impact fees (Mitigation Measure BIO-1). No sensitive wildlife species were observed or detected onsite during field surveys. The following sensitive wildlife species have a very low or low potential to occur onsite: 1) prairie falcon, 2) loggerhead shrike, 3) black-tailed gnatcatcher, 4) burrowing owl, 5) vermilion flycatcher, 6) pocketed free-tailed bat, and 7) Western yellow bat. However, their occurrence potential is very low to low given a lack of suitable habitat onsite. Prairie falcon, loggerhead shrike, and black-tailed gnatcatcher would have no to low potential for nesting due to lack of suitable habitat, but could forage over the site. Pocketed free-tailed bat has a low potential to forage over the site, but would not be expected to roost onsite due to the lack of roosting habitat. In addition, Western yellow bat is a covered species under the CVMSHCP, and any potential Project-related impacts to it would be mitigated through payment of standard CVMSHCP developer impact fees (Mitigation Measure BIO-1). Although burrowing owl is a covered species under the CVMSHCP, neither the federal 404 permit nor the state NCCP for the CVMSHCP provides take of this species, which is further protected by the MBTA. The species nests and roosts underground and is particularly vulnerable to ground-disturbing activities. The biologist determined that suitable burrowing owl habitat is present on the vacant portion of the Project site, however the species was not detected during site surveys. A focused burrowing owl survey was not performed as part of the survey effort. As stated in Section 4.3 of the Project-specific Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix C), the Wood Environment and Infrastructure biologist has previously contacted the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for guidance on survey requirements for burrowing owl as related to other projects in the Coachella Valley. CDFW has stated that projects not in a Coachella Valley MSHCP Conservation Area (the proposed Project site is not in a MSHCP Conservation Area) do not require burrowing owl protocol surveys, according to the Coachella DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-21 Valley MSHCP Section 9, Burrowing Owl, page 9-143. However, they are still required by law (DFW codes and MBTA) to avoid take of burrowing owls. Protocols have been developed for burrowing owl surveys prior to ground disturbance. Project-related impacts to the species will be mitigated through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 which requires pre- construction surveys to identify any burrowing owls present onsite, and consultation with CDFW regarding the use of exclusion devices, if appropriate, to minimize impacts to the species. Special-status bird species which may nest in the Project area are protected from take by the MBTA. Nesting bird surveys in compliance with the MBTA will further mitigate any potential Project-related impacts to these species (Mitigation Measure BIO-2). The surveys would determine whether nesting birds are present onsite immediately prior to site disturbance and, if present, prohibit project-related work within avoidance buffers until the young have fledged. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, potential Project-related impacts to sensitive species would be less than significant. 2.4.7 Mitigation Measures BIO-1 Payment of CVMSHCP Fees The Project proponent shall be required to pay the CVMSHCP local development mitigation fee to mitigate for impacts to covered species and natural communities within the Project site. BIO-2 MBTA Compliance For any grading or other site disturbance or tree or vegetation removal occurring during the nesting season between February 1st and August 31st, a qualified biologist shall conduct at least one nesting bird survey, and more if deemed necessary by the consulting biologist, immediately prior to initiation of project-related ground disturbing activities. If nesting birds are present, no work shall be permitted near the nest until the young birds have fledged. While there is no established protocol for nest avoidance, when consulted, the CDFW generally recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds-of-prey, and 100 – 300 feet for songbirds . BIO-3 Burrowing Owl Surveys A qualified biologist shall conduct two (2) take avoidance pre-construction burrowing owl surveys onsite. The first shall occur between 14 and 30 days prior to ground disturbance, and the second shall occur within 24 hours of ground disturbance. If burrowing owls are detected, the project proponent shall consult with CDFW to determine what course of action is needed, such as the use of exclusion devices (if applicable) to discourage owls from using burrows that are believed to be in jeopardy of being impacted by implementation of the project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.4-22 2.4.8 Significance After Mitigation Impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed Project will be reduced to a less than significant level by adherence to the mitigation measures set forth above. 2.4.9 Cumulative Impacts Using the summary of projections method to analyze cumulative impacts set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (b)(1)(B), impacts have been assessed on both a regional and local level. The primary document used to determine cumulative impacts was the CVMSHCP, which was designed for the long-term protection and regulation of biological resources in the Project area. The Project site is not within any CVMSCHP designated Conservation Area and does not contain any wildlife movement corridors or linkages. It does not contain any riparian areas or jurisdictional water features. The site has been disturbed by paving, grading, and installation of irrigation systems, and it is completely surrounded by urban development. As such, onsite habitat quality has been degraded, and the potential for it to harbor sensitive species is very low to low. As described above, potential impacts to biological resources will be mitigated to less than significant levels. Therefore, the Project’s impacts to biological resources will be less than significant, and the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts will not be cumulatively considerable. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 2.5.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential for the proposed Project to result in adverse impacts to cultural resources. Cultural resources include Native American tribal cultural resources, archaeological resources, historic resources, and human remains. This section is based primarily on the cultural resources report1 prepared for the Project by CRM TECH which is included in Appendix D of this EIR as are the results of consultation with Native American Tribes completed pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level are identified, where appropriate. 2.5.2 Thresholds of Significance CEQA Guidelines The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prescribes how the Lead Agency must address issues related to archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources. The CEQA Guidelines state that the term “historical resources” applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. The definition also includes resources included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code. According to Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, “historical resources” include, but are not limited to an object, building site, area, place, record, or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant. Cultural Resources According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant effect on cultural resources if it would: 1 “Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, Desert Willow Golf Resort Development Project, City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California,” CRM Tech, August 30, 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-2 a) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5. b) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5. c) disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Tribal Cultural Resources According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant effect on tribal cultural resources if it would: a) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1h, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 2.5.3 Regulatory Framework Federal National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was established in 1966 by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) with the goal to encourage federal agencies to factor historic preservation into federal project requirements. ACHP is an independent federal agency that promotes the preservation, enhancement, and productive use of the nation's historic resources, and advises government leaders on national historic preservation policy. The ACHP defines “historic properties” as “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places.” Section 106 of the NHPA applies when two thresholds are met: 1) there is a federal or federally licensed action, including grants, licenses, and permits, and 2) that action has the potential to affect properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Section DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-3 106 requires each federal agency to identify and assess the effects of its actions on historic resources. If it is determined that a proposed action has the potential to affect historic properties, the federal agency must identify the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO) to consult with during the process. The federal agency reviews background information, consults with the SHPO/THPO and others, seeks information from knowledgeable parties, and conducts additional studies as necessary. If the federal agency finds that no historic properties are present or affected, it provides documentation to the SHPO/THPO, who has 30 days to provide written comment or objection. If there is no objection, the agency proceeds with its undertaking. If the agency finds that historic properties are present, it proceeds to assess possible adverse effects. State California Public Resources Code If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would apply. If an archaeological site does not meet the CEQA Guidelines criteria for a historical resource, then the site may meet the threshold of PRC Section 21083 regarding unique archaeological resources. In addition, PRC Section 5097.98 states that if Native American human remains are identified within a project area, the landowner must notify and consult with the Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD), as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), to develop a plan for proper treatment and/or removal of the human remains and associated burial artifacts. These procedures are also addressed in Section 15046.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and within the California Health and Safety Code (see discussion below). California Health and Safety Code California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that when human remains are discovered outside a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation can occur until the remains have been examined by the County coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she must contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC is then required to contact the “most likely descendant.” The most likely descendant may recommend the manner in which he or she wishes to treat or dispose of the human remains. Assembly Bill 52 Assembly Bill (AB) AB 52 was passed by the California Legislature and signed into law by the governor in 2015. It established a new category of resources in the California Environmental Quality Act called Tribal Cultural Resources (Public Resources Code § 21074). “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following: DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-4 (1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: (A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. (B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1. (2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. AB 52 establishes a formal project consultation process for California Native American tribes and lead agencies regarding tribal cultural resources. Per Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(b), the AB 52 consultation process must begin prior to the release of an environmental impact report, mitigated negative declaration, or negative declaration. Native American tribes to be included in the formal consultation process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency. Senate Bill 18 Senate Bill (SB) 18 (2004) requires cities and counties to contact and consult with California Native American tribes before adopting or amending a General Plan or Specific Plan or designated land as Open Space, for the purpose of protecting Native American cultural places. Notice must be given to tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the NAHC. Once contacted, tribes have 90 days to request consultation. The purpose of SB 18 is to establish meaningful consultation between tribal and local governments early in the planning process to avoid potential conflicts. California Register of Historical Resources For CEQA purposes, “historical resources” applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the Lead Agency (Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). CEQA guidelines mandate that “generally a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5 (a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria: a) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the board pattern patterns of our history; b) is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-5 c) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (36 CFR 60.4). In addition to the criteria for evaluation above, the National Register maintains a list of property types or circumstances that generally do not qualify for the National Register. These are: cemeteries; birthplaces or graves of historical figures; properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that have been moved from their original locations; reconstructed historic buildings; properties primarily commemorative in nature; and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years. Local Palm Desert General Plan The City of Palm Desert General Plan includes policies that are part of a local regulatory framework within which cultural resources are managed. Specifically, Chapter 6 of the City’s General Plan addresses the conservation of sensitive cultural and/or historical resources. Relevant policies include the following: • Policy 9.1 Disturbance of human remains. In areas where there is a high chance that human remains may be present, the City will require proposed projects to conduct a survey to establish occurrence of human remains, if any. If human remains are discovered on proposed project sites, the project must implement mitigation measures to prevent impacts to human remains in order to receive permit approval. • Policy 9.2 Discovery of human remains. Require that any human remains discovered during implementation of public and private projects within the City be treated with respect and dignity and fully comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws. • Policy 9.3 Tribal coordination. Require notification of California Native American tribes and organizations of proposed projects that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. • Policy 9.4 Protected sites. Require sites with significant cultural resources to be protected. • Policy 9.5 Preservation of historic resources. Encourage the preservation of historic resources, when practical. When it is not practical to preserve a historic resource in its entirety, the City will require the architectural details and design elements of historic structures to be preserved during renovations and remodels as much as feasible. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-6 • Policy 10 Mitigation and preservation of cultural resources. Require development to avoid archaeological and paleontological resources, whenever possible. If complete avoidance is not possible, require development to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts to the resource. Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1168 Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1168, adopted in 2008, provides for the preservation of sensitive cultural resources within the City. It created a Cultural Resources Preservation Committee, established landmark and historic district designation criteria, set forth a Certificate of Appropriateness process, and established incentives to encourage the maintenance and preservation of cultural resources. 2.5.4 Environmental Setting A historical/archaeological resources survey and report were prepared for the proposed Project site (APNs 620-400-008, 620-430-023, & 620-430-024) by CRM Tech on August 30, 2018. This report serves as the basis for much of the following discussion. The Coachella Valley has been home to Native Americans for millennia. Documentation of pre- European occupation in the Valley has been pieced together from a wide variety of studies and assessments prepared for large-scale planning efforts and for individual projects. Knowledge and information on native culture, technology, ethnobotany, and other cultural attributes continue to emerge as additional research adds to current data, interpretation, and understanding. The following discussion provides an overview of the current state of knowledge about the Native American groups that occupied the region. A more detailed discussion can be found in the “Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Desert Willow Golf Resort Development Project” in Appendix D of this EIR. Pre-Historic Period in the Planning Area Based upon the current regional knowledge of artifacts and habitation sites dating back approximately 12,000 years, archaeologists have divided the pre-European epoch into five periods: Early Man Period, Paleo-Indian Period, Early Archaic Period, Late Archaic Period, and the Late Prehistoric Period. The earliest periods were distinguished by the use of large stone points to hunt and process large late ice-age mammals, and by the lack of milling stones and other food grinding implements. From about 4000 years ago, seeds and grains and their processing became more important, and stone-tools became more sophisticated; there was also a corresponding increase in cultural complexity and variation. At the end of the Archaic period, approximately 1,500 years ago, burial practices began to take the form of cremations and a wider range of food sources was utilized. During this era, the Late Prehistoric, significant cultural changes occurred, including the introduction of pottery and the bow and arrow. Ceramics were locally introduced about 1,200 years ago. Since pottery was an DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-7 innovation of people of the Colorado River, its presence in the Coachella Valley Indicates that contact occurred between inhabitants of the Colorado River. This is the period during which ethnic or tribal affiliations are best known. The Cahuilla The Cahuilla Indians are the most recently identifiable native culture to evolve in the Coachella Valley. The Cahuilla migration into the Coachella Valley occurred between 1000 BC and AD 500. They were a Takic-speaking, hunting and gathering people from the Great Basin region of Nevada, Utah, and eastern California. Anthropologists typically divide the Cahuilla into three groups: the Pass Cahuilla of the Banning-Beaumont area, the Mountain Cahuilla from the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains, and the Desert Cahuilla from the western Coachella Valley east to the Salton Sea. Surveys performed by the U.S. Government Land Office (GLO) in the Coachella Valley in the mid- 1850s noted a large number of Native American villages. All or most of these settlements are believed to have been settlements of the Desert or Pass Cahuilla. Shorelines of Lake Cahuilla, as well as the “cove communities” areas supported by shallow wells, mesquite and wildlife resources, and the Indian Canyons areas of Palm Canyon all supported prominent settlements. Seasonal occupation sites were also associated with palm oases, which were an important source of water, food, and fiber. The Cahuilla people first encountered Europeans around the 1770s when Spaniards crossed through Cahuilla territory while searching for new land routes between Mexico and northern California. In the 1860s a smallpox epidemic, a European disease from which the Cahuilla had no immunity, decimated the Cahuilla population from an estimated 6,000-10,000 to less than 2,500 individuals. In the early twentieth century, the Coachella Valley was resurveyed by the U.S. government, and a majority of the once-recorded villages and rancherias noted from earlier surveys had vanished. Fences and irrigation ditches, which are Euroamerican-influenced structures, were observed. The Cahuilla people continue to inhabit parts of the Coachella Valley today and are generally affiliated with one or more Indian reservations. These include the Torres Martinez, Augustine, Agua Caliente, Cabazon, and Morongo Reservations. The proposed Project is not located within any Reservation lands of the local Tribes. Archaeological resources associated with Native American occupation are less numerous in the general Project area, where historic sand dunes occupied the area that is now the Desert Willow complex. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-8 Historic Period Typically, sites are classified as historically significant when they are forty-five to fifty years old, but range from the period of the earliest European contact to the end of World War II. The types of potentially significant sites range from permanent trails and highways to living areas, as well as small-scale remains of single activities. The Coachella Valley region was first explored by the Spaniards making forays northward from Mexico along the coast and the Colorado River. The earliest documented period of Spanish influence began in the late 1770s when the Spanish began to develop more extensive land routes to supply inland missions. In 1821, the region fell under the influence of Mexico, which spurred the issuance of land grants and the establishment of agricultural enterprises. The first U.S. Government Surveys were made in the Coachella Valley in 1855-56 by surveyors Henry Washington, John La Croze, and James G. McDonald, who recorded a number of trails and roads crossing the area. By the 1870s, non-Indian settlements began in earnest following the establishment of railroad stations along the Southern Pacific line. The rate of settlement increased significantly in the 1880s, after public lands were opened for claims under the Homestead Act, Desert Land Act, and other Federal land laws. Once underground water resources were made available, farming became the dominant economic activity in the Coachella Valley. 20th Century Around the turn of the century, the Coachella Valley remained unsettled and devoid of any evidence of land development. The only significant features recorded during that time were the Southern Pacific Railroad, Bradshaw Trail, and another trail along the base of the Little San Bernardino Mountains at the opening of West Wide Canyon. The Project planning area and the greater Palm Desert area are located in the vicinity of Sand Hole, an unreliable water hole on the Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail that has since vanished. The Palm Desert community was founded in 1945-1946 by three brothers, Randall, Clifford, and Phil Henderson, who created the Palm Desert Corporation to promote their new desert town. Similar to the surrounding “cove communities” along Highway 111, Palm Desert grew as a resort town favored by the rich and famous of the era and characterized by country clubs and golf courses. The Palm Desert post office was established in 1947. Then, after four unsuccessful attempts, the community was officially incorporated in 1973 as the 17th city in Riverside County. In recent years, growth has been primarily focused on new residential and commercial development. Most commercial growth has been along two transportation arteries across the Coachella Valley, State Route 111 and Interstate Highway 10. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-9 2.5.5 Existing Conditions Historical Records Search In June 2018, CRM TECH completed a records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California, Riverside. The EIC is the State of California’s official cultural resource records repository for the County of Riverside. The search was focused on a one-mile radius around the Project site and found nine previously identified cultural resources surveys on nearby tracts of land, with one previous study that included the Project area in its entirety (see Exhibit 2-5). It was determined that roughly 40% of land within the one-mile radius had been included in previous cultural resources studies completed over the past 30 years. Two prehistoric resources - one archaeological site and one isolate - were identified as being within the one-mile radius. Table 2.5-1 Cultural Resources Within One Mile of the Project Site Site Number/Trinomial Resource Description Resource Description 33-005080 (CA-RIV-5080) Ceramic scatter 33-012698 Pottery sherd and mano fragment Site 33-005080 (CA-RIV-5080) consists of small ceramic scatter and is located approximately a quarter-mile northwest of the Project area. The isolate, 33-012698, is comprised of a pottery sherd and a mano fragment located nearly three quarters of a mile to the northeast. Given the distance from the Project site, these resources require no further consideration as they will not be disturbed or impacted by the proposed Project activities. The previous cultural resource study that included the Project site was completed in 1993 and involved an intensive-level survey of approximately 500 acres that now hold the existing Desert Willow Golf Resort. The 1993 survey noted the remains of 15 buildings constructed between 1952 and 1960 as being within the surveyed site. Two of those buildings were located within the currently proposed Project boundaries, but they were not formally recorded since they were less than 45 years old at the time. These buildings were “jackrabbit homesteads,” a term used to describe homes that were built rapidly as a result of post-WWII streamlining of the Small Tract Act of 1938, by which the U.S. government granted private owners five-acre homesteads in the southern California desert with the caveat that construction must occur within two years for a claim to remain valid. The two buildings and their remains are no longer visible onsite. The parking lot that is currently onsite was built between 2009 and 2011, but the remainder of the property has remained undeveloped. Field Survey The remains of the previously described jackrabbit homesteads were not detected during the field survey of the Project site. No other prehistoric or historic features, structures, or artifacts were identified onsite. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-10 Native American Participation As part of CRM Tech’s research efforts, a written request was submitted to the State of California’s Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission’s Sacred Lands File as part of the cultural resource survey. The NAHC search identified no Native American cultural resources in the Project area but recommended that CRM TECH contact local tribal authorities. Per NAHC’s recommendation, CRM TECH sent written requests in June 2018 regarding the site to all 10 tribes of Cahuilla heritage and the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians. Four of the eleven tribes contacted responded in writing (Appendix D). The tribe with closest proximity to the Project site, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, identified the project location as a part of the tribe’s traditional use area and requested copies of all cultural resource documentation for this Project for tribal review. The other three tribal representatives responded that they had no information on cultural resources in or in proximity to the Project site. The Cahuilla Band of Indians deferred to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians recommended further consultation with other Native American representative in the region and monitoring for Native American cultural deposits during ground-disturbing activities, and requested to be notified if any Native American cultural resources were discovered. City Designations The Project site is not identified by the City as a local landmark or historic site.2 2 “History and Tour of Palm Desert Historical Sites,” Palm Desert Historic Preservation Committee, April 27, 2007; “Landmarks of the City of Palm Desert,” www.cityofpalmdesert.org/departments/building-and- safety/cultural-resources; “Palm Desert Historical Sites” map, www.cityofpalmdesert.org/departments/ building-and-safety/cultural-resources, 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-12 2.5.6 Project Impacts The following discussion evaluates the potential impacts to sensitive cultural resources, as well as Tribal cultural resources, and other archaeological and historic resources, as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed Project. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Surf Lagoon and Surf Center This portion of the Project would result in the construction of a 5.5± acre lagoon, a two-story surf center building housing retail, restaurant and other public spaces, a parking lot and subsurface parking garage, and other amenities on approximately 11.85 acres. The existing onsite parking lot will be demolished, and the entire site will be graded. As described in Section 2.5.5, the subject property once contained two “jackrabbit homestead” structures built between 1952 and 1960; however, they were not formally recorded as historic structures, and no remnants of them were found during the 2018 cultural resources field survey. No other historical structures exist onsite, and the site is not designated as a local historic landmark or property. Development of the surf lagoon and surf center will have no impact on historic resources. Hotel and Villas This portion of the Project will result in development of 350 hotel rooms, 88 villas, spa building(s), swimming pools, subsurface parking structures, landscaped areas, and ancillary facilities on approximately 5.84 acres. As with the surf lagoon and surf center, construction and operation of the hotel and villas will have no impact on historic resources because no such resources occur onsite. Off-Site Improvements Stormwater Management: Construction of storm drainage infrastructure will occur on existing golf course property that has previously been graded, landscaped and utilized as a golf course. No historic resources occur on the golf course, and no impact will result from the installation of stormwater pipes. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Construction of pool and lagoon drainage infrastructure will occur on existing golf course property that has previously been graded, landscaped and utilized as a golf course. No historic resources occur on the golf course, and no impact will result from the installation of pool and lagoon drainage pipes. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-13 Golf Course Turf Reduction: The removal of existing turf, and its replacement with drought- tolerant landscaping will occur on existing golf course property that has previously been graded, landscaped and utilized as a golf course. No historic resources occur on the golf course, and no impact will result from the replacement of landscaping. Landscaping Improvements: Installation of landscaping on the edge of the project site to provide for a transition between the proposed Project and the existing golf course will occur on property that has previously been graded, landscaped and utilized as a golf course. No historic resources occur on the golf course, and no impact will result. Overflow Parking: The Project will result in improvement of an existing unpaved parking lot southeast of the site and north of Market Place Drive. The parking area has been previously graded and does not contain historic resources. No impact will occur. Soil Removal/Storage: Soils exported from the site will be stockpiled in one of two locations: either on currently vacant areas of the golf course, or at an off-site location at the Classic Club, north of the proposed Project. Both site options have been previously graded, and do not contain historic resources. No impact will occur. b) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Surf Lagoon and Surf Center No archaeological resources were observed during the site-specific cultural resources field survey, and none were found or recorded during previous surveys. Construction of the surf lagoon and surf center, described in 2.5.6.a above, will require excavation, grading, removal and storage of soils, and construction of buildings and infrastructure. The Project area is within the traditional use area of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the potential exists for archaeological resources to be uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. Although the site has been previously graded, features or artifacts of prehistoric origin may be uncovered during Project development, particularly since excavation for parking structure and pool and lagoon backwash drainage structure construction will be at greater depths than previously occurred. This would represent a potentially significant impact. To reduce the potential impacts, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires educating construction personnel about possible archaeological artifacts, human remains, and other cultural materials that could be uncovered during construction activities, pursuant to § 15064.5. If any of those materials are unearthed during construction, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would require further actions to secure those materials and assure their proper disposition. Overall, impacts to archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-14 Hotel and Villas Like the surf lagoon and surf center described above, ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the hotel and villas could uncover archaeological resources, because of the deeper excavations involved in parking structures below ground. As is the case with the surf lagoon portion of the Project, potential impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. Off-Site Improvements Stormwater Management: Installation of subsurface stormwater management infrastructure will involve excavation and other soil disturbances that could uncover archaeological resources. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL- 2. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Installation of pool/lagoon discharge infrastructure will result in soil disturbances that could uncover archaeological resources. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of CUL-1 and CUL-2. Golf Course Turf Reduction: Removal and replacement of existing turf with native landscaping will result in soil disturbances. These areas have been previously disturbed for existing landscaping, and since the replacement with drought-tolerant landscaping will occur in areas and at depths that have previously been significantly disturbed, no impact is expected. Overflow Parking: The Project will result in improvement of an existing parking lot southeast of the subject property. The parking lot has already been disturbed from grading and vehicle use, and it is unlikely to harbor subsurface archaeological resources. Nonetheless, there is limited potential for such resources to be unearthed during ground-disturbing activities. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of CUL-1 and CUL-2. Soil Removal/Storage: Project development will result in excavation, removal and placement, and storage of soils. The placement of soils off-site will not impact architectural resources, and any resources identified during collection of soils would have been identified during site disturbance. This activity will not result in any impact to prehistoric resources. c) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Surf Lagoon and Surf Center The subject site does not contain a formal cemetery; however, it is within the traditional use area of Native American tribes, and the potential exists for human remains to be unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, such as grading and excavation. During site excavation, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that all excavation stop, and that the County DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-15 coroner inspect the site. Should the remains be identified as Native American by the coroner, the NAHC is required to contact the most likely descendant, and that descendant may recommend appropriate burial. This requirement, reflected in Mitigation measure CUL-3, will assure that impacts associated with human remains are less than significant. Hotel and Villas Excavation and grading have the same low potential to impact human remains as with the surf lagoon and surf center described above. Impacts to human remains will be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3. Off-Site Improvements Stormwater Management: Installation of subsurface stormwater management infrastructure is unlikely to unearth human remains, because the golf course area in which these facilities will occur has been previously graded. However, this activity will be subject to the same requirements of law contained in Mitigation Measure CUL-3. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Installation of subsurface pool and lagoon discharge pipes is unlikely to unearth human remains, because the golf course area in which these facilities will occur has been previously graded. However, this activity will be subject to the same requirements of law contained in Mitigation Measure CUL-3. Golf Course Turf Reduction: Removal of golf course turf and replacement with desert landscaping is expected to affect only shallow depth soils. However, this activity will be subject to the same requirements of law contained in Mitigation Measure CUL-3. Overflow Parking: The proposed overflow parking lot has already been disturbed by grading and vehicle use. Nonetheless, the potential exists for human remains to be uncovered during proposed improvements. This activity will be subject to the same requirements of law contained in Mitigation Measure CUL-3. Soil Removal/Storage: The removal and storage of soils has no potential to unearth human remains, insofar as the soils to be stored off-site will have been inspected as part of the construction activities described above. Soil removal and storage will not impact human remains. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-16 Surf Lagoon and Surf Center The proposed Project will not impact a tribal historic resource that is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources because none occur onsite. As explained in 2.5.6.a, above, the site-specific cultural resources survey determined that the Project site contains no historical resources. The proposed Project area is not identified by the City of Palm Desert as a historic site or landmark. No impact will occur. Hotel and Villas As is the case for the surf center, the hotel and villa component of the Project will have no impact on an eligible tribal historic resource, because no such resource occurs on the site. No impact will occur. Off-Site Improvements Stormwater Management: Installation of subsurface stormwater management infrastructure within the existing golf course will have no impact on an eligible tribal historic resource because no such resource occurs within the golf course. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Installation of subsurface pool and lagoon discharge pipes within the existing golf course will have no impact on an eligible tribal historic resource because no such resource occurs within the golf course. Golf Course Turf Reduction: Removal of golf course turf and replacement with desert landscaping will have no impact on an eligible tribal historic resource because no such resource occurs within the golf course. Overflow Parking: Construction of the off-site parking lot will have no impact on an eligible tribal historic resource because no such resource occurs on this vacant, previously graded parcel. Soil Removal/Storage: The removal and storage of soils has no potential to impact an eligible tribal historic resource because neither the vacant golf course areas, nor the site associated with the Classic Club to the north of the Project site contain such a resource. ii) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1h, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. AB 52 and SB 18 require that the consultation process between local and tribal governments begin prior to the release of an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration. On February 8, 2019, the City of Palm Desert distributed AB 52 and SB 18 consultation letters for the proposed Project to each of the following 13 Native American tribes DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-17 identified by the NAHC as having traditional lands or cultural places within City boundaries. Copies of the letters are provided in Appendix D. • Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (AB 52 and SB 18 consultation) • Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians (AB 52 and SB 18 consultation) • Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (AB 52 and SB 18 consultation) • Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (SB 18 consultation) • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) (SB 18 consultation) • Cahuilla Band of Indians (SB 18 consultation) • Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (AB 52 and SB 18 consultation) • Chemehuevi Reservation (SB 18 consultation) • Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians (SB 18 consultation) • Morongo Band of Mission Indians (SB 18 consultation) • Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians (SB 18 consultation) • Colorado River Indian Tribes (SB 18 consultation) • Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians (SB 18 consultation) As of April 2019, written responses have been received from 2 tribes. Copies of the tribal responses are provided in Appendix D. Summaries of the responses are as follows: • Morongo Band of Mission Indians: The Tribe does not have any information to provide at this time and the Project is deferred to the ACBCI for more information. • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians: The Project site is not located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation; however, it lies within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. Therefore, the Tribe has requested the following: o A copy of the records search with associated survey reports and site records from the information center; and o Copies of cultural resource reports prepared for the Project. Surf Lagoon and Surf Center No tribal cultural resources are known to exist on the Project site. Tribal representatives indicated that the site does not contain any tribal cultural resources. However, the site is within the Traditional Use Area of the ACBCI. Therefore, the potential exists for archaeological resources to be uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, including the deep excavation required for the parking structure and pool and lagoon backwash drainage structures. As described in Section 2.5.6.b., above, the inclusion of construction staff training, and the requirement for monitoring should resources be identified, will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. Hotel and Villas As is the case for the surf center, the hotel and villa component of the Project has the potential for archaeological resources to be uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, including the DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-18 deep excavation required for the parking structures and pool and lagoon backwash drainage structures. As described in Section 2.5.6.b., above, the inclusion of construction staff training, and the requirement for monitoring should resources be identified, will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. Off-Site Improvements Stormwater Management: Installation of subsurface stormwater management infrastructure will involve excavation and other soil disturbances that could uncover tribal resources. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Installation of subsurface pool and lagoon discharge pipes will involve excavation and other soil disturbances that could uncover tribal resources. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. Golf Course Turf Reduction: Removal and replacement of existing turf with native landscaping will result in soil disturbances. These areas have been previously disturbed for existing landscaping, and since the replacement with drought-tolerant landscaping will occur in areas and at depths that have previously been significantly disturbed, no impact is expected. Overflow Parking: The Project will result in improvement of an existing parking lot southeast of the subject property. The parking lot has already been disturbed from grading and vehicle use, and it is unlikely to harbor subsurface tribal resources. Nonetheless, there is limited potential for such resources to be unearthed during ground-disturbing activities. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of CUL-1 and CUL-2. Soil Removal/Storage: Project development will result in excavation, removal and placement, and storage of soils. The placement of soils off-site will not impact tribal resources, and any resources identified during collection of soils would have been identified during site disturbance. This activity will not result in any impact to tribal resources. 2.5.7 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: CUL-1 Worker Education Program: Prior to commencing any phase of Project ground disturbance, all personnel working onsite shall be required to complete a worker education program performed by a qualified archaeologist that describes potential archaeological artifacts, human remains, and other cultural materials that could be unearthed during the Project development process, and the procedures required in the event such a discovery is made. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-19 CUL-2 Monitoring: If buried cultural materials are encountered inadvertently during any earth-moving operations associated with the Project, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. The archaeologist shall prepare a findings report summarizing the methods and results of the investigation, including an itemized inventory and detailed analysis of recovered artifacts upon completion of field and laboratory work. The report shall include an interpretation of the cultural activities represented by the artifacts and discussion of their significance. The submittal of the report to the City and Tribal representative, as appropriate, along with final disposition of the recovered artifacts in a manner consistent with determination of the lead agency, Project archaeologist, and consulting tribes, will signify the completion of the monitoring program and, barring unexpected findings of significance, the mitigation of potential project impacts on cultural and tribal resources. CUL-3 Human Remains: Should buried human remains be discovered during grading or other construction activities, in accordance with State law, the County coroner shall be contacted. If the remains are determined to be of Native American heritage, the Native American Heritage Commission and the appropriate local Native American Tribe shall be contacted to determine the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). 2.5.8 Significance After Mitigation With implementation of the mitigation measures set forth above, Project-related impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources will be less than significant. 2.5.9 Cumulative Impacts The geographic scope of analysis of potential cumulative impacts on cultural, historical, and tribal resources includes the Project site, its immediate vicinity, and the traditional use areas of the Cahuilla people in the Coachella Valley. The Project would contribute considerably to cumulative impacts if it were to have a substantial or significant adverse effect on such resources in the Coachella Valley. The cultural resources survey conducted for the proposed Project evaluated a wide range of literature, data, and information on historic, archaeological, and tribal resources that has added to a baseline of knowledge and understanding of these resources. Tribal representatives were contacted for their knowledge, input, and coordination regarding the presence of tribal resources in the Project area. No historical resources have been identified onsite as listed or eligible for listing under the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places. No archaeological resources have been identified onsite. The potential for buried artifacts or resources to be unearthed during Project development exists; however, potential impacts will DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.5-20 be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of the mitigation measures set forth above. No new unmitigated impacts to historic or archaeological resources will result from the construction or operation of the proposed Project that are cumulatively considerable. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.6 Energy 2.6.1 Introduction This section of the EIR analyzes the Project’s potential impacts on energy resources. This analysis was prepared pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended in January of 2019. An EIR is required to include a discussion of potential energy impacts, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing the inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. This section evaluates the demand for energy resources attributable to the Project during construction and operation, demonstrates whether the current and planned electrical, natural gas, and petroleum-based fuel supplies and distribution systems are adequate to meet the Project’s forecasted energy consumption, and makes a determination regarding the Project’s use and conservation of energy resources. 2.6.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant effect on energy resources if it would: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. 2.6.3 Regulatory Framework Federal, state, and local agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs. On the federal level, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are three federal DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-2 agencies with substantial influence over energy policies and programs. On the state level, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and California Energy Commission (CEC) are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy. Relevant state and local energy- related regulations are summarized below. Federal National Energy Policy Act of 2005 The National Energy Policy Act of 2005 sets equipment energy-efficiency standards, seeks to reduce reliance on nonrenewable energy resources, and provides incentives to reduce current demand on these resources. For example, the Act included $2.3 billion in incentives for high- efficiency (including electric) vehicles, new and existing homes, commercial buildings, and for manufacturers of high-efficiency appliances. Additionally, the Act addresses combined heat and power, appliance labeling, research and development, efficiency in federal and public facilities, building energy codes, public housing, and other efficiency topics. State California 2008 Energy Action Plan Update The 2008 update to the 2005 Energy Action Plan II is the State’s principal energy planning and policy document. The updated document examines the state’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change. The Energy Action Plan II continues the goals of the original 2003 Energy Action Plan, describes a coordinated implementation plan for state energy policies, and identifies specific action areas to ensure that California’s energy resources are adequate, affordable, technologically advanced, and environmentally sound. In accordance with this plan, the first-priority actions to address California’s increasing energy demands are energy efficiency and demand response (i.e., reduction of customer energy usage during peak periods to address system reliability and support the best use of energy infrastructure). Additional priorities include the use of renewable sources of power and distributed generation (i.e., the use of relatively small power plants near or at centers of high demand). To the extent that these actions are unable to satisfy the increasing energy demand and transmission capacity needs, clean and efficient fossil-fired generation is supported. The California 2008 Energy Action Plan Update examines policy changes in the areas of energy efficiency, demand response, renewable energy, electricity reliability and infrastructure, electricity market structure, natural gas supply and infrastructure, research and development, and climate change. Assembly Bill 32 (2006) and Senate Bill 32 (2016) In 2006, the Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2016, the Legislature enacted SB 32, which extended the horizon year of the state’s codified GHG DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-3 reduction planning targets from 2020 to 2030, requiring California to reduce its GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. In accordance with AB 32 and SB 32, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) prepares scoping plans to guide the development of statewide policies and regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions. Many of the policy and regulatory concepts identified in the scoping plans focused on increasing energy efficiencies and the use of renewable resources and reducing the consumption of petroleum-based fuels (such as gasoline and diesel). As such, the state’s GHG emissions reduction planning framework creates co- benefits for energy-related resources. Additional information on AB 32 and SB 32 is provided in Section 2.8 of this EIR. Senate Bill 375 Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) directs CARB to set regional targets for reducing GHG emissions. Specifically, SB 375 builds on the existing framework of regional planning to tie together the regional allocation of housing needs and regional transportation planning in an effort to reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicle trips. SB 375 requires each MPO to include a “Sustainable Communities Strategy” (SCS) in the regional transportation plan that demonstrates how the region will meet the GHG emission targets and help achieve the reduction goals for cars and light trucks under AB 32. Additional information on SB 375 and SCS is provided in Section 2.8 of this EIR. California Building Standards Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 1978 and serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. Part 6 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings constructed in California to reduce energy demand and consumption. Part 6 is updated periodically to incorporate and consider new energy efficiency technologies and methodologies. The 2016 Title 24 building energy efficiency standards, which became effective on January 1, 2017, further reduce energy used in the state. In general, single-family homes built to the 2016 standards are anticipated to use approximately 28% less energy for lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and water heating than those built to the 2013 standards, and non-residential buildings built to the 2016 standards will use an estimated 5% less energy than those built to the 2013 standards (CEC 2015c). Title 24 also includes Part 11, the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen). The CALGreen standards took effect in January 2011 and instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up, new construction of commercial, low- rise residential, and state-owned buildings, as well as schools and hospitals. The 2016 CALGreen standards became effective on January 1, 2017. The mandatory standards require the following: • 20% mandatory reduction in indoor water use DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-4 • 50% diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfills • Mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency Integrated Energy Policy Report The California Energy Commission (CEC) is responsible for preparing integrated energy policy reports, which identify emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and maintenance of a healthy economy. The CEC’s 2015 Integrated Energy Policy Report discusses the state’s policy goal to require that new residential construction be designed to achieve zero net energy (ZNE) standards by 2020 and that new non-residential construction be designed to achieve ZNE standards by 2030. State Vehicle Standards In response to the transportation sector accounting for more than half of California’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, AB 1493 was enacted in 2002. AB 1493 required CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles determined by the state board to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. The 2009–2012 standards resulted in a reduction in approximately 22% in GHG emissions compared to emissions from the 2002 fleet, and the 2013–2016 standards resulted in a reduction of approximately 30%. In 2012, CARB approved a new emissions-control program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards called Advanced Clean Cars. By 2025, when the rules would be fully implemented, new automobiles would emit 34% fewer global warming gases and 75% fewer smog-forming emissions (CARB 2011). Although the focus of the state’s vehicle standards is on the reduction of air pollutants and GHG emissions, one co-benefit of implementation of these standards is a reduced demand for petroleum-based fuels. Regional and Local Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory In 2008, the City of Palm Desert completed their Greenhouse Gas Inventory as part of their first major planning step towards climate protection and compliance with AB 32 and SB 375. The intent of the GHG Inventory is to quantify existing Citywide emissions and compile GHG reduction measures and policies in a strategic framework to project future emissions. The GHG Inventory was updated in 2013 and provides a quantified comparison between 2008 and 2013 emissions. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-5 In the 2008 baseline year, the City of Palm Desert emitted 621,225 metric tons of CO2e. This baseline summary represents a GHG intensity of 12.2 metric tons per capita. According to the Inventory, electricity and natural gas usage accounted for approximately 53.4% of total Citywide CO2e emissions, and Transportation related emissions accounted for 36.8% of total Citywide CO2e emissions. In 2013, the City of Palm Desert emitted 615,941 metric tons of CO2e, representing a 5,284 metric ton decrease from 2008 (621,225 metric tons) with a GHG intensity of 12.3 metric tons per capita 1 . According to the 2013 Inventory Update, electricity and natural gas usage accounted for approximately 52% of total Citywide CO2e emissions, and Transportation related emissions accounted for 37.8% of total Citywide CO2e emissions. Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan (ESP) In 2010, the City of Palm Desert adopted the Environmental Sustainability Plan (ESP), which builds off the 2008 GHG Inventory and demonstrates how the City has been involved in issues relating to environmental sustainability, including energy, waste management, storm water, water reclamation, transportation, and landscaping.2 Following the update of the City’s GHG Inventory, the ESP was also updated, in 2016, to be responsive to current trends. The Plan sets out a series of goals for the City that are grounded in the principles of environmental soundness and sustainable development and addresses six resource areas, including the built environment. Palm Desert General Plan The City’s General Plan addresses energy by including policies for improving energy efficiency, reducing waste, recycling, and managing water use. The General Plan also seeks to reduce energy consumption through minimizing VMT; approving land use patterns that support increased density in areas where there is infrastructure to support it; creating increased opportunities for transit, pedestrians, and bicycles; and encouraging and approving green building and land development conservation initiatives.3 The following Palm Desert General Plan policies pertain to energy resources and are relevant to the proposed Project: • Policy 6.1 Passive solar design. Require new buildings to incorporate energy efficient building and site design strategies for the desert environment that include appropriate solar orientation, thermal mass, use of natural daylight and ventilation, and shading. 1 The overall decrease in CO2e is accompanied by natural City growth, particularly in the commercial sector, meaning the City is making progress in implementing GHG reduction programs. The slight increase in per capita intensity is due to higher population estimates previously assumed by Riverside County, which was the basis for projecting per capita intensities. 2 Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan (2010). 3 Palm Desert General Plan (20016) – Page 97-98. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-6 • Policy 6.3 Energy Efficient Buildings. Encourage new buildings and buildings undergoing major retrofits to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards. • Policy 6.11 Energy-efficient infrastructure. Whenever possible, use energy-efficient models and technology when replacing or providing new city infrastructure such as streetlights, traffic signals, water conveyance pumps, or other public infrastructure. 2.6.4 Environmental Setting Primary energy sources include nuclear energy, fossil energy (oil, coal and natural gas) and renewable sources like wind, solar, geothermal and hydropower. These primary sources are converted to electricity, a secondary energy source, which flows through power lines and other transmission infrastructure to developments. Electricity Electricity, a consumptive utility, is a man-made resource. The delivery of electricity involves a number of system components, including substations and transformers that lower transmission line power (voltage) to a level appropriate for on-site distribution and use. Conveyance of electricity through transmission lines is typically responsive to project demands. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources (e.g., water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources) into electric energy. In California, the main sources of electrical energy are conventional and renewable sources as follows:4 Energy capacity, or electrical power, is generally measured in watts, while energy use is measured in watt-hours. Residential, commercial, and industrial sectors are the three main consumers of electricity. According to the California Energy Commission, statewide electricity 4 California State Auditor Report 2007-119 (January 2018). Conventional Sources Natural gas 41.5% Large hydro 19.0% Coal 15.7% Nuclear 12.9% Subtotal 89.1% Renewable Sources Geothermal 4.7% Biomass 2.1% Small hydro 2.1% Wind 1.8% Solar 0.2% Subtotal 10.9% DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-7 consumption in 2019 is projected to be approximately 320,000 GWh which will increase to 333,838 GWh in 2022.5 The Statewide Electricity Annual Consumption per capita is also projected to grow from 7,700 kWh in 2019 to 7,900 kWh in 2022.6 The average annual electricity demand growth in California from 2012 to 2024 is expected to range from 0.88 to 1.82 percent, while peak annual electricity demand growth is expected to range from 0.97 to 1.92 percent.7 Natural Gas Natural gas is a combustible mixture of simple hydrocarbon compounds (primarily methane) that is used as a fuel source. Natural gas consumed in California is obtained from naturally occurring reservoirs, mainly located outside the State, and delivered through high-pressure transmission pipelines. The natural gas transportation system is a nationwide network, and therefore resource availability is typically not an issue. Natural gas satisfies almost one-third of the State’s total energy requirements and is used in electricity generation, space heating, cooking, water heating, industrial processes, and as a transportation fuel. Natural gas is measured in terms of cubic feet. According to the California Energy Commission, statewide natural gas consumption in 2019 is projected to be approximately 13,500 MM therms, which will increase to 13,929 MM therms in 2022.8 The Statewide natural gas annual consumption per capita is projected to decline from 340 therms in 2019 to 330 therms in 2022.9 Fossil Fuels According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), transportation accounts for nearly 40% of California’s total energy consumption and approximately 39% of the State’s greenhouse gas emissions.10 In 2015, California consumed 23.2 billion gallons of petroleum, including 15.5 billion gallons of finished gasoline and 3.7 billion gallons of diesel.11 The state is now working on developing flexible strategies to reduce petroleum use. Over the last decade, California has implemented 5 California Energy Demand 2012-2022 Final Forecast by California Energy Commission – Table 1-1 (Final Forecasts of Statewide Electricity Demand). 6 California Energy Demand 2012-2022 Final Forecast by California Energy Commission – Figure 1-2 (Final Forecasts of Statewide Electricity Demand). 7 2013 Integrated Energy Policy Report, California Energy Commission. 8 California Energy Demand 2012-2022 Final Forecast by California Energy Commission – Table 1-1 (Final Forecasts of Statewide Electricity Demand). 9 California Energy Demand 2012-2022 Final Forecast by California Energy Commission – Figure 1-2 (Final Forecasts of Statewide Electricity Demand). 10 Integrated Energy Policy Report 2013 IEPR by California Energy Commission – Page 21. 11 Revised Transportation Energy Demand Forecast, 2018-2030, by California Energy Commission (February 2018) – Page 35. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-8 several policies, rules, and regulations to improve vehicle efficiency, increase the development and use of alternative fuels, reduce air pollutants and GHGs from the transportation sector, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Accordingly, gasoline consumption in California has declined. The CEC predicts that the demand for gasoline will continue to decline over the next ten years and there will be an increase in the use of alternative fuels, such as natural gas, biofuels, and electricity. According to the CEC, current statewide gasoline consumption is approximately 15.2 billion gallons which is projected to decrease to 12.6 billion gallons in 2030.12 The current statewide diesel consumption is approximately 4.10 billion gallons which is also projected to decrease to 3.85 billion gallons in 2030.13 2.6.5 Existing Conditions Electricity The Project site is located within the SCE service area which covers approximately 50,000 square miles. Currently, SCE serves approximately 4.4 million residential service accounts and 520,000 commercial service accounts which use up to 69 percent of total electricity in SCE’s service area.14 SCE is mandated to include alternative energy sources to reduce electricity demands. For the residential sector, SCE’s goal is to save approximately 272,779,591 kWh and 300,875,517 in 2020 and 2025, respectively. For the commercial sector, SCE’s goal is to save approximately 284,192,845 kWh and 313,464,319 kWh in 2020 and 2025, respectively.15 The California Energy Commission estimated that the total electricity consumption for Riverside County was 15,906.31 million kWh in 2017.16 According to the Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory Update, city-wide electricity usage in Palm Desert in 2013 was 756,834,386 kWh17. This includes all electricity consumed by municipal buildings, residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, and resorts and golf courses, combined. The report has not since been updated, and a more recent estimate is not currently available. However, it can be assumed that current electricity usage per capita will be comparable to 2013, if not less, due to the increased energy efficiency standards of the California Building and Energy Codes. 12 California Energy Demand 2012-2022 Final Forecast by California Energy Commission – Table 1-1 (Final Forecasts of Statewide Electricity Demand). 13 Revised Transportation Energy Demand Forecast, 2018-2030, by California Energy Commission (February 2018) – Page 74-76. 14 Errata to Southern California Edison Company’s Amended Energy Efficiency Rolling Portfolio Business Plan For 2018-2025 by SCE (May 15, 2017) – Page 42 and 43. 15 Errata to Southern California Edison Company’s Amended Energy Efficiency Rolling Portfolio Business Plan For 2018-2025 by SCE (May 15, 2017). 16 California Energy Commission - California Energy Consumption Database for Riverside County, total electricity consumption for 2017. 17 Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2013 Update. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-9 Currently, SCE distribution lines are located in proximity to Project site, from Portola Avenue, bordering Desert Willow Resort on the west, through Desert Willow Westin Villas, and along the northerly boundary of the Project site toward Desert Willow Drive and the existing clubhouse. Given that an SCE transformer, large underground vault, and cooling vent are located east of the Westin Villas on the northerly boundary of site, it appears that this location is the terminus of a larger distribution line or transmission line. Currently, the Project site is predominantly undeveloped and not using any electricity. A negligible amount of electricity is used by pole-mounted lights in the existing parking area. Natural Gas Natural gas is provided to the City of Palm Desert by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). The service territory of SoCalGas encompasses approximately 20,000 square miles in diverse terrain throughout central and southern California, from the City of Visalia to the Mexican border.18 SoCalGas receives gas supplies from several sedimentary basins in the western United States and Canada, as well as local California supplies.19 Natural gas for SoCalGas is delivered to the region through interstate pipelines. Natural gas supplies are transported from Texas to the Coachella Valley through three east-west trending gas lines, which cross the Valley near and parallel to Interstate-10 and continue west to Los Angeles. In the Project area, existing underground natural gas lines are located at the perimeter of the Desert Willow Drive traffic circle, immediately north of the Project site. According to the Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory Update, city-wide natural gas consumption totaled 17,532,930 therms in 201320. This includes natural gas consumed by residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, and resorts and golf courses. The report has not been updated, and a more recent estimate is not currently available. However, similar to statewide predictions, it can be assumed that the annual consumption of natural gas per capita within the City of Palm Desert will be comparable to 2013 or will decline. The Project site does not currently consume any natural gas. Transportation Energy Most energy for transportation is provided by petroleum in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel. Petroleum accounts for more than 90 percent of California’s transportation energy sources21. Alternative fuels such as ethanol, natural gas, biodiesel, hydrogen, and electricity are also used for transportation. 18 SoCalGas, Company Profile, https://www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-profile, accessed November 2018. 19 California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2014 California Gas Report, https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2014-cgr.pdf, accessed November 2018. 20 Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2013 Update. 21 “California Fuel Facts” by Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), April 2017 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-10 According to the Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory Update, there were 510,875,864 vehicle miles traveled in Palm Desert in 2013. This includes both the municipal fleet and community-wide miles traveled. It should be noted that the original 2008 inventory reported an annual VMT of 368,694,193, which represented a 35% increase in VMTs but only a 2% increase in CO2e emission. This difference in emissions is attributed to increased vehicle fuel efficiency standards meaning less fuel energy is required for increased VMTs. The undeveloped portion of the Project site currently generates no VMT. The existing parking lot is used by the Desert Willow Golf Club. 2.6.6 Project Impacts a) Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Construction Energy Demand During Project construction, energy would be consumed in three general forms: (1) petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker travel to and from the project site, and delivery and haul truck trips (e.g. hauling of demolition material to off-site reuse and disposal facilities); (2) electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power; and (3) energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Electricity Surf Lagoon and Surf Center Temporary electrical lines will be extended to the site prior to the initiation of construction. Once extended, electricity would be supplied to the project site by SCE. During construction of Phase I, electricity would be consumed to construct a new surf lagoon and associated facilities, including buildings, swimming pools, maintenance facilities, and parking lots. To the greatest extent feasible, new service installations and connections would be scheduled and implemented in a manner that would not result in electrical service interruptions to other properties. Compliance with SCE’s guidelines and requirements would ensure that the Project DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-11 applicant fulfills its responsibilities relative to infrastructure installation, coordinates any electrical infrastructure installation and extension SCE, and limits any impacts associated with grading, construction, and development within SCE easements. Extension of the electric lines and construction of the Project is not anticipated to adversely affect the electrical infrastructure serving surrounding properties or utility system capacity. Electricity consumed during Project construction would vary throughout the construction period based on the construction activities being performed. Activities requiring electricity could include powering outdoor security or worksite lighting, operation and charging of electronic equipment, and powering a temporary worksite office or trailer. Such electricity demand would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Electricity may also be used to incrementally power Project improvements as they are buildout, which is further discussed under “Operational Energy Demands” below. Overall, electricity will not be the primary energy source used during construction. Instead, the use of equipment fuels such as diesel and petroleum will be the primary energy source. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. (See “Transportation Energy” for analysis of energy demands during construction). Hotels and Villas After the construction of Phase I, electrical lines will be available for Phase II construction, including construction of the hotel(s), villas, and associated maintenance, recreational, and parking facilities. Similar to the construction of the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center, construction of this component of the Project will comply with applicable SCE guidelines regarding installation, extensions, and connections to limit impacts to electricity infrastructure and avoid service interruptions. Also, the use of equipment fuels such as diesel and petroleum will be the primary energy source during construction. The demand for electricity to power security lighting, electronic equipment, and a temporary worksite office/trailer would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Therefore, impacts related to electricity during construction of this component of the Project will be less than significant. Offsite Improvements Similar to the Surf Lagoon and Hotel components of the project, construction of offsite improvements would result in the temporary and nominal use of electricity, and primarily require energy from equipment fuels such as petroleum and diesel. The demand for electricity to power security lighting and electronic equipment would cease upon the completion of construction. Therefore, impacts related to electricity during construction of offsite improvements will be less than significant. Overall, construction activities associated with the Project would require limited electricity that would not be expected to have an adverse impact on available electricity supplies and infrastructure. Therefore, the use of electricity during Project construction would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Impacts during construction will be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-12 Natural Gas Surf Lagoon and Surf Center Construction of the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center typically would not involve the consumption of natural gas. Construction would, however, involve installation of new natural gas connections to serve the Project site. Existing underground natural gas lines are located at the perimeter of the Desert Willow Traffic Circle; during construction, they would be extended to the site. Construction impacts associated with the installation of natural gas connections are expected to be confined to trenching in order to place the lines below ground. Prior to ground disturbance, Project contractors would notify and coordinate with SoCalGas to identify the locations and depths of all existing gas lines and avoid disruption of gas service. The use of natural gas during Project construction would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Construction-related impacts to natural gas supplies and infrastructure would be less than significant. Hotels and Villas Construction-related natural gas impacts associated with buildout of the Hotels and Villas will be comparable to buildout of the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center. Primary impacts related to natural gas will be infrastructure based, as it is not expected to require the direct consumption of natural gas. Prior to ground disturbance, Project contractors would notify and coordinate with SoCalGas to identify the locations and depths of all existing gas lines and avoid disruption of gas service. The use of natural gas during Project construction would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Construction-related impacts to natural gas supplies and infrastructure would be less than significant. Offsite Improvements The construction of stormwater management pipes, pool and lagoon discharge pipes, the removal of turf and replacement with drought-tolerant landscaping and site-adjacent landscaping on the golf course, and the paving and improvement of the off-site parking lot will not require natural gas. Nor would it be necessary to install natural gas line extensions for these components of the project, as none of them will require natural gas for operations. Therefore, the off-site improvements associated with the proposed Project will have no impact on natural gas supplies. Transportation Energy Due to the cumulative nature of construction-related petroleum-based fuels impacts, the following discussion encompasses the combined impacts associated with construction of the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center, the Hotels and Villas, and Offsite Improvements. Fuel consumed by construction equipment, such as petroleum and diesel, would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of construction, and VMT associated with the transportation of construction materials and construction worker commutes would also result DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-13 in petroleum consumption. Heavy-duty construction equipment associated with construction activities, as well as haul trucks involved in moving dirt around the project area, would rely on diesel fuel. Construction workers would travel to and from the project area throughout the duration of construction. It is assumed that construction workers would travel to and from the project area in gasoline- powered vehicles. It is expected that most construction workers will live locally, which would minimize the need for long commutes and limit fuel consumption. According to the CalEEMod outputs in Appendix B, generated for air quality analysis, it is assumed that worker trip lengths are 11 miles, vendor trip lengths are 5.4 miles, and hauling trip lengths are 2.5 miles. Based on the number of trips required to complete project construction that were generated by the CalEEMod software, combined VMTs for workers, vendors, and hauling will be 39,732 miles. Because it is assumed that most construction workers will live locally, it is reasonable to assume that these VMTs have already been accounted for in the community-wide VMT assumptions for worker commutes, insofar as these workers currently commute to other job sites, and do not constitute a new source of VMTs. Buildout of the project will, however, result in additional VMTs and is further discussed below under “Operational Energy Demands.” Overall, petroleum and diesel use during construction would be temporary and minimal and would not be wasteful or inefficient. Construction-related transportation energy impacts associated with the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center, the Hotels and Villas, and Offsite Improvements would be less than significant. Operational Energy Demands During operation of the Project, energy would be consumed for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, heating/ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC), refrigeration, lighting, electronics, office equipment, residential and commercial machinery (including kitchen appliances), and swimming pool operations, including wave generation at the surf lagoon. Energy would also be consumed for water pumping, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips. Electricity Due to the cumulative nature of operation-related electricity energy impacts, the following discussion encompasses the combined impacts associated with operation of the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center, and the Hotels and Villas. According to the CalEEMod outputs and Lagoon specific utility data22, the Project would consume approximately 21,711,725 kWh per year of electricity. This represents a 2.87 percent increase in annual City-wide kWh usage. 22 Per the Project-specific lighting plan, pole/tower lighting for the lagoon will have a max load of 39 kw for 7 hours per day (night lighting) for 365 days per year, totaling 99,645 kWh/yr. The average wave machine requires a maximum average load of 1,622 kw for 18 hours a day for 365 days per year, totaling 10,656,540 kWh/yr. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-14 The Project proposes the installation of solar panels onsite which could generate an estimated 1,700,000 kWh per year. Operation of the solar panels will offset the Project’s electrical demand, thereby reducing it to approximately 20,011,725 kWh per year, which represents approximately 2.64 percent of the City’s total annual electricity demand. In addition, adherence to current California Building Code and Energy Code standards will ensure the most energy efficient technologies and practices are used for the development and operation of the Project. The Project will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electrical energy resources during project operation. Impacts are less than significant. Offsite Improvements Offsite improvements are limited to utility infrastructure expansions, offsite parking, and landscaping improvements. Such improvements will not generate an operational demand for electricity and will therefore have no impact on electrical energy supplies. Natural Gas Due to the cumulative nature of operation-related natural gas energy impacts, the following discussion encompasses the combined impacts associated with operation of the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center and the Hotels and Villas. Operation of the proposed Project would consume natural gas for heating, cooking, and powering equipment such as furnaces. According to the CalEEMod outputs and Lagoon specific utility data, operation of the Project would consume approximately 331,811 therms per year of natural gas, which is equivalent to 1.89 percent increase in annual City wide therm usage. As previously discussed, adherence to current California Building Code and Energy Code standards will ensure the most energy efficient technologies and practices are used for the development and operation of the Project. The Project will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of natural gas energy resources during project operation. Impacts are less than significant. Offsite Improvements Offsite improvements are limited to utility infrastructure expansions, offsite parking, and landscaping improvements. Such improvements will not generate an operational demand for natural gas and will therefore have no impact on natural gas energy supplies. Transportation Energy Due to the cumulative nature of operation-related transportation energy impacts, the following discussion encompasses the combined impacts associated with operation of the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center and the Hotels and Villas. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-15 During operation, the Project would result in the consumption of petroleum-based fuels related to vehicular travel to and from the Project site. According to the Project-specific traffic analysis, the Project is estimated to generate 5,496 daily vehicle trips under typical daily operations, and 7,288 daily vehicle trips during a special event. Daily visitors will include a mix of local residents and out of town visitors. As explained in Section 2.15.6.b (Transportation) of this DEIR, for analysis purposes, it is assumed that the average daily trip length is 25 miles. This accounts for local residents who are estimated to travel approximately 15 miles to the Project site from within the Coachella Valley, and out of town visitors who are estimated to travel further to the Project site from outside the valley. Based on this estimate, the Project could potentially generate 12,213,217 VMTs. This represents a 2.4 percent increase in City-wide VMTs. It should be noted that VMTs are regional in nature, and that not all Project VMTs will occur solely within the City’s boundaries. The EPA and CARB continue to require increased vehicle fuel efficiency standards to reduce vehicle emissions. Increased fuel efficiency also means that less fuel energy is required per mile traveled. Although the Project will result in a direct increase in VMTs, the Project will not interfere with increased fuel efficiency standards and will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy resources during operation. Impacts are less than significant. Offsite Improvements Offsite improvements are limited to utility infrastructure expansions, offsite parking, and landscaping improvements. Such improvements will not generate traffic and will therefore have no impact on transportation energy. b) Will the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The proposed Project would be designed, built and operated in accordance with all existing, applicable regulations that would serve to reduce the energy demand of the Project and avoid conflict with any applicable energy standards, including energy conservation standards. Such regulations and standards include the 2016 Building Code, California Green Building Code, and 2019 Energy Code to ensure the most efficient construction/building technologies are used, which will benefit overall building operations. The Project includes the installation of solar panels to reduce energy use in the surf center and may include solar installation in the hotel and villa component. The Project will not interfere with any state or local plan that promotes renewable energy or energy efficiency. Adherence to the applicable state standards enforced by the City will ensure the project is consistent with current energy standards and conservation goals. Therefore, no impact related to compliance with applicable energy standards would result. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-16 2.6.7 Mitigation Measures Given the Project’s less than significant impacts, no mitigation measures are required. 2.6.8 Significance After Mitigation Project-level energy impacts would be less than significant. 2.6.9 Cumulative Impacts Potential cumulative impacts on energy would result if the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and future projects, would result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. This could result from development that would not incorporate sufficient building energy efficiency features, would not achieve building energy efficiency standards, or would result in the unnecessary use of energy during construction and/or operation. The cumulative projects within the areas serviced by the energy service providers would be applicable to this analysis. Projects that include development of large buildings or other structures that would have the potential to consume energy in an inefficient manner would have the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact. Projects that would mostly include construction, such as transportation infrastructure, could also contribute to a cumulative impact; however, the impact of these projects would be limited because they would typically not involve substantial ongoing energy use. As described previously, the proposed Project would result in an increase in the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and transportation-related energy, however, would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy due to various design features, including design to accommodate a balanced mix of uses internal to the proposed Project, installation of energy-efficient appliances and efficient water fixtures, and the offset of electrical energy usage through the installation of PV solar panels. Similar to the proposed Project, the cumulative projects would be subject to CALGreen, which provides energy efficiency standards for commercial and residential buildings. CALGreen would implement increasingly stringent energy efficiency standards that would require the proposed Project and the cumulative projects to minimize the wasteful and inefficient use of energy. In addition, cumulative projects would be required to meet or exceed the Title 24 building standards, further reducing the inefficient use of energy. Future development would also be required to meet even more stringent requirements, including the objectives set in the AB 32 Scoping Plan (CARB 2017), which would seek to make all newly constructed residential homes zero net energy (ZNE) consumers by 202023, and all 23 New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan 2015-2020 – Executive Summary by California Public Utilities Commission Energy Division and california Energy Commission Efficiency Division. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.6-17 new commercial buildings zero net energy (ZNE) consumers by 2030.24 Furthermore, various federal, state and local regulations would serve to reduce the transportation fuel demand of cumulative projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to energy resources are considered less than significant. 24 Zero Net Energy - California Public Utilities Commission Energy Division; http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/ZNE/, accessed December 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.7 Geology and Soils This section describes the existing geological setting within the Project area and its vicinity, and evaluates the potential impacts related to seismic hazards, underlying soil characteristics, slope stability, erosion, and excavation that may result from implementation of the DSRT SURF Specific Plan. A wide range of data and information, from research and analysis conducted for the Project area, to regional-scale planning and environmental documents, have been used in researching and analyzing the Project and its potential effects. These include detailed analysis of regional and local geology, tectonics, soils, and seismicity conditions, as well as detailed analysis of future conditions. 2.7.1 Thresholds of Significance Based upon Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would be significantly affected by soils and/or geological conditions if it would: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking. iii) Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-2 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. 2.7.2 Regulatory Framework State Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. In accordance with this act, the State Geologist established regulatory zones, called “earthquake fault zones,” around the surface traces of active faults and has published maps showing these zones. Earthquake fault zones are designated by the California Geological Survey (CGS) and are delineated along traces of faults where mapping demonstrates surface fault rupture has occurred within the past 11,000 years. Construction within these zones cannot be permitted until a geologic investigation has been conducted to prove that a building planned for human occupancy will not be constructed across an active fault. These types of site evaluations address the precise location and recency of rupture along traces of the faults and are typically based on observations made in trenches excavated across fault traces. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act Like the Alquist-Priolo Act, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (Public Resources Code Sections 2690 to 2699.6) is intended to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. While the Alquist-Priolo Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses other earthquake-related hazards, including strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically-induced landslides. Its provisions are similar in concept to those of the Alquist-Priolo Act; the State is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other corollary hazards. Cities and counties are required to regulate development within mapped Seismic Hazard Zones. Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, permit review is the primary mechanism for local regulation of development. Specifically, cities and counties are prohibited from issuing development permits for sites within Seismic Hazard Zones until appropriate site-specific geologic and/or geotechnical investigations have been conducted and measures to reduce potential damage have been incorporated into the development plans. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-3 California Building Code (CBC) The CBC has been codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as Title 24, Part 2. Title 24 is administered by the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Under state law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable. The purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum standards to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, and general stability by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures. The provisions of the CBC apply to the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout California. The 2016 CBC incorporates by adoption the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) of the International Code Council with necessary California amendments.1 It also contains California amendments based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Minimum Design Standards 7-05. ASCE 7-05 provides requirements for general structural design and includes means for determining earthquake loads as well as other loads (such as wind loads) for inclusion into building codes. The City of Palm Desert has adopted the 2016 CBC, with City-specific amendments. Regional and Local Palm Desert General Plan The City’s General Plan takes steps to address local geological hazards by including programs and policies to reduce potential slope instabilities, expansive soils, excessive erosion, structural instability, liquefaction, subsidence, wind erosion, and sedimentation risks. The applicable policies would help the project to avoid or reduce potential impacts to an acceptable level, for example: Chapter 8. Safety • Policy 2.1 Seismic Standards. Consider exceeding minimum seismic safety standards for critical facilities that ensure building function and support continuity of critical services and emergency response after a seismic event. • Policy 2.2 Structural Stability. Maintain development code standards to prohibit siting of new septic tanks, seepage pits, drainage facilities, and heavily irrigated areas away from structure foundations to reduce potential soil collapse. 1 2016 California Building Code by California Building Standards Commission, https://archive.org/details/gov.ca.bsc.title24.2016.02.1, accessed November 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-4 • Policy 2.3 Seismic Retrofits to the Existing Building Stock. Create a phased program for seismic retrofits to existing public and private unreinforced buildings to meet current requirements. • Policy 3.1 Flood Risk in New Development. Require all new development to minimize flood risk with siting and design measures, such as grading that prevents adverse drainage impacts to adjacent properties, on-site retention of runoff, and minimization of structures located in floodplains. • Policy 3.2 Flood Infrastructure. Require new development to contribute to funding regional flood control infrastructure improvements. 2.7.3 Environmental Setting Regional Geology The Project area is located in the Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province. This province consists of a low-lying barren desert basin, about 245 feet below sea level in in its southern portion, and is dominated by the Salton Sea. The province is a depressed block between active branches of the alluvium-covered San Andreas Fault, with the southern extension of the Mojave Desert on the east. It is characterized by the ancient beach lines and silt deposits of extinct Lake Cahuilla. More specifically, the Project site is located within the Coachella Valley which is under the influence of two major geologic fault zones: the San Andreas Fault Zone and San Jacinto Fault Zone. The San Andreas Fault is a transform boundary between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. This fault consists of a complex system of faults whose boundaries are still poorly defined. The San Jacinto fault zone is one of the major branches of this system in Southern California, and forms a strike-slip fault zone. Both fault zones are active and can generate earthquakes of magnitude >7.0 on the Richter scale, which trigger seismic hazards such as ground shaking, landslides and liquefaction. The Coachella Valley is bounded by the San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains on the north and northeast, and the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains on the southwest and west. Geologic materials of the San Bernardino Mountains are mainly comprised of ancient basement rocks that have been uplifted to their current elevations. The southwestern and southeastern margins of the San Bernardino Mountains are traversed by several strands of the San Andreas Fault zone that are part of the geomorphic and structural boundary of the range. Together, the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains form the Peninsular Ranges Province and are classified as Mesozoic granite, which was first exposed about 95 million years ago. The San Jacinto Mountain Range is traversed by the San Jacinto Fault zone on its western margin. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-5 Regional Faulting and Seismicity The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. Based on criteria established by the California Geological Survey (CGS), active faults are those that have shown evidence of surface displacement within the past 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene- age). Potentially active faults are those that have shown evidence of surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years (i.e., Quaternary-age). Inactive faults are those that have not shown evidence of surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years. The Southern California region also includes blind thrust faults, which are faults without a surface expression. Due to the buried nature of these thrust faults, their existence is usually not known until they produce an earthquake. Since the seismic risk of these buried thrust faults in terms of recurrence and maximum potential magnitude is not well established, the potential for earthquakes with magnitude > 7.0 occurring on buried thrust faults cannot be precluded. The faults in the vicinity of the Project site (within approximately 10 miles) include the Garnet Hill and Banning Pass Faults. These faults are capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude >5.0; however, fault rupture is not expected on the Project site. Soils The valley includes a diverse range of rocks and sediments formed or deposited over millions of years. Sediments from the surrounding mountain ranges are carried into and across the Coachella Valley through numerous seasonal streams flowing to the Whitewater River, San Gorgonio River, Ramon Creek, Bruce Creek, Dead Indian Creek, and Cat Creek, as well as a number of smaller creeks and washes. The Whitewater River is the master drainage for the valley, which flows northwest to southeast. Episodic flooding of major regional drainages, including the Whitewater River and Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, results in the deposition of sand and gravel on the valley floor. Wind processes also bring sediments from the surrounding areas into the valley. Aeolian (wind- deposited) sediments consist of reworked alluvium, which has been picked up by strong winds and redistributed as silty, fine to medium-grained sands that form sand dunes and sand fields. A thick accumulation of these wind-blown sands, known as the Palm Springs Sand Ridge, has formed a broad, elongated and southeast trending ridge which rises as much as 120 feet above the surrounding desert floor and occurs both north and south of Interstate-10 and covers much of the Valley floor. 2.7.4 Existing Conditions The Project site is located within the central portion of the Coachella Valley, which is a rift valley associated with the San Andreas Fault System in Southern California. The valley is located in the northwestern portion of the Salton Trough, a tectonic depression roughly 130 miles long and 70 miles wide that extends from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of Mexico. Tectonically, the San Andreas Fault forms the boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates, which are sliding past one another at a rate of about 50 millimeters per year. It is geologically a complex strike-slip fault that represents a continuous zone of faulting from the San Francisco DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-6 area to the Salton Sea. Motion accommodated by this fault zone is distributed along a complex system of interrelated faults.2 The San Andreas Fault accommodates approximately 70% of the movement between these plates,3 which controls the geology and seismicity along the fault. The San Andreas Fault is the nearest fault to the Project site and lies approximately 4.74 miles to the northeast. The mountains along the valley are mainly composed of metamorphic and igneous rocks. The valley floor is composed of recently laid fine- and medium-grained alluvial (stream deposited) and aeolian (wind deposited) sediments. Sediments from the bounding mountain ranges are carried into and across the Coachella Valley through numerous seasonal streams and wind processes. The Whitewater River and its extension, the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, is the master drainage course for the valley, which generally flows northwest to southeast. Sediments are also transported and deposited by strong winds which have formed the Palm Springs sand ridge that extends in a northwest-southeast trending direction along much of the central valley floor. The Project site is approximately 2 miles north of the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel and near the peak of the Palm Springs sand ridge. A Geotechnical Investigation was conducted for the project site by Sladden Engineering in December of 2018. The investigation including soil borings and analysis, research into regional seismicity and associated hazards, and recommendations for the proposed Project. The following summarizes the conditions found on the project site. The findings and recommendations made in the Investigation are discussed in Section 2.7.5. The Geotechnical Investigation can be found in Appendix E. Subsurface Conditions In November 2018, fourteen (14) exploratory boreholes and eleven (11) test pits to depths between approximately 10 and 71 feet were extracted from the project site.4 Based on the boreholes’ and test pits’ stratigraphy, the project site is predominantly composed of fine drained sand of alluvial and aeolian deposition. Approximately 2 to 3 feet of fill/disturbed soil was encountered whose composition and appearance varied throughout the depth of bores; however, density increased with depth. The artificial fill and native sandy soil encountered at the site are generally dry throughout and grayish brown in in-situ color. Groundshaking The Project site is located in a seismically active region where earthquakes originating on local and regional seismic faults can produce severe ground shaking. Although no active faults run 2 Hill, M. L., & Dibblee, T. W. (1953). San Andreas, Garlock, and Big Pine faults, California a study of the character, history, and tectonic significance of their displacements. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 64(4), 443-458. 3 Ibid. 4 Geotechnical Investigation Report for the project site by Sladden Engineering in December 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-7 through the City, Palm Desert’s soils and geologic characteristics result in other potential secondary seismic hazards. Based on the probabilistic approach, the site could be subjected to ground motions on the order of 0.598g. The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) at the site is estimated to have a 475-year return period and a 10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years.5 Static Settlement The estimated ultimate static settlement for the site is approximately 1 inch under bearing pressures. No fissure or ground cracks were observed at the site. Groundwater The depth to groundwater is greater than 200 feet below the surface at the site.6 Liquefaction Liquefaction occurs primarily in saturated, loose, fine to medium-grained soils in areas where the groundwater table is generally 50 feet or less below the surface. The CGS does not identify liquefaction-susceptible areas for Palm Desert. The Riverside County Land Information System identifies that the majority of the city is susceptible to moderate liquefaction potential.7 However, the site-specific geotechnical investigation for the proposed Project indicates that the depth to groundwater is greater than 200 feet beneath the surface of the subject property, and therefore, onsite liquefaction is unlikely.8 Seismically Induced Slope Failures and Landslides Strong groundshaking can result in unstable slope conditions, including rock falls and landslides. The Project site is located within the valley floor, approximately 4 miles north of the slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains and is not susceptible to landslides occurring in or near the mountain slopes.9 Based on the topography of the golf course, the project site is relatively higher than the surrounding area. During strong groundshaking, land on the edge of the site would have a low potential for slope failure, as discussed in Section 2.7.5, below. 5 Geotechnical Investigation Report for the project site by Sladden Engineering in December 2018. 6 Ibid. 7 Riverside County Land Information System Online Mapping, http://data- countyofriverside.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets?q=natural+hazards&sort_by=relevance, accessed January 2019. 8 Geotechnical Investigation Report for the project site by Sladden Engineering in December 2018. 9 Ibid. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-8 Wind/Soil Erosion The City of Palm Desert faces exposure to potential erosion hazards due to wind. The geologic orientation of the hills and mountain ranges throughout the community provides little resistance to strong winds through the Coachella Valley, resulting in increased rates of erosion. For example, the narrow San Gorgonio Pass actually accelerates the wind speed and further increases erosion rates. Other factors in the community exacerbate the potential for wind-blown sand hazards. Local bedrock is characterized by granite and metamorphic rock types, which are easily eroded and transported by the wind. Wind-blown hazards also follow slope and floodplains. Due to sparse desert vegetation, little groundcover exists to hold materials in place which accelerates the soil erosion at the surface. The Project site has a Very High Wind Erodibility rating.10 Expansive Soils Expansive soils, also referred as swelling soils, are soils that have a tendency to increase in volume with an increase in the moisture content. These soils swell when water is added to them and shrink when they dry out. Foundations with swelling soils will heave and can cause lifting of a building or structure when the moisture content rises. This can ultimately lead to the failure of foundations and structures. No specific expansive soil area is identified in the City. Collapsible Soils Collapsible soils are unsaturated soils that exhibit a high strength when dry but experience a large and rapid volume reduction upon saturation, which can result in substantial structural damage. Alluvial and aeolian sediments in the City have the potential for settlement and collapse even under relatively low loads. The surface soils on the Project site consist of silty sand, which has very low collapse potential.11 Subsidence Ground subsidence involves the settling or sinking of a body of rock or sediment due to either natural or human-caused activities. Groundwater held in pore spaces between sediment grains maintains the open internal structure of the sediments, and when the water is extracted, grains compact causing subsidence at the surface. In the Coachella Valley, the main source of ground subsidence has been associated with the pumping of groundwater. Beginning in the late 1940s, pumping of groundwater resulted in water-level declines of as much as 15 meters. Since 1996, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) have investigated land subsidence associated with groundwater level declines. Results show that the land surface subsided about 220 to 600 10 Palm Desert General Plan; Figure 8-3. 11 Shalaby, S.Ibrahim: Potential Collapse for Sandy Compacted Soil During Inundation. International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4 Issue 5, May 2017. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-9 millimeters (0.72 to 1.97 ft) in three areas of the Coachella Valley near Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta; the subsidence is associated with areas of substantial and on-going groundwater pumping.12 The potential for groundwater extraction-related ground subsidence in the area is considered to be limited due to reduction in pumping in these areas and replenishment of regional groundwater aquifers with imported water. Seiches and Tsunamis A seiche is defined as “an occasional and sudden oscillation of the closed water body (enclosed water body, lake, bay, estuary, etc.) producing fluctuations in the water level.” There are many causes of seiches, for example, wind, earthquakes, and changes in barometric pressure. The seiche hazard in the valley includes above-ground water reservoirs, golf course lakes and other impoundments. Domestic water reservoirs in the valley have been constructed to resist the effects of groundshaking that could compromise the integrity of these structures. Golf course lakes, like those on golf courses surrounding the Project site, and other impoundments are relatively small and shallow, and do not pose a significant seiche hazard. The proposed surf lagoon will contain approximately 23,798,770 gallons of water and could present a seiche hazard; potential impacts are analyzed in Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Resources. Wastewater Disposal Systems Soils in the project area are capable of supporting septic tanks. However, the proposed Project does not propose septic tanks. The Project site is located within an area served by existing sewage infrastructure, and it will connect to the municipal sewer system operated by CVWD. Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources are the remains and/or traces of prehistoric life, exclusive of remains from human activities, and include the localities where fossils were collected and the sedimentary rock formations from which they were obtained. The most important character of the fossils is their geologic age which could extend back up to 12,000 years (Late Pleistocene). Generally, fossil remains include marine shells, petrified wood, and bones and fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. In the Coachella Valley, paleontological resources are associated with the Lake Cahuilla sediments which generally consist of freshwater mollusks. The project site contains Quaternary- age alluvium in the subsurface which has an unknown paleontological resource sensitivity. 2.7.5 Project Impacts The exploration and testing methods used by Sladden Engineering included literature review, subsurface exploration, and laboratory testing of soils from the site. Results of the project site’s assessment are provided below. 12 Land Subsidence, Groundwater Levels, and Geology in the Coachella Valley, California, 1993–2010 by Michelle Sneed, Justin T. Brandt, and Mike Solt. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-10 The following significance criteria are not discussed further in this section of the EIR because the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation determined there would be no environmental impacts as a result of the proposed Project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. iv) Landslides? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The remaining significance criteria will have the potential for environmental impact as a result of the Project, as discussed below. a) Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Surf Lagoon and Surf Center The lagoon and surf center site is within a seismically active area in proximity to the San Andreas and San Jacinto fault systems which could expose people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking. This portion of the Project would result in the construction of a 5.5± acre lagoon, two-story surf center building housing retail, restaurant and other public spaces, a parking lot and subsurface parking garage, and other associated amenities on approximately 11.85 acres. The project site would be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking in response to a local or more distant large-magnitude earthquake. Based on the USGS Unified Hazard Tool, the site could be subjected to the ground motion of up to 0.598g which could cause cracking of underground foundations, subsurface garage and utility pipes. Significant ground motion could also cause damage to the lagoon’s concrete lining and the surf center building. Seismic hazards cannot be completely eliminated, but structure-specific geotechnical investigation and advanced building practices would minimize potential impacts from a seismic event. In the City of Palm Desert, because of its geology, exposure to seismic hazards is generally expected. To address seismic hazards, the City has codified the 2016 CBC in Municipal DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-11 Code Section 15.24.010, which requires that project structures be designed with adequate strength to withstand the lateral dynamic displacements induced by the Design Basis Ground Motion, which the CBC defines as the earthquake ground motion that has a 10-percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years. The project will be required to comply with the CBC and all California seismic design requirements, which would ensure that it would not expose persons or property to significant injury or damage from strong seismic ground shaking hazards. To further minimize ground shaking and strengthen the building foundations, the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation Report includes several recommendations, included as mitigation measures at the end of this section. Implementation of mitigation measures GEO-6 and GEO-7 will ensure adequate uniform structural support for enclosed walls during strong seismic groundshaking events. GEO-10 requires appropriate Asphalt Concrete Pavement design and construction measures to minimize potential damage to proposed structures if strong seismic ground shaking is encountered. GEO-13 requires compaction of up to 90 percent to minimize cracking of concrete flatworks. Adherence to the CBC, California seismic design requirements, the City’s Municipal Code, and the mitigation measures set forth herein would ensure potential impacts related to seismic groundshaking at the surf center would be less than significant. Hotel and Villas Buildout of the hotel and villas portion of the Project will result in the development of 350 hotel rooms in buildings of up to 50 feet in height, 88 villas, spa building(s), swimming pools, subsurface parking structures and pool backwash drainage structures, landscaping areas and ancillary facilities on approximately 5.84 acres. This portion of the Project is immediately adjacent to the surf lagoon and surf center described above and would be susceptible to the same potential groundshaking hazards and structural damage. As with the lagoon and surf center area, implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO- 6 and GEO-7 will ensure adequate uniform structural support for the hotel and villas during strong seismic ground shaking events. GEO-10 requires appropriate Asphalt Concrete Pavement design and construction measures to minimize the potential damage to proposed structures, and GEO-13 requires compaction of up to 90 percent to minimize cracking of concrete flatworks. Adherence to the CBC, California seismic design requirements, the City’s Municipal Code, and the mitigation measures provided below would ensure potential impacts related to seismic groundshaking at the hotels and villas would be less than significant. Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management: Active faults in the region have the potential to cause strong groundshaking in the proposed Project area, and could result in shifting, breakage, or other DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-12 damage to proposed off-site storm drainage improvements and leakage of water. GEO-12 will require appropriate compaction of all utility trench backfill to minimize damage caused by strong seismic shaking. With implementation of GEO-12, impacts would be less than significant. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Water from the swimming pools and lagoon will be flushed to golf course lakes via underground pipes which could be damaged during strong ground shaking. The existing golf course has well-designed artificial lakes designed to sustain strong ground shaking during an earthquake event. New underground pipelines will be designed and installed accordingly to the California Building Code to withstand ground shaking, and flushing of water from swimming pools and the surf lagoon to the existing golf course lake will not create any new ground shaking hazards to these lakes. As with the stormwater management system, GEO- 12 requires the compaction of trench backfill, to minimize hazards to the pipes carrying the discharge. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of this mitigation measure. Golf Course Turf Reduction: Removal and replacement of existing turf areas with desert landscaping will not create any ground shaking hazards in the Desert Willow Golf Course. No impact will occur. Landscaping Improvements: Hardscape surfaces in landscaped areas could crack or buckle; however, such damage would not pose a substantial risk or hazard to people or property, and would be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of GEO-10 and GEO- 13, which address impacts to hardscapes, asphalt and concrete. Overflow Parking: The Project is anticipated to improve and use an existing parking lot, southeast of the site and north of Market Place Drive, for additional parking needs during special events. The off-site parking area is already graded, and no new permanent structures are proposed at the site. Seismic groundshaking could cause pavement to crack or buckle; however, potential damage and hazards to people and property would be less than significant with the implementation of GEO-10, which specifically addresses impacts to asphalt and concrete. Soil Removal/Storage: The project may require excavations of up to 20 feet of soil for placing foundations and constructing the parking structures. Soils removed from the site will be stored either on other vacant areas of Desert Willow, or at an off-site location. Groundshaking would not impact soil stockpiles. Construction sites are at higher risk than fully developed structures during strong seismic shaking because the standard measures that would protect a building and its occupants from an earthquake are not yet in place. This means the damage could be more extensive to a building under construction than for the same building after the construction is complete. To DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-13 minimize the loss of life during excavation, GEO-19 requires all employees at the construction site to be trained in earthquake preparedness and identify safe places near the construction site to make emergency evacuation possible. With implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts associated with strong groundshaking will be less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Surf Lagoon and Surf Center Seismic shaking can cause ground failure events. The probability of occurrence and resulting damage depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from faults, topography, subsurface earth materials, groundwater conditions, and other factors. Liquefaction can damage roads, pipelines, underground cables, and buildings with shallow foundations. Other seismically-related ground failure could include slope instability, collapse, or slumping where there would be a grading and elevation differential between the Project site and the adjacent golf course. The site is located on relatively flat ground but could be subject to slope instability, collapse, or slumping during an earthquake, particularly in areas where excavation would be required, including both the subsurface parking garage and pool and Lagoon backwash drainage structures, and the surf lagoon. In order to minimize the potential for collapse, instability or slumping, mitigation measures GEO-1 through GEO-5 will assure that soil is clean, adequately compacted, and that excavated slopes remain stable during a seismic event. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. Based on the Geotechnical Investigation Report13, the potential for liquefaction at the project site is low due to depth to groundwater, which is greater than 200 feet below the surface. Therefore, potential impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant. Hotel and Villas The hotel and villas portion of the Project is immediately adjacent to the surf lagoon and surf center described above. Onsite soil conditions and depth to groundwater are the same, and the risk of liquefaction is low. Impacts would be less than significant. Like the surf lagoon and surf center, grading and construction of the hotels and villas will result in the construction of buildings, underground parking garages, pool backwash drainage structures and underground utilities whose soils could be subject to slope instability, collapse, or slumping during an earthquake. As with the surf lagoon area, mitigation measures GEO-1 through GEO-5 require the use of appropriate fill, compacted to assure stability, and the design of excavated slopes to prevent collapse. These mitigation measures will also apply to the edges of the site, where grade differentials to the golf course may result in slopes. With 13 Geotechnical Investigation Report for the project site by Sladden Engineering in December 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-14 implementation of these stabilizing mitigation measures, impacts associated with ground failure will be reduced to less than significant levels. Because the site is located on relatively flat ground and depth to the groundwater is below 200 feet. Therefore, potential impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant. Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management: Ground failure is usually caused by surface rupture along faults, unstable soils, or liquefaction. The Project’s connections to existing off-site storm drainage systems will not result in a ground failure risk at the site because sewer pipes will be located in narrow trenches properly backfilled, and impacts would be less than significant. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: The existing golf course lakes were designed to capture water from surrounding developments within the golf course using techniques to minimize ground failure, and have withstood moderate earthquakes in the past. Flushing of water from swimming pools and surf lagoon to the existing golf course lakes will be via underground pipelines located in narrow trenches properly compacted as described above. The discharge system will not be significantly impacted by ground failure. Golf Course Turf Reduction: Removal and replacement of existing turf areas with desert landscaping will not create any ground failure hazards in the Desert Willow Golf Course because no structural alterations will be required, and the replacement of turf with desert landscaping will not expose these areas to ground failure. In addition, depth to the groundwater is below 200 feet. No impact is anticipated. Landscaping Improvements: Landscaping improvements at the edges of the project to connect to the existing golf course landscaping will not involve structures, and will not cause any ground failure hazards in the Desert Willow Golf Course. No impact is anticipated. Overflow Parking: The off-site parking area is already graded, and will be improved with pavement, curbs and gutters. The installation of these facilities, with implementation of the mitigation measures described above, will not result in ground failure or liquefaction. Soil Removal/Storage: The proposed Project would involve some excavation. The excavations are limited to 20 feet for the lagoon and subsurface parking garages. Localized excavations, vehicle access and grading could potentially destabilize the soils and trigger a localized landslide within excavated areas. Adverse effects to people or structures could be significant if a shallow ground failure were to occur. Mitigation measure GEO-1, GEO-2, and 5 require the contractor to incorporate appropriate engineering design and construction measures to address soil prone to ground failure. The potential for construction activities to expose and adversely impact people and structures due to ground failure would be less than significant with implementation of these mitigation measures. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-15 b) Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Surf Lagoon and Surf Center The surf lagoon and surf center site is highly susceptible to wind erosion.14 The proposed Project will include demolition of the existing parking lot, excavation, site preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and other ground disturbance by heavy machinery that could result in the loss of some topsoil and generate particulate matter. Grading and construction will require removal of the topsoil; however, grading and construction activities would occur in accordance with erosion control requirements, including dust control measures, imposed by the City pursuant to grading permit regulations. Specifically, project construction would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section 27.28.09015, including submittal and approval of grading permits to ensure that the project does not generate excessive soil erosion. City Municipal Code Sections 24.12.01016 and 24.20.05017 require preparation of a fugitive dust (PM10) mitigation plan and compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards prior to and during construction. Furthermore, Policy 1.13 (Soil Erosion) of the City’s General Plan requires the prevention of water-born soil erosion from new development especially during grading activities.18 A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)19 has been prepared for the proposed Project which includes Best Management Practices (BMPs). For example, during the construction phase, construction equipment and vehicles shall be properly maintained to prevent leakage of petroleum products into vacant lands, and temporary drainage systems will be required to collect surface runoff. These BMPs would be implemented during grading and construction to reduce sedimentation and soil erosion, and in compliance with City standards. Mitigation measures GEO-16 through GEO-18 are also provided below to specifically address and mitigate the potential for soil erosion through watering or covering soils, and by prohibiting construction activities during significant storms or wind events. In addition, project construction contractors will be required to comply with City grading permit regulations20, which require dust control measures to reduce sedimentation and erosion.21 Compliance with regulatory requirements, implementation of PM10 mitigation plan, NPDES, and BMPs, and GEO-16, GEO-17, and GEO-18 will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. 14 Palm Desert General Plan, City of Palm Desert 2016; Figure 8-3. 15 Palm Desert Municipal Code 27.28.090 – Plans to Accompany Application. 16 Chapter 24.12 Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control, Palm Desert Municipal Code 24.12.010 – Purpose and Intend. 17 Palm Desert Municipal Code 24.20.050 - Discharge of pollutants. 18 Palm Desert General Plan, City of Palm Desert 2016; Page 135. 19 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Tentative Map 37639 – DSRT SURF prepared by The Altum Group, December 31, 2018. 20 Palm Desert Municipal Code 27.12.180 – Building Permits and Chapter 24.12 – Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control. 21 Palm Desert Municipal Code 27.12.065 – Erosion Control. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-16 Hotel and Villas The hotel and villas portions of the Project is immediately adjacent to the surf lagoon and surf center and shares the same soil characteristics. Therefore, this planning area is also susceptible to wind erosion.22 This planning area will include excavation, site preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and other ground disturbance of the undisturbed land by heavy machinery that could result in the loss of some topsoil and generate particulate matter. However, grading and construction activities would occur in accordance with erosion control requirements, including dust control measures, imposed by the City pursuant to grading permit regulations. Specifically, project construction would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section 27.28.090, including submittal and approval of grading permits to ensure that the project does not generate excessive soil erosion. As is the case with the surf center, compliance with the City’s General Plan Policy 1.13 (Soil Erosion), and Municipal Code Sections 24.12.010 and 24.20.050 will prevent water-born soil erosion, fugitive dust, and pollutant discharge during grading activities. The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the proposed Project includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) applicable to this planning area. Furthermore, compliance with regulatory requirements, implementation of BMPs, and GEO-16, GEO-17, and GEO-18 will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management: The construction of the Project site’s connections to off-site storm drain improvements will result in loss of topsoil during the excavation process. The same fugitive dust (PM10) mitigation plan requirements applicable to other components of the project would be applied to stormwater management connections, which would prevent substantial soil erosion and fugitive dust generation. Less than significant impact is anticipated due to loss of topsoil during the construction of off-site storm drain improvements. Once constructed, these facilities will consist of underground piped connections to existing waste areas on the golf course, which will not be subject to erosion. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Extension and construction of underground pipes to evacuation main water pipe would result in soil erosion. However, it would be controlled through a fugitive dust (PM10) mitigation plan, as with other components of the project. Once constructed, flushing of water from swimming pools and surf lagoon to the existing golf course lake will not result in soil erosion. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Golf Course Turf Reduction: Removal and replacement of existing turf areas with desert landscaping will disturb approximately 10 acres of existing topsoil and would generate dust and blowsand. However, the replacement of turf will be governed by a fugitive dust (PM10) mitigation plan, as will other components of the project. Impacts would be less than significant. 22 Palm Desert General Plan; Figure 8-3. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-17 Landscaping Improvements: The project will have 120,159 square feet of landscaping area. The landscaping improvements on the margins of the project, required to provide transitions from the proposed Project to the golf course, will have the potential to generate dust, but will be included in the grading plans for the Project site, and therefore in the dust control plan. The provisions of that plan will apply, reducing erosion impacts to less than significant levels. Installation of plant materials will stabilize the soils and reduce the potential for soil erosion to occur in the long term. Impacts would be less than significant. Overflow Parking: The off-site parking area is already graded. Paving would generate some dust and blowsand; however, it will be controlled through a fugitive dust (PM10) mitigation plan similar to those required for other Project improvements. Once constructed, the parking lot will include impervious surfaces and landscaped areas which will not be subject to erosion. Impacts would be less than significant. Soil Removal/Storage: The project would require excavation of an estimated 20 feet deep area, and the removal of 151,000 cubic yards of soil which could cause erosion and generate blowsand. However, construction will occur incrementally and in measured stages, which will allow control of soil moisture and stability. However, because of the wind erosion hazard identified in the General Plan, impacts associated with wind erosion could be significant. The mitigation measures set forth below (GEO-16, GEO-17, and GEO-18) will ensure that the loss of soils from strong wind events will be less than significant. The project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from the creation of such conditions. As a result of the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. c) Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Surf Lagoon and Surf Center The surf lagoon and surf center portion of the project site is currently partially developed and does not contain unstable soils or geologic units. No fissure or other surficial evidence of subsidence was observed at the project site. Based on the Geotechnical Investigation Report, it is not susceptible to on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; this is due to on-site conditions, distance from sloping terrain and foothills, and depth to groundwater. For liquefaction to occur, groundwater levels must be within 50 feet of the ground surface. According to GEOTRACKER GAMA, there is no active well at the project site. However, the nearest test well site (3310001-063) is located at Acapulco Drive where the water depth is DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-18 reported below 200 feet below ground surface. That test well site is located approximately 0.41 miles southwest of the subject site. The depth to groundwater indicates that the potential for liquefaction to occur onsite is less than significant. Mitigation measure GEO-3 will require use of engineered fill free of unstable soil at the site to reduce potential risks associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse for all components of the project. The implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Ground subsidence has been documented by the U.S. Geological Survey and CVWD in portions of La Quinta, Palm Desert, and Indian Wells; the principal cause is believed to be extraction of groundwater. The project could include an onsite groundwater well to serve the surf lagoon. As discussed in the project’s WSA, this portion of the site will include a surf lagoon and surf center facilities which would require approximately 88.32 AFY of domestic water. Table 2.7-1 Total Projected Water Demand for Lagoon and Surf Center Land Use Water Demand (AFY) Surf Lagoon 73.04 Surf Center 15.28 Total 88.32 The Project will provide water for the surf lagoon in one of three ways: installation of a new groundwater well at the southeastern corner of the site; connection to the existing Desert Willow groundwater well located south of the site near Country Club Drive; or utilization of the potable water from CVWD. Water demand for the surf lagoon is projected to be approximately 73.04 AFY per year. If the Project installs a new groundwater well on the site, the groundwater well will be metered and in compliance with requirements of the Regional Water Resources Control Board (RWRCB). Other components of the Project will be connected to CVWD’s water distribution system. If the Project connects to the existing Desert Willow groundwater well located south of the site near Country Club Drive, then the project would require construction and extension of underground pipes to supply approximately 73.04 AFY per year. Otherwise, CVWD would provide approximately 73.04 AFY per year of water for the surf lagoon. The projected water consumption which could be drawn from the on-site well, existing golf course well or from existing CVWD water supplies to accommodate the lagoon is 73.04 AFY, which represents 0.00025% of total water in storage. No excessive withdrawal of water is anticipated at the site, and so the potential for subsidence is considered low. Consequently, impacts from subsidence, liquefaction or collapse would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-19 The project site is located at a distance of approximately 3.10 miles from the Santa Rosa Mountains, therefore, it does not have any potential for landslide or lateral spreading. No impact is anticipated. Hotel and Villas The hotel and villas portion of the Project is proposed immediately adjacent to the surf lagoon and surf center, described above. As such, it is not susceptible to liquefaction, landslides, or lateral spreading. Mitigation measure GEO-3 will require use of engineered fill free of unstable soil at the site to reduce potential risks associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse for all components of the project. The implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. As shown in the following table, the proposed hotel and villas would require approximately 76.89 AFY of water, or 0.00025% of total water in storage. This component of the proposed Project is anticipated to use approximately 8.54 AFY of recycled water for landscaping. The remaining 68.35 AFY of water will be provided via connection to existing CVWD domestic water infrastructure. No excessive withdrawal of water is planned at the site. No new well will be installed to serve this portion of the Project, and therefore, it will not contribute to subsidence. Table 2.7-2 Total Projected Water Demand for Hotel and Villas Land Use Water Demand (AFY) Hotel and Villas 60.99 Pool/Spa 7.36 Landscaping 8.54 Total 76.89 This planning area is also located at a distance of approximately 3.10 miles from the Santa Rosa Mountains, therefore, it does not have any potential for landslide or lateral spreading. No impact is anticipated. Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management: The existing golf course waste areas which accommodate existing storm flows are not located on an unstable soil to cause lateral spreading, subsidence, or liquefaction. Similarly, the project’s connection to off-site storm drain improvements to accommodate the Project’s increase in stormwater runoff will not cause lateral spreading, subsidence, or liquefaction. No impact is anticipated. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Flushing of water from swimming pools and surf lagoon to the existing golf course lake located south of the Project site will not disturb any unstable soil to cause lateral spreading, subsidence, or liquefaction. No impact is anticipated. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-20 Golf Course Turf Reduction: Removal and replacement of existing turf areas with desert landscaping will not involve use of unstable soil to result in lateral spreading, subsidence, or liquefaction. No impact is anticipated. Landscaping Improvements: Landscaping at the project site will not involve use of unstable soil to result in lateral spreading, subsidence, or liquefaction. No impact is anticipated. Overflow Parking: The off-site parking area is already graded; it will be improved using engineered fill compacted to City standards, through implementation of mitigation measure GEO-3, which will assure that impacts are less than significant. Soil Removal/Storage: Mitigation measure GEO-3 will require use of engineered fill free of unstable soil at the site to reduce potential risks associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. With mitigation, impacts will be less than significant. d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Surf Lagoon and Surf Center Expansive soils are typically associated with fine-grained clay soils that have the potential to shrink and swell with repeated cycles of wetting and drying. As discussed in the Geotechnical Investigation Report23, no expansive soils are present near the surface at the surf lagoon area, and test pits did not reveal clayey soils. The surface soils on the proposed Project site consist of silty sand, which has very low expansion potential. However, it is recommended in the Geotechnical Investigation Report that the expansion potential of the surface soil should be reevaluated after remedial grading to determine the percentage of clay and the type of clay in the soil. Due to a lack of expansive soils onsite, the proposed Project would not create a substantial risk to life or property. Impacts will be less than significant. Hotel and Villas The hotel and villas portion of the Project consists of the same soils as the surf lagoon and surf center described above. The site-specific geotechnical report determined that onsite soils consist of silty sand which has a very low expansion potential; therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant. 23 Geotechnical Investigation Report for the project site by Sladden Engineering in December 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-21 Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management: No direct or indirect risk is foreseen by connecting the site to the off-site storm drainage system because onsite soils are not expansive, and this portion of the Project will not require deep excavation or the use of expansive soil. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Onsite soils are not expansive. Flushing of water from swimming pools and the surf lagoon to the existing golf course lake located south of the Project site will not impact expansive soil as no such soil will be utilized. Golf Course Turf Reduction: Removal and replacement of existing turf areas with desert landscaping will not involve use of expansive soil. No impact will occur. Landscaping Improvements: Landscaping at the project site will not involve the use of expansive soils. No impact is anticipated. Overflow Parking: The off-site parking area is already graded. No expansive clayey soils will be used in improvement of the parking area. No impact is anticipated. Soil Removal/Storage: The project site does not contain any expansive soil. No impact is anticipated during excavation, grading, and filling of the site. In addition, soil removed from the site will not result in any direct or indirect impact to the Project site or offsite location because the soils on the site consist of sand. f) Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Surf Lagoon and Surf Center This part of the proposed Project will result in the construction of a surf lagoon and surf center facilities, including an underground parking structure and pool and Lagoon backwash drainage structures, which would require deep excavation. The Project site is not known to contain unique paleontological features; however, construction activities have the potential to reveal Quaternary-age alluvium which has an unknown paleontological resource sensitivity. To reduce the potential impacts to paleontological resources due to excavation activities, GEO-15 is provided in the Mitigation Measures section below. A qualified paleontologist will be required to evaluate any buried paleontological materials discovered during earth-moving operations at the site to reduce Project impacts to less than significant levels. The surface soils consist of light brown, fine-to-coarse alluvial sands mixed with small rocks. There are no unique geological features (rivers, lakes, hills, faults, folds, etc.) that could be directly or indirectly destroyed by the proposed Project. No impacts to such features would occur. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-22 Hotel and Villas This part of the proposed Project will result in the construction of a hotel and villas, including surface parking lots, subsurface parking garages and pool backwash drainage structures, which will disturb onsite soils. The Project site is not known to contain unique paleontological features; however, construction activities have the potential to reveal Quaternary-age alluvium which as an unknown paleontological resource sensitivity. To reduce potential impacts to paleontological impacts due to construction activities to less than significant levels, GEO-15 is provided at the end of this section. The surface soils consist of light brown, fine-to-coarse alluvial sands mixed with small rocks. There are no unique geological features (rivers, lakes, hills, faults, folds, etc.) that could be directly or indirectly be destroyed by the proposed Project. No impacts to such features would occur. Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management: No unique paleontological resource or geologic feature is anticipated to be affected by connecting the site to the golf course’s storm drainage system because it will not require deep excavation or grading. No impact is anticipated. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Extension of the pipelines to the golf course lake would not require deep excavation so no unique paleontological resource or geologic feature is anticipated to be affected. Once constructed, flushing water from swimming pools and surf lagoon to the existing golf course lake located south of the Project site will not impact paleontological resources. No impact is anticipated. Golf Course Turf Reduction: Removal and replacement of existing turf areas with desert landscaping in the Desert Willow Golf Course will not affect any paleontological resource or geologic feature as these activities will be surficial. No impact is anticipated. Landscaping Improvements: Landscaping at the project site will not affect any paleontological resource or geologic feature as these activities will be surficial improvements. No impact is anticipated. Overflow Parking: The off-site parking area is already graded. Improvements to the parking area would not affect any paleontological resource or geologic feature as these activities will be surficial improvements. No impact is anticipated. Soil Removal/Storage: Construction of the lagoon will result in the excavation and grading of the site up to 20 feet deep, which would result in approximately 151,000 cubic yards of excavated materials. Approximately 103,000 cubic yards (68%) of this material would be transported off-site to golf course locations within Desert Willow Golf Course or to an off-site location. The removal of soils has the potential to unearth paleontological resources. However, implementation of GEO-15 will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-23 2.7.6 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: GEO-1 Site Clearing: Prior to commencement of remedial grading within the site, all existing vegetation, associated root systems, and debris shall be cleared. Areas planned to receive fill shall be cleared of old fill and any irreducible matter. GEO-2 At Grade Structure Areas Requirements: All undocumented artificial fill and low- density native surface soil shall be removed and re-compacted for the at-grade structures (e.g., spa building and cabanas). Over-excavation should extend to a minimum depth of 3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. The exposed native soil shall be moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Removals shall extend at least 5 feet laterally beyond the footing limits. GEO-3 Fill Placement and Compaction: Engineered fill shall be free of organic material, debris, and other deleterious substances, and should not contain irreducible matter greater than 3-inches in maximum dimensions. The imported fill shall meet the following criteria: Plastic Index <12 Liquid Limit <35 % Soil Passing #200 Sieve Between 15% and 35% Maximum Aggregate Size 3 inches GEO-4 Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material shall be between 10 and 15 percent. GEO-5 Temporary Excavation: Temporary excavation up to 20 feet in depth may be required to accomplish the proposed construction. Excavations to depth of 20 feet shall have slope cuts no steeper than horizontal to one vertical (1:1). GEO-6 Conventional Shallow Spread Footings: Adequate support for the proposed resort buildings and surf lagoon enclosed walls will be provided through Conventional Shallow Spread Footings. GEO-7 Slabs-on-Grade: Concrete slabs-on-grade must be placed on compacted engineered fill to provide uniform support. A minimum slab thickness of 4-inches and a minimum reinforcement consisting of #3 bars at 18-inches on center in each direction shall be required. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-24 GEO-8 Structure Mat Slabs: Structure Mat Slabs shall be required for the below grade structures associated with the wave generating equipment which would meet an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. GEO-9 Retaining Walls: Subterranean parking levels and the surf lagoon would require retaining walls. Ground surface behind retaining walls shall be sloped to drain. GEO-10 Asphalt Concrete Pavement: This shall be designed in accordance with Topic 608 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual to meet the following thickness for the site: Pavement Material Required Thickness Asphalt Concrete Surface Course 3 inches Class II Aggregate Base Course 4 inches Compacted Subgrade Soil 12 inches GEO-11 Corrosion Series: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a corrosion expert shall be consulted regarding appropriate corrosion protection measures for corrosion sensitive installation. GEO-12 Utility Trench Backfill: All utility trench backfill shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90%. GEO-13 Exterior Concrete Flatwork: The subgrade soil below concrete flatwork areas shall first be compacted to minimum relative compaction of 90 percent to minimize cracking of concrete flatworks. GEO-14 Drainage: To provide rapid removal of surface water runoff to an adequate discharge point, all final grades shall be provided with positive gradients away from foundations. In addition, surface water shall be directed away from building foundations to an adequate discharge point to reduce water infiltration into the subgrade soil. GEO-15 If buried paleontological materials are discovered inadvertently during any earth- moving operations associated with the project, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted or diverted until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. GEO-16 All project grading plans shall include a soil erosion prevention/dust control plan. Blowing dust and sand during excavation and grading operations shall be mitigated by adequate watering of soils prior to and during excavation and grading, and DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.7-25 limiting the area of dry, exposed and disturbed materials and soils during these activities. To mitigate against the effects of wind erosion after site development, a variety of measures shall be implemented, including maintaining moist surface soils, planting stabilizing vegetation, establishing windbreaks with non-invasive vegetation or perimeter block walls, and using chemical soil stabilizers. GEO-17 There shall be a cessation of grading activities during rainstorms or high wind events. The project contractor shall install flow barriers and soil catchments (such as straw bales, silt fences, and temporary detention basins) during construction to control soil erosion. GEO-18 All materials transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of spillage or dust. GEO-19 Prior to ground disturbing activities, all employees at the construction site shall be trained in earthquake preparedness and identify safe places near the construction site to facilitate emergency evacuation. 2.7.7 Significance After Mitigation With the application of the mitigation measures set forth above, impacts associated with project geotechnical conditions will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 2.7.8 Cumulative Impacts Potential cumulative impacts on geology and soils could result from projects that combine to create geologic hazards, including unstable geologic conditions. However, most geology and soil hazards associated with development projects in the surrounding area would be site-specific. Nonetheless, cumulative growth in the Project area would expose a greater number of people to seismic hazards. However, as with the Project, all future projects in the region would be subject to established guidelines and regulations pertaining to building design and seismic safety, including those set forth in the California Building Code and the Palm Desert Building Code. With adherence to such regulations, Project impacts with regard to geology and soils would not be cumulatively considerable. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.8-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2.8.1 Introduction This section of the EIR describes existing greenhouse gas (GHG) conditions within the Coachella Valley and analyzes the potential impacts associated with construction and operation of the DSRT SURF Specific Plan. A variety of local and regional data and information, ranging from analysis of the subject property to regional-scale planning and environmental documents, was used to analyze the proposed Project and its potential effects on GHG emissions and climate change. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report was prepared for this project and is provided in Appendix B of this EIR. 2.8.2 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant effect on greenhouse gases if it were to: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 2.8.3 Regulatory Framework The effects of GHG emissions and concentrations in the atmosphere have resulted in the adoption of governmental policies and regulations that reduce GHG emissions by development projects and other activities. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.8-2 State California was the first state to establish regulations that require the reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles. On September 24, 2004, the California legislature adopted a bill that requires all motor vehicles of 2009 vintage or later to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by about 30% by the year 2016. On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05 which calls for reduction in GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act, was adopted by the State legislature in 2006. It sets forth a program to achieve 1990 emission levels by 2020 and requires CARB to proclaim 1990 GHG emissions and develop a Scoping Plan that sets forth GHG reduction methods. CARB reported that 1990 GHG emissions totaled 427 million metric tons (MMT) in California; CARB adopted a GHG scoping plan on December 11, 2008. The Scoping Plan includes a cap and trade program, green building strategies, recycling and waste reduction, and Voluntary Early Actions and Reductions. Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) More recently, Executive Order B-30-15 was issued by Governor Brown on April 29, 2015, establishing a new California goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and ensuring the State will continue its efforts to reduce carbon pollution. Most recently, this 40% target was codified through Senate Bill 32 (2016), which adds section 38566 to the Health and Safety Code and requires that CARB ensure statewide GHG emissions meet the 40% reduction target no later than December 31, 2030. Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) was signed by the Governor in September 2008 and is intended to, at least in part, implement greenhouse gas reduction targets set forth in AB 32 by setting regional “caps” on the GHGs emitted by the transportation sector. The bill encourages regional land use planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled and requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy as part of their Regional Transportation Plans. The applicable MPO for the Coachella Valley is the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which adopted its most recent Regional Transportation Plan and sustainable communities strategy in April 2016. The current reduction targets from SCAG’s RTP and SCS are a 9% reduction by 2020 and a 16% reduction by 2035, as compared to 2005 emissions levels. State Vehicle Standards In response to the transportation sector accounting for more than half of California’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, AB 1493 was enacted in 2002. AB 1493 required CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles determined by DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.8-3 the state board to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the state. The bill required that CARB set GHG emission standards for motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. The 2009–2012 standards resulted in a reduction in approximately 22% GHG emissions compared to emissions from the 2002 fleet, and the 2013–2016 standards resulted in a reduction of approximately 30%. In 2012, CARB approved a new emissions-control program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards called Advanced Clean Cars. By 2025, when the rules would be fully implemented, new automobiles would emit 34% fewer global warming gases and 75% fewer smog-forming emissions (CARB 2011). Regional and Local South Coast Air Quality Management District The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for monitoring air resources and enforcing air pollution regulations in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB). It promotes numerous programs to combat climate change, including those that promote energy conservation, low-carbon fuel technologies, and renewable energy. It has adopted a number of regulations and policies aimed at ensuring clean air. In 2009, during SCAQMD GHG working group meetings, SCAQMD staff proposed a variety of thresholds for GHG emissions. However, as of 2018, the SCAQMD Governing Board has not formally adopted the proposed interim tiered approach for evaluating GHG impacts. Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory1 The Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory, completed in 2008, was the City’s first major planning effort toward climate protection. It quantified the City’s 2008 baseline year GHG emissions, including those emitted by municipal and community-wide sources. It also “back- casted” 1990 GHG emissions and projected future emissions under “business-as-usual” conditions. Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan2 The GHG Inventory described above served as a baseline guide for the Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan (2010, updated 2016). The Plan is consistent with the goals of AB 32 and calls for a ten-year, three-phase period to address emissions reductions goals. It includes recommended actions categorized into six “resource areas”: 1) the built environment, 2) energy management, 3) materials management, 4) regional air quality, 5) transportation, and 6) water management. 1 “Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory,” EcoMotion, 2008. 2 “City of Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan,” Terra Nova Planning & Research, 2016. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.8-4 Phase I includes 20 policies and programs that will reduce carbon emissions by about 37,538 metric tons annually, a reduction of 6% from the 2008 baseline and 15% of the total emissions requirement to reach the City’s reduction goal of 378,145 metric tons of annual emissions by 2020. Phases II and III are long-term strategies that build upon Phase I initiatives. Palm Desert Green Building Code The Palm Desert Green Building Code is contained in Chapter 15.18 of the City’s Municipal Code. In 2016, the City adopted the California Green Building Standards Code, which “enhances the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact, or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practice within the City.” Palm Desert General Plan The following Palm Desert General Plan policies pertain to greenhouse gases and climate change and are relevant to the proposed Project: Chapter 6: Environmental Resources • Policy 5.10 Urban forest. Protect the City’s healthy trees and plant new ones to provide shade, increase carbon sequestration, and purify the air. • Policy 5.14 Heat island reductions. Require heat island reduction strategies in new developments such as light-colored paving, permeable paving, right-sized parking requirements, vegetative cover and planting, substantial tree canopy coverage, and south and west side tree planting. • Policy 5.16 Reducing GHG emissions. In consulting with applicants and designing new facilities, prioritize the selection of green building design features that enhance the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. 2.8.4 Environmental Setting Greenhouse Gases Air pollution is a chemical, physical, or biological process that modifies the chemistry and other characteristics of the atmosphere. The primary contributor to air pollution is the burning of fossil fuels used in transportation, power and heat generation, and industrial processes. The byproducts from the combustion of fossil fuels can contain air polluting substances. These emissions are responsible for the poor air quality that is evident in industrial centers worldwide. Some air polluting agents are also greenhouse gases (GHG), including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride), which are released into the atmosphere through DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.8-5 natural processes and human activities. GHGs are expressed in metric tons (MT) of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent). These gases are termed greenhouse gases due to their shared characteristic of trapping heat, and they are believed to be responsible for the global average increase in surface temperatures of 0.7-1.5 °F that were observed during the 20th century.3 The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased significantly over a relatively short period. More recently, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had increased by 42%, methane by 15%, and NOx by 9% from 1990 to 2010.4 Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that has raised the most concern of atmospheric scientists due to current atmospheric levels, current and projected emission levels, and the highly correlated temperature regression curve that has been observed, predicting a future path of rising carbon dioxide levels. Currently (2017), carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere exceed 400 ppm. Comparatively, prior to the Industrial Revolution, about 250 years ago, CO2 levels were 278 ppm, and over the past 650,000 years carbon dioxide levels have fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm, making present day atmospheric CO2 levels substantially greater than at any point in the past 650,000 years.5 There is much debate over what the effects of climate change will be, but there is general consensus that emission levels need to be reduced to minimize the effects these pollutants will have on future climate conditions. California GHG Emissions California is the second largest greenhouse gas contributor in the U.S. and the sixteenth largest in the world. In 2004, California produced 492 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2e), which was approximately 7% of all U.S. emissions. However, in 2015, California’s total emissions were 440.4 MMTCO2e, representing an overall decrease of 10% since peak levels in 2004. During the 2000 to 2015 period, per capita GHG emissions in California continued to drop from a peak in 2001 of 14.0 tons per person to 11.3 tons per person in 2015, a 19% decrease.6 This decrease may be due to increases in the effectiveness of energy conservation in buildings (Title 24 requirements) and the increased use of renewable energy, including solar generation, hydropower, and wind energy. 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, State of Knowledge, 2017. 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Figure 1: Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas, 1990-2010, May 2014. 5 “Working Group III Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change,” prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, May 2007. 6 “California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory: 2000-2015,” California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board, June 6, 2017. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.8-6 The transportation sector remains the largest source of GHG emissions in the State, accounting for 37% of California’s emissions in 2015. Regulations and improved fuel efficiency of the State’s vehicle fleet will drive down emissions over time, but population growth, lower fuel prices, improved economic conditions, and higher employment rates are potential factors that may increase fuel use.7 In 2004, the State of California generated 492 million metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). In 2014, it generated 441.5 million MT of CO2e, representing an overall decrease of 9.4% since 2004 (CARB, 2016). During the 2000 to 2014 period, per capita GHG emissions in California have continued to drop from a peak in 2001 of 13.9 MT per person to 11.4 MT per person in 2014; representing a 18% decrease. GHG emission reductions are attributed to energy conservation measures such as use of more fuel-efficient vehicles, wider use of alternative modes of transportation, and energy efficient appliances and building materials that are prescribed under Title 24 of the California Building Code. 2.8.5 Existing Conditions The DSRT SURF Project area is in the Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin. The valley is characterized by a low desert climate, with summer daytime temperatures that can exceed 110°F; winter nighttime temperatures can drop into the 20’s. The valley floor receives an average of four to six inches of rainfall per year with greater precipitation at higher elevations. The northeasterly portion of the subject property is developed with a paved parking lot. The remainder of the property is vacant, sparsely vegetated, and covered with fine sandy soils. The site is immediately surrounded by golf course and resort amenities of the Desert Willow Golf Course. The broader vicinity is typical of a suburban community, generally developed with residential, commercial, office, and resort land uses. The project area does not contain heavy industry or other point-source heavy pollution generators. Mobile pollution sources include vehicles on surrounding local and arterial roads, particularly Country Club Drive, Portola Avenue, Cook Street, and Frank Sinatra Drive in the Project area. Higher traffic volumes occur on Interstate-10, approximately 1½ miles to the north. The City supports and implements a number of sustainability policies, programs, and initiatives in the areas of waste stream diversion, drought-tolerant landscaping, clean transportation (golf carts, natural gas mass transit), energy efficiency and reduction, and green building strategies. Its GHG Inventory and Environmental Sustainability Plan, discussed in Section 2.8.3, establish community-wide GHG measures and reduction targets. 7 Ibid. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.8-7 2.8.6 Project Impacts a) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation, as described below. Construction GHG Emissions Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to occur over a two-year period starting in mid-2019 with build out in mid-2021. Project components are listed below; during construction of each component, fossil fuel use by construction equipment, machinery, haul trucks, and employees’ commuter vehicles will generate short-term GHG emissions. Due to the cumulative nature of GHG impacts, all project components have been analyzed concurrently. Phasing of the proposed Project will likely reduce GHG emission concentrations. • Surf Lagoon and Surf Center • Hotel and Villas • Off-Site Improvements: o Stormwater Management o Pool/Lagoon Discharge o Golf Course Turf Reduction o Landscaping Improvements o Special Events Parking o Soil Removal/Storage The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2, was used to estimate Project-related GHG emissions during construction (see Appendix B of this EIR). The results are summarized in the following table. GHG emissions will be temporary and will end once construction is complete. All components of construction, including equipment, fuels, and materials, will be subject to current regulations of GHGs and equipment efficiency standards, which are meant to reduce GHG emissions. Table 2.8-1 Construction GHG Emissions Summary (Metric Tons) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e 2019 787.54 0.18 0.00 791.99 2020 1,404.68 0.17 0.00 1,408.87 2021 289.61 0.03 0.00 290.37 TOTAL 2,481.83 0.38 0.00 2,491.23 Source: CalEEMod Versions 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this DEIR for detailed tables. Values shown represent the total unmitigated GHG emission projections for construction of the proposed Project. CO2e includes the remaining GHG pollutants, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.8-8 There are currently no construction-related GHG emission thresholds for projects of this nature. To determine if construction emissions will result in a significant impact, build out GHG emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to annual operational emissions to be compared to applicable GHG thresholds.8 The results are shown in Table 2.8-3. Operational GHG Emissions Operational emissions will occur throughout the life of the Project. At buildout, five emission source categories will contribute either directly or indirectly to operational GHG emissions: energy/electricity usage, water usage, solid waste disposal, area emissions (pavement and architectural coating off-gassing), and mobile sources. Project components are listed below, along with examples of potential emission sources for each component. • Surf Lagoon and Surf Center – fossil fuel use by vehicles (patrons, employees, deliveries, etc.); electricity and water usage at food service facilities; surf lagoon and swimming pool water usage; pavement and architectural coatings; pavement off-gassing • Hotel and Villas – fossil fuel use by vehicles (guests, employees, deliveries, etc.); electricity usage; spa and swimming pool water usage; architectural coatings and pavement off-gassing; solid waste disposal • Off-Site Improvements: o Stormwater Management - none o Pool/Lagoon Discharge – electricity for pumping o Golf Course Turf Reduction – water usage o Landscaping Improvements – water usage o Special Events Parking - fossil fuel use by vehicles (surf competitors, spectators, shuttles); pavement off-gassing o Soil Removal/Storage - none CalEEMod was used to estimate annual operational GHG emissions generated by the proposed Project (see Appendix B of this EIR) under two scenarios: 1) typical operations, and 2) special event operations. Table 2.8-2, below, shows daily emissions for a one-day special event. It is currently unknown how many special events will be held on an annual basis. For analysis purposes, it was assumed that 12 special events would be held per year. Special event emissions have been added to typical operation emissions and amortized construction emissions, as shown below. 8 “Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans,” SCAQMD, December 5, 2008. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.8-9 Table 2.8-2 Special Events Operational Emissions CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Pounds/Day 73,327.33 4.97 0.20 73,510.04 Conversion to Metric Tons 33.26 0.00 0.00 33.34 Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this DEIR for detailed tables. Values shown represent average (winter and summer) daily emissions during a special event. Table 2.8-3 Operational GHG Emission Summary (Metric Tons/Year) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Typical Operations 16,907.63 24.91 0.12 17,565.85 12 Special Events1 399.12 0.00 0.00 400.08 Amortized Construction2 82.73 0.01 0.00 83.04 Total Operational Emissions 18,048.97 Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this DEIR for detailed tables. Values shown represent the total unmitigated GHG emission projections for operation of the proposed Project under two scenarios. 1. Emissions derived from multiplying daily metric ton emissions in Table 2.8-2 by 12. 2. Buildout construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years then added to buildout operational GHG emissions. Emission numbers on “TOTAL” line in Table 2.8-1 were divided by 30, and are provided above. The bulk of operational emissions are largely due to the number of vehicle trips generated by the Project. As shown in Table 2.8-2, one special event (33.34 MTCO2e/yr) will increase overall GHG emissions by a marginal 0.19 percent. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD formally adopted a greenhouse gas significance threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr that only applies to stationary source projects (industrial uses) for which SCAQMD is the lead agency (SCAQMD Resolution No. 08-35). This threshold was adopted based upon an October 2008 staff report and draft interim guidance document 9 that also recommended a threshold for all projects using a tiered approach. It was recommended by SCAQMD staff that a project’s greenhouse gas emissions would be considered significant if it could not comply with at least one of the following “tiered” tests: Tier 1: Is there an applicable exemption? Does Not Comply: The proposed Project does not qualify for an applicable exemption under CEQA. 9 Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, prepared by SCAQMD, October 2008. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.8-10 Tier 2: Is the project compliant with a greenhouse gas reduction plan that is, at a minimum, consistent with the goals of AB 32? Does Not Comply: Although the City of Palm Desert has an adopted Environmental Sustainability Plan which is consistent with AB 32, the Project would not comply with Tier 2 because the Plan is not a CEQA certified document. SCAQMD requires that the “greenhouse gas reduction plan,” in this case the Sustainability Plan, have a certified Final CEQA document. Tier 3: Is the project below an absolute threshold (10,000 MTCO2e/yr for industrial projects; 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for residential and commercial projects)? Does Not Comply: The proposed Project is considered a commercial project and is estimated to emit 18,048.97 MT of CO2e annually. Tier 4: Is the project below a (yet to be set) performance threshold? Does Not Comply: There are currently no performance thresholds applicable to the proposed Project to measure against. Tier 5: Would the project achieve a screening level with off-site mitigation? Does Not Comply: The off-site mitigation proposed for the Project (Turf Reduction Plan) will offset water demands, but will not reduce Project GHG emissions to achieve a screening level. The Project would not comply with any of the tiered tests presented above, and will therefore have Significant and Unavoidable Impacts associated with GHG emissions. However, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 assures that the Project adheres to the Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan10, and its implementation would help reduce GHG emission impacts. b) Does the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? All components of construction and operation, including equipment, fuels, materials, and management practices, would be subject to current SCAQMD rules and regulations related to greenhouse gases. Applicable SCAQMD rules include, but are not limited to, source-specific standards that reduce the greenhouse gas content in engines and limit equipment idling durations. The Project will also adhere to the required state Low Carbon Fuel Standard for construction equipment and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency standards. Construction-related GHG emissions will not exceed GHG thresholds for construction because no such thresholds have been established. However, because the Project would result in Significant and Unavoidable impacts, as discussed above, it can be argued that operational impacts would conflict with GHG reduction goals because operation of the Project would either exceed or not comply with SCAQMD’s interim tiered thresholds. By exceeding such thresholds, 10 It should be noted that adherence to the Environmental Sustainability Plan, which is consistent with AB 32, would not comply with Tier 2 because the Plan is not a CEQA certified document. SCAQMD requires that the “greenhouse gas reduction plan,” in this case the Sustainability Plan, have a certified Final CEQA document. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.8-11 the Project is contributing to GHG emissions at a level that is not conducive to reducing state and local GHG emissions. Although implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 will assure the Project complies with the Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. 2.8.7 Mitigation Measures GHG-1 The Project shall implement the policies of the Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan applicable to its development. The Project shall adhere to the following principals, goals, and actions: • Adherence to California Building Code, Title 24; • Assess potential for light-colored surfaces and shading to reduce urban heat island effect; • Incorporate solar power; • Use water efficient technologies to reduce water waste; • Require mandatory waste diversion of 100% inert and 75% other debris from residential, commercial, and construction debris; • Promote programs that replace turf with native low water-use plants, trees, ground cover and “hard-scapes,” including the redesign of golf courses to reduce the amount of irrigation required; • Use “desert style landscaping” and require “time-of-use” irrigating to reduce evaporation. 2.8.8 Significance After Mitigation The City’s Environmental Sustainability Plan includes a wide range of principles and recommended actions aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Programs with particular relevance to the proposed Project address building efficiency standards and greening opportunities for hotels and resorts, shaded spaces and preferential parking for alternative vehicles in parking lots, materials recycling, and minimization of food waste. Additional initiatives promote alternative modes of transportation, energy savings, water conservation, and the use of green cleaning products. Adherence to the Plan will assure the Project effectively minimizes GHG emissions. However, impacts remain significant and unavoidable due to non-compliance with the SCAQMD tiered test for GHG impacts. 2.8.9 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts were analyzed on a regional scale due to the dispersing nature of pollutant emissions and aggregate impacts from surrounding jurisdictions and air management districts. Through analysis of the regional and statewide plans for GHG reductions, a summary of projects approach was used. The geographic scope for the analysis of potential cumulative greenhouse DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.8-12 gas impacts is the overall Salton Sea Air Basin region in which the projects are being constructed and operated. However, some percentage of vehicular GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project may also come from sources outside of the SSAB. Operation of the proposed Project would exceed established SCAQMD thresholds and potential impacts would be reduced through adherence to the City’s Environmental Sustainability Plan. However, because the Project has significant and unavoidable Impacts related to GHG emissions, the proposed Project will also make a cumulatively considerable contribution to GHG levels. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.9-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2.9.1 Introduction This section describes hazardous materials and other hazards to public health and safety that could result from the proposed Project. Potential construction and operational impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are analyzed, and mitigation measures are proposed, as appropriate. This analysis also evaluates potential impacts from regional hazards including public and private airports and wildlife hazards. In this section, the term “hazardous materials” encompasses both hazardous substances and hazardous wastes. Federal and state law stipulate that materials and wastes may be considered hazardous if they are specifically listed by statute or if they are toxic, ignitable, corrosive, or reactive. There are circumstances where past activities, such as industrial or commercial operations on a site could have resulted in spills or leaks of hazardous materials to the ground, resulting in soil and/or groundwater contamination. Hazardous materials may also be required as part of, or result from, operation of a project. If improperly handled, hazardous materials and waste can cause public health hazards when released to the soil, groundwater, or air. The four basic exposure pathways through which an individual can be exposed to a chemical agent include: inhalation, ingestion, bodily contact, and injection. A common form of exposure is accidental release of hazardous materials during the construction phase. This type of exposure can lead to workers or the public to health hazards if they are released during the construction. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.9-2 2.9.2 Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this EIR, the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G is utilized to determine if the proposed Project would have a significant effect relating to hazards and hazardous materials within the project planning area. Impacts would be significant if the project would: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. 2.9.3 Regulatory Framework Federal U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Transport Act (49 USC 5101) The enforcement and implementation of federal laws and regulations pertaining to transportation of hazardous materials is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Transportation in association with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Under the direction of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974, the U.S. Department of Transportation was to establish criteria and regulations regarding the safe storage and transportation of hazardous materials. CFR 49, 171-180, regulates the transportation of hazardous materials, types of materials defined as hazardous as well as the marking of vehicles transporting hazardous materials. Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorizes the USEPA to control hazardous waste from beginning to end. This encompasses the generation, transportation, DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.9-3 treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes is set by the RCRA. With the 1986 amendments to the RCRA, the USEPA was given the authority to address environmental problems that could occur as a result of underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. Federal Aviation Administration U.S. airspace is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), while the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) specify the criteria for evaluating the potential effects of obstructions on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace within a range of two to three miles of airport runways. The FAA requires the notification of proposed projects that exceed specific height requirements. The nearest airport to the project site is the Bermuda Dunes Executive Airport, with the Palm Springs International Airport and the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport within the greater Coachella Valley. State California Occupational Safety and Health Act – California Labor Code, Section 6300 In 1973, the California Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed by the legislature in order to address California employees’ working conditions, enabling the enforcement of workplace standards, as well as providing provisions for advancements in the field of occupational health and safety. The Act also created the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA), which is the main agency responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. Cal OSHA’s standards are typically more stringent than federal regulations. The regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of safety equipment, accident-prevention programs, and hazardous substances and hazardous substance exposure warnings. At sites known or suspected to be contaminated by hazardous materials, workers must have training in hazardous materials operations and a Site Health and Safety Plan must be prepared. The Health and Safety Plan establishes policies and procedures to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential hazards at the contaminated site. Hazardous Waste Permit Program – California Health and Safety Code, Title 22, Chapter 20 The provisions for the issuance and administration of hazardous waste permits pursuant to the Health and Safety Code are provided under Title 22, Chapter 20. These regulations cover basic permitting requirements, such as application requirements, standard permit conditions, and monitoring and reporting requirements. Hazardous Waste Permits are required for the transfer, treatment, storage, and disposal of any hazardous waste pursuant to Section 66261.3. Additionally, owners and operators of specified facilities require hazardous waste facility permits under programs for certain aspects of the facility’s operation. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.9-4 Hazardous Waste Control Law – California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5 The regulation of hazardous wastes that are generated in the State of California falls under the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5. The law identifies proper guidance for the handling, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous wastes. Furthermore, the Hazardous Waste Control Law identifies the need for proper landfill disposal in order to reduce long-term threats to public health and to air and water quality. Included in this is the preparation of Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBPs) (Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code, Sections 25501 et seq.), which are required of businesses that handle specified quantities of chemicals in accordance with community right-to-know laws. This plan allows local agencies to plan appropriately for a chemical release, fire, or other incidents. Hazardous waste regulations establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; dictate the management of hazardous waste; establish permit requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal and transportation; and identify hazardous wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills. License to Transport Hazardous Materials – California Vehicle Code, Section 32000.5 et seq. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) regulates hazardous materials transportation on all interstate roads. The State agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing federal and State regulations and for responding to transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and Caltrans. Together, federal and State agencies determine driver training requirements, load labeling procedures, and container specifications for vehicles transporting hazardous materials. California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, Chapters 33, 50, and 57 The 2016 California Fire Code (CFC), written by the California Building Standards Commission, is based on the International Fire Code. The International Fire Code (IFC) is a model code that regulates minimum fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings, facilities, storage and processes. The IFC addresses fire prevention, fire protection, life safety, and safe storage and use of hazardous materials in new and existing buildings, facilities, and processes. Uniform Fire Code The Uniform Fire Code, Article 80 (Section 80.103 as adopted by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 13143.9), includes specific requirements for the safe storage and handling of hazardous materials and for mixing of incompatible chemicals, and specifies specific design features to reduce the potential for a release of hazardous materials that could affect public health or the environment. Emergency Response Planning California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local government and private entities. Responding to hazardous materials incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is administered by the State Office of Emergency Services, which coordinates the responses of other agencies. The Riverside County DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.9-5 Environmental Health Department’s Emergency Response Team provides response service for hazardous materials emergencies within the region, including the Project site. Emergency Response Team members respond and work with local fire and police agencies, California Highway Patrol and others in providing a coordinated response. CAL FIRE CAL FIRE maps identify fire hazard severity zones in the state and local responsibility areas. Wildland fire protection in California is the responsibility of either the state, local government, or the federal government. A Designated Safety Responsibility Area (SRA) is the area “in which the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires is primarily the responsibility of the state” (Public Resources Code Section 4125). Local responsibility areas (LRA) include incorporated cities, cultivated agricultural lands, and portions of the desert. LRA fire protection is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by CAL FIRE under contract to local government. Regional/Local Riverside County Department of Environmental Health The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Branch is responsible for overseeing the six hazardous materials programs in the County. The Branch is responsible for inspecting facilities that handle hazardous materials, generate hazardous waste, treat hazardous waste, own/operate underground storage tanks, own/operate aboveground petroleum storage tanks, or handle other materials subject to the California Accidental Release Program. In addition, the Branch maintains an emergency response team that responds to hazardous materials and other environmental health emergencies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The County-wide Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Team consists of personnel from the Riverside County Fire Department and Environmental Health HazMat Program staff. This team responds jointly to hazardous materials incidents in the County and any CalFire- contracted city, including Palm Desert. Riverside County Hazardous Waste Management Plans (HWMP) Pursuant to AB 2948 (Tanner, 1986), Riverside County prepared the Hazardous Waste Management Plans (HWMP) that was adopted in 1990. The HWMP identifies the type and quantity of hazardous waste generated in the County. It projects future quantities likely to be generated, and includes goals, policies, and standards for the management of hazardous waste. Also, the HWMP establishes procedures for the siting of new hazardous materials treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. HWMP policies require the County to coordinate its efforts with state and federal agencies in the identification and establishment of programs for managing these wastes. As an integral part of the County HWMP, the City hazardous waste management policies of the General Plan are basically extensions of the County Plan and are hereby incorporated by reference. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.9-6 Palm Desert General Plan The City’s General Plan takes steps to address hazardous materials and local hazards by including programs and policies to reduce potential exposure to potentially hazardous materials. The applicable policies would help the project to avoid or reduce potential impacts, and include: Chapter 8. Safety • Policy 1.6 Utility Reliability. Coordinate with providers and agencies including the CVWD and Southern California Edison for access to reliable utilities and water supply to minimize potential impacts of hazards and emergencies to pipelines and infrastructure. • Policy 4.1 Fire Preparation. Maintain optimal fire readiness and response service in coordination with Riverside County and other agencies. • Policy 4.3 Brush Clearance. Require new development and home owners associations to maintain brush clearance criteria that meets 120% of the current state requirement for fire hazard severity zones in the city. • Policy 5.2 Education on Extreme Heat. Educate visitors and residents on the risks of extreme heat using brochures, public service announcements, and other methods. In addition to these policies, the City of Palm Desert has also prepared a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). The purpose of the LHMP is to integrate hazard mitigation strategies into the City’s daily activities and programs. The LHMP assesses risk from earthquakes, transportation accidents, transportation system loss, wild land/urban interface fires, terrorism, nuclear accidents, utility loss or disruption, water and wastewater disruption, hazardous materials incidents, information technology loss or disruption, severe weather, explosions, economic disruption, floods, drought, dam failure, and special events. 2.9.4 Environmental Setting A hazardous material is any substance that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical properties, may pose a hazard to human health and the environment. Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the term “hazardous substance” refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes.1 Both of these are classified according to four properties: (1) toxicity; (2) ignitability; (3) corrosiveness; and (4) reactivity. A hazardous material is defined as a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, 1 California Department of Toxic Substances Control Website, https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/LawsRegsPolicies/ Title22/, accessed February 2019. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.9-7 concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of or otherwise managed.2 Hazardous materials and chemicals are used daily by industry, businesses, and residents. Some hazardous material sources include seemingly innocuous businesses such as service stations, medical labs, dry-cleaners, and photo processing centers. Others are large firms that may generate large quantities of hazardous waste, such as chemical manufacturers, electroplating companies, or petroleum distilleries. In addition, commonly used household products such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides contain potentially hazardous ingredients. Accidental spills or leaks, illegal dumping of hazardous waste, illegal storage, or a transportation accident could release hazardous materials in the community. Both the federal government and the State of California require all businesses that store hazardous materials in excess of specified quantities to report their chemical inventories in a Hazardous Materials Management Plan. Businesses are also required to report releases of toxic chemicals into the air, water, and land, as well as off-site transfers of waste to another location. Facilities that store hazardous materials are required to report on pollution prevention activities and chemical recycling. All of these businesses operate under stringent regulations governing the storage, use, manufacturing, and handling of hazardous materials. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains and publishes a database that lists properties that handle or produce hazardous materials. The EPA defines a small quantity waste generator as one that produces between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month.3 Small businesses like dry cleaners, auto repair shops, hospitals, and metal plating shops usually are defined as generators of small quantities of hazardous waste.4 State and federal agencies regulate hazardous materials. The Hazardous Waste Control law (Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code) and Title 26 of the CCR list more than 800 potentially hazardous materials and establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and disposing of such wastes. Under these regulations, the generator of any hazardous waste material must complete a manifest that accompanies the material from the point of generation to transportation to the ultimate disposal location, with copies of the manifest filed with State Department of Toxic Substance Control. 2 United States Environmental Protection Agency Website - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Federal Facilities, https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/resource-conservation-and-recovery-act-rcra- and-federal-facilities, accessed February 2019. 3 United States Environmental Protection Agency Website - Categories of Hazardous Waste Generators, https://www.epa.gov/hwgenerators/categories-hazardous-waste-generators, accessed February 2019. 4 A Guide for Small Businesses – Managing your Hazardous Waste by United States Environmental Protection Agency (2001). DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.9-8 2.9.5 Existing Conditions The Project site is located in the city of Palm Desert where hazardous materials transport, storage, and use is strictly regulated for large quantity users, such as industrial processing plants and commercial dry cleaners. The City implements regular consultation with the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The City also monitors and regulates industrial plants and commercial areas through the City’s Municipal Code. Areas with Potential Hazardous Materials Contamination SWRCB maintains an online database (GeoTracker) which includes information on existing locations of hazardous waste sites and their status. Currently, the GeoTracker database includes 40± sites within the City that are either listed or permitted as hazardous material sites under the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).5 No hazardous material site is recorded at the site. Airports The nearest airports to the Project site are Palm Springs International Airport (PSP) and Bermuda Dunes Airport (UDD). PSP is the largest and primary air transportation link for the region and is located approximately 9 miles northwest of the Project site. It is classified in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) as a long-haul commercial service airport. It also handles air freight and provides heliport access that is largely limited to medical evacuation flights between the Desert Regional Medical Center and Eisenhower Medical Center. UDD is a privately owned, public use airport located approximately 5 miles southeast of the Project site. It accommodates corporate and private aircraft and is the designated airport for medivac flights for John F. Kennedy Hospital and Eisenhower Medical Center. Schools The Project site is within Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) service boundary. The nearest elementary school is James Earl Carter Elementary School, located approximately 1.10 miles southwest of the project site. No school sites are located within a quarter mile of any component of the proposed Project. Wildfire The City of Palm Desert is exposed to fire-related hazards from two potential sources: wildfires and fires that occur in urban settings. Wildfire hazards are highest in areas of the community near the wildland-urban interface (WUI). Southern portions of the City are susceptible to the 5 GroTracker Online Database List, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=palm+desert+, accessed February 2019. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.9-9 risk of wildland fires. To reduce the wildfire risk, the City has adopted an emergency response plan which established procedures for fire conditions. The Project is located in the urban core of the City, and more than three miles from an area of wildland fire potential. Primary Emergency Evacuation Routes The primary emergency evacuation routes in the City of Palm Desert include I-10, Highway 111, Monterey Avenue, Portola Avenue, Cook Street, and Washington Street. The project site is located between Portola Avenue and Cook Street, which provide access in an emergency for the majority of the central city. The project is not proposing to modify any City roadway. 2.9.6 Project Impacts The following significance criteria are not discussed further in this section of the EIR because the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation determined there would be no environmental impacts as a result of the proposed Project: c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? The remaining significance criteria will have the potential for environmental impact as a result of the Project, as discussed below. a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.9-10 Lagoon and Surf Center Short-Term Impacts (Construction) The construction of the proposed lagoon and surf center would not result in the routine use, storage, transport, or disposal of large quantities of hazardous substances. The Project could involve the use of some hazardous and flammable substances that would be used during the construction phase. These substances would include vehicle fuels and oils in the operation of heavy equipment for site grading and inner roadway construction. Construction vehicles onsite may require routine or emergency maintenance that could result in the release of oil, diesel fuel, transmission fluid, or other materials. However, the materials used would not be in quantities or stored in a manner that pose a significant hazard to the public. Also, all potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with these standards and regulations. The existing surface parking lot in the northeastern portion of the Project site will be demolished as part of the project. Disposal of existing asphalt and concrete will occur in licensed landfills, and will be required to comply with State and local regulations. With implementation of existing regulations, demolition of the existing parking lot will have a less than significant impact on the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Long-Term Operation The Project would develop a lagoon and surf center. The secondary activities that would occur at the site (e.g., building and lagoon and landscape maintenance) would involve the use of limited quantities of hazardous materials. The surf lagoon would use basic cleaning equipment and chemicals to maintain the pH levels for surfers. Project hazardous materials usage will be limited to small amounts. Furthermore, cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used in the regular maintenance of buildings and landscaping would be utilized. The quantities stored at the site would be comparable to typical commercial uses, and would be regulated by State and local law, including Fire Department regulations requiring proper storage and inspection. These regulations, including those imposed by both the County of Riverside and the Fire Department, are designed to lower impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, long-term impacts would be less than significant. Hotel and Villas Short-Term Impacts (Construction) Construction of the hotel and villas would also involve the temporary use of potentially hazardous materials, including vehicle fuels, paints, oils, and transmission fluids. However, all potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.9-11 regulations. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with these standards and regulations. Overall, project impacts associated with construction activities for this component of the Project would be less than significant. Long-Term Operation This component of the Project would result in a hotel and residential units which would involve use of limited quantities of hazardous materials such as cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and similar materials. These chemicals will be transported and stored within the project site. These will occur in limited quantities and will not require a hazardous material handling/storage permit. The manner in which commercial chemicals are stored and handled is highly regulated by the Fire Department, County and State. These standard requirements will assure that impacts associated with commercial quantities of chemicals will be less than significant. Off-Site Improvements The proposed off-site improvements are limited to underground utility extensions, stormwater management, landscaping, and parking. These activities and land uses will not require the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. This portion of the Project will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. There will be no impacts. f) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Lagoon and Surf Center The lagoon and surf center site are located within the Desert Willow Golf Course, a square mile development area bounded on the west by Portola Avenue, on the east by Cook Street, on the north by Frank Sinatra Drive and on the south by Country Club Drive. The Project site is located on the west side of Desert Willow Drive. According to the City's General Plan, the Project site is not located along a designated emergency evacuation route. The nearest evacuation routes are Portola Avenue and Cook Street approximately 0.24 mile to the west and 0.54 mile east of the site, respectively. The majority of construction activities for the lagoon and surf center would be confined to the Project site itself; however, limited infrastructure improvements may require some work in adjacent street rights-of-way (Desert Willow Drive and Willow Ridge). As such, some partial lane closures adjacent to the Project site, including on Desert Willow Drive, may occur during construction. These roadways could be used by people evacuating the area during an emergency. In the event of an emergency, construction crews would cease all work and would remove any equipment that would impede the flow of traffic. Access for emergency vehicles would be maintained throughout project construction. Although construction activities may require temporary lane closures, appropriate traffic management and control plans would be DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.9-12 followed pursuant to mitigation measures TRANSP-15 and -16 (see Section 3.16., Transportation and Traffic). Therefore, the proposed Project would not physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Impacts would be less than significant. Occasionally, special events would be conducted at the lagoon site, increasing traffic on major roadways such as Country Club Drive, Portola Avenue, Cook Street, and Frank Sinatra Drive. As described in Section 2.15, Transportation and Traffic, however, this increase in traffic will not cause significant deterioration in roadway operations. In addition, to control the traffic on these roads, a Special Event Traffic Management Plan would be prepared for each special event., as described in Mitigation Measures TRANSP-5 though -14. With implementation of these measures, special events occurring within the lagoon and surf center will have less than significant impacts on emergency evacuation plans. Hotel and Villas As is the case with the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center components of the Project, the Hotel and Villa component is not located on an emergency evacuation route. Access to this area of the Project will be taken from Desert Willow Drive, and through the perimeter roadway within the proposed Project. During construction, the majority of activities for the hotel and villas would be confined to the Project site itself; however, limited off-site infrastructure improvements may require some work in adjacent street rights-of-way (Desert Willow Drive, and Willow Ridge). As with the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center, lane closures on Desert Willow Drive may occur during construction, however, evacuation would still be possible during an emergency. Access for emergency vehicles would be maintained throughout project construction. Appropriate traffic management and control plans would be followed pursuant to mitigation measures TRANSP-15 through -19 (see Section 2.15., Transportation and Traffic). During normal operations, the hotels and villas will not impact existing evacuation routes, this component of the Project does not propose any change in the street grid. Emergency access to the site will be provided via the internal loop road, and an emergency access point will be located at Willow Ridge Road, in addition to the two public access points onto Desert Willow Drive. Therefore, the proposed Project would not physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Off-Site Improvements: Stormwater Management: The areas where stormwater infrastructure will be installed are not located within or along a designated emergency evacuation route. In addition, installation of stormwater infrastructure will involve minimal construction vehicles trips and activities which would be not physically interfere with any emergency response plan. No impact is anticipated. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.9-13 Pool/Lagoon Discharge: As with the stormwater management infrastructure, the installation of underground pipes will not impact evacuation routes. No impact is anticipated. Golf Course Turf Reduction: Replacement of turf areas with the desert landscape within the golf course would not be located within or along a designated emergency evacuation route. No impact is anticipated. Landscaping Improvements: Landscaping along the edge of the project and the golf course would not occur on designated emergency evacuation routes. No impact is anticipated. Overflow Parking: The off-site parking area will be used to accommodate vehicles during special events where traffic and parking would be managed through project’s Special Event Traffic Management Plan. This plan will be prepared according to the City’s traffic standards and emergency evacuation plan, therefore, this component of the project would not conflict with these plans. No impact is anticipated. Soil Removal/Storage: To minimize impacts on major roadways, all Project components, including the staging of haul trucks, will be subject to plan review by the Public Works, Fire, and Police Departments as required by mitigation measure TRANSP-15 (see Section 3.16., Transportation and Traffic). Any trucks transporting soil off-site to the Classic Club will be temporary travel and after construction is complete, soil removal/storage will cease, and this Project component will have no impact on emergency access or plan. 2.9.7 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures (TRANSP-5 through TRANSP -14 and TRANSP -15 through -19) provided in Section 2.15. will be applicable to the Project. 2.9.8 Significance After Mitigation With implementation of the mitigation measures provided in Section 2.15., Project-related impacts will be less than significant. 2.9.9 Cumulative Impacts Hazardous materials and risk of upset conditions are largely site-specific, and would occur on a case-by-case basis for each individual project affected, in conjunction with development proposals on these properties. All new developments in the City are required to evaluate potential threats to public safety, including those associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment during construction and operation, emergency response, transport/use/disposal of hazardous materials, and hazards to sensitive receptors (including schools). DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.9-14 Implementation of the regulatory compliance measures and traffic-related mitigation measures would reduce the proposed Project’s potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials during construction and operation as well as emergency response to less-than- significant levels, such that the proposed Project would not combine with any of the related projects to cause a cumulatively significant impact. Further, each related project would be required to follow local, State and federal laws regarding hazardous materials and other hazards. Therefore, with compliance with local, State and federal laws pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality 2.10.1 Introduction This section describes existing hydrological conditions, including groundwater, surface water, water quality, stormwater, and flooding conditions within the Project area and evaluates potential impacts to hydrology and water quality that could result from implementation of the DSRT SURF Specific Plan. The analysis in this section is based on the review of existing resources, applicable laws and regulations, and the following technical reports prepared for the proposed Project: • Preliminary Hydrology Report1 (Appendix F) • Water Quality Management Plan2 (Appendix F) 2.10.2 Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds or criteria are those recommended in §15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines and Appendix G of the Guidelines, and are used to determine if and to what extent a project may have a potentially significant impact on hydrology and water resources. The Project would have a significant effect if it would: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. 1 Preliminary Hydrological Report for Tentative Tract Map No. 37639 – DSRT SURF prepared by The Altum Group, December 3, 2018. 2 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Tentative Map 37639 – DSRT SURF prepared by The Altum Group, December 31, 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-2 b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. 2.10.3 Regulatory Framework State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code) is the primary statute covering the quality of waters in California. Under the act, the State Water Quality Control Board (SWRCB) has the ultimate authority over the State’s water quality policy. The SWRCB administers water rights, water pollution control, and water quality functions throughout the state, while the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) conduct planning, permitting, and enforcement activities. The RWQCBs also regulate water quality under this act through the regulatory standards and objectives set forth in Water Quality Control Plans (also referred to as Basin Plans) prepared for each region. The most current version of the Colorado River Region Basin Plan was adopted in 2017. The Basin Plan has five major components: 1. identifies the waters of the region; 2. designates beneficial uses of those waters; 3. establishes water quality objectives for the protection of those uses; 4. prescribes an implementation plan; and 5. establishes a monitoring and surveillance program to assess implementation efforts. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-3 Senate Bill 610 Senate Bill 610, codified in the California Water Code, Sections 10910 et seq., became effective January 1, 2002. Senate Bill 610 requires counties and cities to consider the availability of adequate water supplies for certain new large development projects. These statutory provisions include requirements for both water supply assessments and Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) applicable to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. Senate Bill 610 requires that for specified projects subject to CEQA, the urban water supplier must prepare a water supply assessment (WSA) that determines whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project is included as part of the most recently adopted UWMP. Specifically, a water supply assessment shall identify existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system, and prior years’ water deliveries received by the public water system. In addition, it must address water supplies over a 20-year period and consider average, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. In accordance with Senate Bill 610 and Section 10912 of the California Water Code, projects subject to CEQA requiring submittal of a water supply assessment include the following: • Residential developments of more than 500 dwelling units. • Shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. • Commercial office buildings employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. • Hotels, motels, or both, having more than 500 rooms. • Industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park of more than 40 acres of land, more than 650,000 square feet of floor area, or employing more than 1,000 persons. • Mixed-use projects that include one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. • A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to or greater than the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. The water supply assessment must be approved by the public water system at a regular or special meeting and must be incorporated into the CEQA document. The lead agency must then make certain findings related to water supply based on the water supply assessment. As described in Section I, Project Description, of this EIR, the Project would provide for the development of a surf lagoon (6 acres), 40,750 square feet of commercial and retail use and 12,500 square feet of maintenance and equipment buildings, up to 350 hotel rooms, and up to 88 villas. Therefore, the Project is subject to the requirements of Senate Bill 610 since the Project would include components which will demand water greater than the amount required for 500 dwelling units. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-4 Senate Bill 221 Senate Bill 221 (SB 221) was enacted in 2001 and became effective as of January 1, 2002. SB 221 amends Section 11010 of the Business and Professional Code, and amends Section 65867.5 to add Sections 66455.3 and 66473.7 to the Government Code. SB 221 establishes the relationship between the WSA prepared for a project and project approval under the Subdivision Map Act. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66473.7, the Public Water Supplier must provide a written water supply verification (WSV) demonstrating sufficient water supply prior to the approval of a new subdivision. SB 221 states that “a WSV is required prior to the approval of a tentative subdivision map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, or a development agreement for a subdivision of property of more than 500 dwelling units, except as specified, including the design of the subdivision or similar type of improvement.” The proposed Project involves a Tentative Parcel Map and, therefore, a WSV is required. California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 5 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), establishes the California Plumbing Code, which was last updated in 2015 and became effective January 1, 2016. The California Plumbing Code sets forth efficiency standards (i.e., maximum flow rates) for new plumbing fittings and fixtures, including showerheads and lavatory faucets. Section 1605.3(h) establishes State efficiency standards for non-federally regulated plumbing fittings, including commercial pre-rinse spray valves.3 On January 17, 2014, the Governor proclaimed a State of Emergency and on April 1, 2015, the governor issued Executive Order B-29-15, which ordered the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to adopt emergency regulations imposing restrictions to achieve a 25 percent reduction in potable urban water usage across the State. Agencies assigned to Tier 9, including CVWD, having residential water use above 215 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), were required to reduce water use by 36 percent compared to 2013 water use. This reduction was reduced to 32 percent in February 2016 and became locally implemented in May 2016. Following an above normal snowpack in northern California, on May 9, 2016, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-37-16 that focused on long-term water use efficiency. In response to that order, the SWRCB adopted revised emergency regulations in May 2016 that transition the mandates away from demand-based regulations. Under the new regulations, individual districts will self-certify the level of available water supplies assuming three additional dry years and the level of conservation necessary to assure adequate supply over that time. It is anticipated that the new self-certification process will result in a reduction in the emergency mandatory reduction target imposed on CVWD by the SWRCB. 3 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards - Reference Ace v30 (Section 1605.3. State Standards for Non- Federally- Regulated Appliances) and 2015 Appliance Efficiency Regulations by California Energy Commission (July 2015). DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-5 Even though the State is out of the "exceptional drought" designation, CVWD and other agencies continue to control overdrafts in the subbasins by implementing water management and landscape policies and prohibiting wasteful water use.4 Local Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Ordinance No. 1302 CVWD mandates efficiency in newly installed landscape irrigation systems via Ordinance No. 1302 (Valley-wide Water Efficient Landscaping Model Ordinance). CVWD’s ordinance is significantly more stringent than the State model ordinance. This ordinance establishes effective water-efficient landscape requirements for newly installed and rehabilitated landscapes. The ordinance also implements the requirements of the State of California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act. Most cities in the Coachella Valley have adopted the CVWD ordinance or a version thereof; some have adopted more stringent or completely different ordinances. Palm Desert Municipal Code Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 24.04, Water-Efficient Landscape, establishes water efficiency requirements for new development and mandates installation of high efficiency landscaping in residential and commercial buildings. This code is consistent with the CVWD’s Ordinance No. 1302 and is established to minimize wasteful water use in landscaping. This code also helps new developments to meet the minimum requirements of the State of California Code of Regulations Title 23, Water Division 2, Department of Water Resources Chapter 2.7 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and the State of California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act, Sections 65591, 65593, 65596 Government Code. Palm Desert General Plan The following General Plan policies are relevant to the proposed Project: Chapter 6. Environmental Resources • Policy 1.1 Water conservation technologies. Promote indoor and outdoor water conservation and reuse practices including water recycling, grey water re-use and rainwater harvesting. • Policy 1.2 Landscape design. Encourage the reduction of landscaping water consumption through plant selection and irrigation technology. 4 State Water Resources Control Board Website - Emergency Conservation Regulation, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/emergency_regulation.html, accessed February 2019. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-6 • Policy 1.3 Conservation performance targeted to new construction. Incentivize new construction to exceed the state’s Green Building Code for water conservation by an additional 10 percent. Chapter 9. Public Utilities and Services • Policy 1.1 Stormwater infrastructure for new development. Require development projects pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that development (regional shallow groundwater). • Policy 1.2 On-site stormwater retention and infiltration. Whenever possible, stormwater shall be infiltrated, evapotranspirated, reused or treated on-site in other ways that improve stormwater quality and reduce flows into the storm drain system. • Policy 1.3 Groundwater infiltration. Encourage the use of above-ground and natural stormwater facilities in new development and redevelopment, such as vegetated swales and permeable paving. • Policy 1.6 Collaborative stormwater management. Encourage collaborative, integrated stormwater management between multiple property owners and sites. • Policy 1.7 Low impact development. Require the use of low-impact development strategies to minimize urban run-off, increase site infiltration, manage stormwater and recharge groundwater supplies. • Policy 1.13 Soil erosion. Require the prevention of water-born soil erosion from sites, especially those undergoing grading and mining activities. • Policy 2.2 Sewer infrastructure for new development. Require development projects to pay for their share of new sewer infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that development. • Policy 3.4 Water infrastructure for new development. Require development projects to pay for their share of new water infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that project. 2.10.4 Environmental Setting The climate conditions in the Coachella Valley are characterized as “subtropical desert.” Mean annual rainfall is very low on the desert floor and into the foothills, ranging from 2 to 4 inches per year on the valley floor and averaging about 5 to 6 inches along the foothills. Generally, temperatures decrease and precipitation increases with increasing elevation. In some years, no DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-7 measurable rainfall has been reported on portions of the valley floor. Most of the valley’s rainfall occurs during the cooler months of November through March, but occasional high- intensity thunderstorms and tropical storms occur in late summer and early fall. Although the ground may be generally dry at the beginning of a storm, sufficient amounts and intensities of rainfall can saturate the surface, substantially reducing percolation and increasing runoff. Four types of storm events (i.e. general winter storms, combining high-intensity rainfall, rapid melting of the mountain snowpack, and summer thunderstorms) cause flooding in the Coachella Valley. Summer storms pose a greater threat of localized flooding than winter storms because of their high intensity and short duration of rainfall. Monsoons, and warm winter storms with snowmelt, can generate significant runoff over a much larger area. Very heavy rainfall was generated over a three-county area, with Palm Desert receiving 6.81 inches of rain, during September 9–11 in 1976. Notable regional flash flooding also occurred in 1998. 2.10.5 Existing Conditions Regional Surface Water Hydrology The Project site is located at the southwesterly boundary of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region (HR) in the Whitewater River Hydrologic Unit (HU) and falls under the jurisdiction of the Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 7). Within the Whitewater River Hydrologic Unit, the Project site lies in the Whitewater River watershed. Much of the watershed consists of sparsely populated mountains, desert, and agricultural lands. Urbanized areas are principally located on the Coachella Valley floor between Banning and Indio along Interstate 10, and from Palm Springs to Coachella along State Highway 111. In the Coachella Valley, the Whitewater River is the principal drainage course; it is typically dry, but flows southeasterly when it carries water. The Whitewater River has a total drainage area of approximately 850 square miles and drains areas as far away as the summit of Mount San Gorgonio and the steep southern and eastern slopes of Mount San Gorgonio. Local Flooding Flooding is a general or temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas. The Coachella Valley is an arid desert region averaging 2 to 4 inches of rain per year. However, the surrounding mountains are subject to much higher rainfall rates which can produce unpredictable, damaging, and even deadly flash flooding events throughout the valley. Stormwater flows and flash runoff from the Indio Hills and the foothills of the San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mountains generate flooding hazards in the City. The majority of the northern portion of the City, north of I-10, is located within the 100- or 500-year flood zone. Th Project site is not located within the 100- or 500-year flood zone.5 5 Palm Desert General Plan, City of Palm Desert, 2016 – Figure 8.4. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-8 Proposed Stormwater Management Plan The Project site is located within the Desert Willow Golf Course which was designed in 1997. As part of the Desert Willow Master Drainage Plan (Exhibit 2.10-1), runoff from the development sites, including the Project site, and golf course was routed to depressions (retention areas referred to as waste areas) within the golf course fairways for storage and percolation. The Project site occurs within the boundary of the South Golf Course Runoff Management Plan. Storm drains and retention areas were adequately sized to manage 100-year runoff from all drainage areas.6 In addition to the designated retention areas, additional depressions in other fairways provided additional storage capacity over and above the calculated amounts. The Altum Group prepared the “Preliminary Hydrology Report” for the currently proposed Project in December 2018. The Project site will be divided into four drainage areas. Runoff from each of these areas will be conveyed through underground storm drain lines to three existing Desert Willow Golf Course drainage waste areas adjacent to the Project site. The report found that subareas 1 through 3 can convey peak design flowrates in 24-inch conduit flowing partially full, and subarea 4 can convey peak design flowrates in an 18-inch conduit flowing partially full. The subareas are discussed below and shown in Exhibit 2.10-2. Subarea 1: consists of 4.90 acres with initial subarea runoff of 19.56 cubic feet per second (cfs). As proposed, runoff from this drainage area will be conveyed via surface and piped flows to an existing Desert Willow Golf Course drainage waste area located northwest of the site. Subarea 2: consists of 2.06 acres with initial subarea runoff of 7.90 cfs. As proposed, runoff from this drainage area will be conveyed via surface and piped flows to an existing drainage waste area located southwest of the site. Subarea 3: consists of 2.40 acres with initial subarea runoff of 8.30 cfs. As proposed, runoff from this drainage area will be conveyed via surface and piped flows to an existing Desert Willow Golf Course drainage waste area located southeast of the site. Subarea 4: consists of 1.13 acres with initial subarea runoff of 5.00 cfs. This subarea is connected to Subarea 1, and runoff from this drainage area will also be conveyed to the existing drainage waste area located northwest of the site. The surf lagoon encompasses 6 acres of the Project site, and is not expected to generate runoff. Rather, the hydrology study determined that it will be a “self-treating area” connected via a 16- inch wide gravity flow evacuation pipe to an existing 24-inch wide evacuation line. If required, the surf lagoon water will be treated before being sent to the evacuation line. The 24-inch 6 “Desert Willow South Golf Course Runoff Management Plan,” Maniero, Smith and Associates, Inc., February 12, 1997. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-9 evacuation line runs southeast along the Project site boundary and connects to an existing artificial lake near Country Club Drive within the Desert Willow Golf Course, 0.5 miles south of the Project site. Water Resources The Whitewater River Groundwater Basin underlies the valley which generally extends from the Whitewater River in the northwest to the Salton Sea in the southeast. The aquifer is naturally subdivided by fault barriers into subbasins, which are further divided into subareas. Desert Water Agency (DWA) and the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) jointly utilize and manage a replenishment program for the local groundwater basin, the Upper Whitewater River Subbasin. Estimates of groundwater storage in the Upper Whitewater River Subbasin range from 10.5 to 14.2 million acre-feet. In total, the subbasins underlying the Coachella Valley contain approximately 39.2 million acre-feet of water in storage, of which about 28.8 million are within the Whitewater River Subbasin. Natural recharge from precipitation and runoff, supplemented with artificial recharge from imported Colorado River, State Water Project water, and recycled water from wastewater treatment plants also provide water to the Coachella Valley. Water Quality Groundwater quality in the Coachella Valley varies with depth, proximity to faults and recharge basins, presence of surface contaminants, and other hydrogeological or human factors. CVWD conducts water quality monitoring in accordance with federal and state drinking water requirements and analyzes water samples for more than 100 regulated and unregulated substances. Based on the most current water quality report (CVWD 2017-2018), drinking water delivered from CVWD’s potable water system supplied from groundwater wells complies with all state and federal drinking water quality regulations.7 Two naturally occurring substances, arsenic and chromium-6, are among the over 100 constituents that are monitored in the Coachella Valley’s groundwater supply. CVWD treats some of its groundwater wells to reduce arsenic and chromium-6 levels in the drinking water supply and is conducting ongoing water treatment efforts to reduce chromium-6 levels delivered from groundwater wells. 7 Coachella Valley Water District 2017-2018 Water Quality Report Annual Review Report. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-13 2.10.6 Project Impacts The Altum Group prepared a Preliminary Hydrological Report and Water Quality Management Plan for the Project site in December 2018. The hydrological analysis included literature review, and rational method analysis. Results of the Project site’s assessment are provided below. The remaining significance criteria will have some environmental impact which are discussed below: a) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? e) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Lagoon and Surf Center Construction Impacts The use of construction equipment and other vehicles could result in spills of oil, grease, gasoline, brake fluid, antifreeze, or other vehicle-related fluids and pollutants. Furthermore, improper handling, storage, or disposal of fuels and materials or improper cleaning of machinery could result in accidental spills or discharges that could degrade water quality. The lagoon and surf center site is within the Desert Willow Golf Course which has several artificial ponds and lakes. The proposed Project is required to comply with a number of regulations designed to reduce or eliminate construction-related water quality effects, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which will regulate stormwater discharges to surface waters during construction of the lagoon and surf center. Adherence to NPDES protocols will protect the quality of surface waters from potential construction-related impacts. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was prepared for the proposed Project which includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) specific to the Project site, including the lagoon and surf center. Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-3 will effectively reduce or avoid the discharge of any pollutants of concern that might enter nearby receiving waters by establishing limits of construction and the use of a variety of standard practices. For example, Project WQMP BMPs include the incorporation of parking area landscaping into the drainage system, properly maintaining construction equipment and vehicles to prevent leakage of petroleum products, and draining impervious surface (e.g. sidewalks and parking lots) to adjacent landscaping areas. Project construction will incorporate the use of a wide range of BMPs included in the WQMP to ensure that surface runoff during construction will not adversely affect surface or groundwater quality. Implementation of these mitigation measures will minimize impacts to surface water quality without substantially degrading surface or groundwater quality. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-14 Construction activities will also result in the exposure of surface soils which could be carried downstream by prevailing winds or storms. These soils could increase sedimentation in pipes and waste areas, which could reduce their capacity and negatively impact the stormwater management system both on- and off-site. In order to assure that sediment and silt are controlled, mitigation measures HYD-1 and HYD-2 have been provided, requiring the implementation of WQMP BMPs and the stabilization of exposed soils. These mitigation measures will assure that impacts to water quality related to sediments will be reduced to less than significant levels. Overall, implementation of the BMPs and compliance with the NPDES would prevent degradation of water quality during Project construction, and Project impacts would be less than significant. Operational Impacts At Project buildout, runoff from the lagoon and surf center could contain pollutants common in urban runoff, including metals, oils and grease, pesticides, herbicides, nutrients, pet waste, and garbage/litter. Without BMPs to remove these pollutants, stormwater leaving the lagoon and surf center site could degrade the quality of receiving waters. As described above, the surf lagoon will be a “self-treating area,” which will be required to meet water standards for users. Water from the lagoon will be treated prior discharging to the artificial lake located south of the golf course via evacuation line. According to the hydrological map, the surf center and associated parking structure are located in sub-drainage areas 3 and 4. Stormwater from sub-drainage areas 3 and 4 will be conveyed to two existing drainage waste areas located northwest and southeast of the site within the Desert Willow Golf Course. The Desert Willow Golf Course is a public facility owned by the City. As shown in Exhibit 2.10-3, the Project also proposes a system of underground tanks, pipes and drywells to convey and control daily pool and lagoon backwash discharge. This system will consist of holding tanks, connected to the pools or lagoon and drywells connected by pipes at four locations. The anticipated daily discharge could be as high as 4,000 gallons per day, but is expected to average 2,200 gallons per day. The backwash will enter the tanks, where sediments and debris will be removed, treated as needed, and released in a metered manner to the drywells. The drywells will drain the water into the soil, for eventual recharge. The system will be regulated by the City and the RWQCB, and will be required to meet all required water quality standards. These requirements will assure that the backwash system will not exceed water quality standards, and impacts are expected to be less than significant. The City of Palm Desert participates in the Whitewater River Region Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) which regulates activities and programs implemented by the Permittees to manage urban runoff, and to assure that runoff is managed in compliance with the requirements of the NPDES municipal separate storm sewer system permit (MS4 Permit) for DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-15 the Whitewater River Region. The SWMP is designed to reduce stormwater pollution to the maximum extent practicable and eliminate prohibited non-stormwater discharges through a NPDES municipal stormwater discharge permit. The City also provides direction on post- construction BMPs in the General Plan. The proposed lagoon and surf center would be subject to applicable General Plan policies, MS4 permitting requirements, and NPDES General Permit requirements, and would be required to meet the City’s water quality discharge criteria. The Project’s WQMP also includes operational BMPs which would help the site to meet the requirements of the MS4 permit. For example, operational BMPs include the use of landscaped areas for drainage collection; and the removal of trash and debris from the lagoon, surf center, retention basin, and stormwater collection facilities to keep the site clean, thus minimizing the pollutant load associated with the urban runoff. With implementation of mitigation measure HYD-1, operational impacts associated with water quality will be less than significant. The lagoon and surf center site is within the jurisdiction of CVWD which is required to meet water quality requirements in the production and delivery of domestic water and sewage management. The proposed Project will connect to existing CVWD water and sewer infrastructure in the Project vicinity which will assure that, over the long-term, the Project meets RWQCB standards and protects groundwater quality. Summary The Project will be required to comply with NPDES regulations and the BMPs set forth in the Project-specific WQMP, which minimize the pollutant load associated with urban runoff during construction and operation of the lagoon and surf center. The imposition of conditions of approval, local, and state standard requirements and the requirements of the law will assure that the Project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3, Project impacts would be less than significant. Hotel and Villas Construction Impacts As will be the case for the surf center, the use of construction equipment and other vehicles on the hotel and villa component of the Project could result in spills of oil, grease, gasoline, brake fluid, antifreeze, or other vehicle-related fluids and pollutants. Improper handling, storage, or disposal of fuels and materials or improper cleaning of machinery could result in accidental spills or discharges that could degrade water quality. Like the lagoon and surf center, the proposed hotel and villas are required to comply with a number of regulations designed to reduce or eliminate construction-related water quality effects, including the NPDES, which regulates stormwater discharges to surface waters. Adherence to NPDES protocols will protect the quality of surface waters from potential construction-related impacts. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-16 The Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in the Project WQMP and specific to the Project site will apply to the hotel and villas. Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-3 will effectively reduce or avoid the discharge of any pollutants of concern that might enter nearby receiving waters by establishing limits of construction and the use of a variety of standard practices. It is anticipated that implementation of these mitigation measures will minimize impacts to surface water quality. In addition, the construction of the hotel and villas will result in similar impacts associated with exposed soils as was described above for the surf center. The same mitigation measures, HYD-1 and HYD-2 will be applied to the hotel and villa construction areas to reduce impacts to water quality to less than significant levels. Overall, implementation of the BMPs and compliance with the NPDES would prevent degradation of water quality during Project construction, and Project impacts would be less than significant. Operational Impacts At Project buildout, runoff from the hotel and villas could contain pollutants common in urban runoff, including metals; oils and grease; pesticides; herbicides; nutrients; pet waste; and garbage/litter. Without BMPs to remove these pollutants, stormwater leaving the hotel and villas site could degrade the quality of receiving waters. According to the hydrological map, the hotel and villas are located in sub-drainage areas 1 and 2. Stormwater from sub-drainage area 1 will be conveyed to an existing drainage waste area located northwest of the site within the Desert Willow Golf Course. Whereas stormwater from sub-drainage area 2 will be conveyed to an existing drainage waste area located south of the site within the Desert Willow Golf Course. As is the case for the Surf Center, runoff from the proposed hotel and villas would be subject to applicable General Plan policies, MS4 permitting requirements, and NPDES General Permitting requirements, and City’s water quality discharge criteria to secure water quality. In addition to these standards, the Project’s WQMP includes BMPs which would help the site to meet the requirements of the MS4 permit, thus minimizing the pollutant load associated with urban runoff. As shown in Exhibit 2.10-3, the hotel and villa pools include a system of underground tanks, pipes and drywells to convey and control daily pool and lagoon backwash discharge. This system will consist of holding tanks, connected to the pools and drywells connected by pipes at four locations. The anticipated daily discharge is expected to average 900 gallons per day. The backwash will enter the tanks, where sediments and debris will be removed, treated as needed, and released in a metered manner to the drywells. The drywells will drain the water into the soil, for eventual recharge. The system will be regulated by the City and the RWQCB, and will be DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-17 required to meet all required water quality standards. These requirements will assure that the backwash system will not exceed water quality standards, and impacts are expected to be less than significant. The proposed hotel and villas site is also within the CVWD’s boundaries requiring that it meet water quality requirements in the production and delivery of domestic water and sewage management. The hotel and villas site will also be connected to existing CVWD water and sewer infrastructure in the Project vicinity which will assure that, over the long-term, the Project meets RWQCB standards and protects groundwater quality. Summary To minimize the pollutant load associated with urban runoff during construction and operation, the proposed hotel and villas will be required to comply with NPDES regulations and the BMPs set forth in the Project-specific WQMP. These local and state standard requirements and the requirements of law will assure that the hotel and villas site will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Furthermore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through 3, Project impacts would be less than significant. Impacts of Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management: As discussed above, the Project’s planning areas are divided into four sub-areas, from where storm water will be conveyed to three existing drainage waste areas via underground pipes. These pipes will be constructed to City standards, and will carry storm flows after they have been treated by the BMPs described above. As a result, the construction of the off-site storm drainage system will not impact water quality. Moreover, the water quality of the runoff would be improved with the Project compared to the existing condition because runoff currently sheet flows over land untreated and into the drainage system. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Water flushed from pools and the lagoon will be treated prior to discharge into the City’s existing golf course lake. The Project’s discharge will be subject to SWMP requirements, MS4 permitting requirements, and NPDES General Permitting requirements, and applicable City requirements. The discharge of pool and lagoon water into existing lakes will also be monitored by the City, and released as irrigation water onto the golf course, which aids through percolation in removing particulate matter. Impacts associated with the discharge of pool and lagoon water on water quality standards will be less than significant. Golf Course Turf Reduction: During removal of turf areas and planting of desert landscape, soils will be exposed and subject to wind and water erosion, which could impact receiving waters with accumulation of sediments. However, the implementation of mitigation measure HYD-1, which includes BMPs such as containment of construction areas to control and prevent sedimentation, HYD-2, which requires soil stabilization, and the City’s application of NPDES DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-18 requirements will assure that impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. After replanting activities are complete, soils will be stable and the landscaping will be subject to the existing operational BMPs of the golf course. Landscaping Improvements: The proposed desert landscaping at the Project boundary will consist of drought tolerant, desert adapted species. To protect water quality during installation of desert landscaping, the Project will implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1, which includes BMPs such as containment of construction areas to control and prevent sedimentation. In addition, the City’s application of NPDES requirements will assure that impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Overflow Parking: Currently, the off-site surface parking area is graded, and will be fully paved as part of the proposed Project. At buildout, runoff from the off-site surface parking lot would contain urban pollutants, such as automotive fluids, oils, and gasoline products. The City will require the design of on-site retention as a standard requirement for this component of the Project, which will include the implementation of BMPs contained in a WQMP. These requirements, and implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, will assure that impacts associated with groundwater quality are less than significant. Soil Removal/Storage: Construction of buildings and parking structures will require excavation of up to 20 feet depth. Excavated soil would be transported off-site to various golf course locations within Desert Willow Golf Course or to an off-site location. When spreading soil within the Desert Willow Golf Course areas, use of excessive amount of water would carry soil particles to offsite areas to cause soil erosion and water quality degradation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-2 would manage exposed soil from excavated areas, stockpiles, and other areas to prevent erosion. Impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. b) Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Lagoon and Surf Center The proposed Project will require water for domestic use and landscape irrigation for the lagoon and surf center. CVWD has developed demand factors for various land use categories (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial, schools/institutional, and landscaping irrigation). CVWD currently has no water demand factors specifically for surf lagoons, however, demand factors from other sources can be used. Based on the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the Project, the Project would require approximately 88.32 AFY of water at buildout of both the lagoon and surf center. The Project will provide water for the lagoon in one of three ways: installation of a new DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-19 groundwater well at the southeastern corner of the site; connection to the existing Desert Willow groundwater well located south of the site near Country Club Drive; or utilization of the potable water from CVWD. Water demand for the lagoon is projected to be approximately 73.04 AFY per year. If the Project installs a new groundwater well on the site, then approximately 73.04 AFY of groundwater would be extracted every year for the surf lagoon. The groundwater well will be metered and in compliance with requirements of the Regional Water Resources Control Board (RWRCB). Other components of the Project will be connected to CVWD’s domestic water distribution system. If the Project connects to the existing Desert Willow groundwater well located south of the site near Country Club Drive, then the Project would need construction and extension of underground pipes to supply approximately 73.04 AFY per year. Otherwise, CVWD would provide water for the lagoon. The WSA requires that the Project implement a Turf Reduction Plan on the Firecliff and Mountain View Golf Courses, which will reduce current irrigation water consumption and offset the water demand of the proposed Project for the lagoon, surf center, hotel, and villas (please also see discussion under Golf Course Turf Reduction below). It is anticipated that the replacement of 1,035,325 square feet of turf with desert landscaping (drought tolerant plants) will save approximately 106.75 AFY of water. On that basis, the lagoon’s relatively high annual water demand will be entirely offset by the turf reduction program, and additional water savings will be applied to the demand from the surf center, hotels and villas, and will result in a net water demand of 58.46 AFY (Table 2.10-1). The lagoon and surf center site are located within the CVWD service area, where the urban water demands are estimated to grow from 114,600 AFY in 2020 to 194,300 AFY in 2040.8 The Project’s total water demand of 88.32 AFY represents approximately 0.08 percent of the total water supply (114,600 AFY) for 2020 and 0.04 percent of the total water supply (194,300 AFY) for 2040, which will be entirely offset by the required turf reduction program on the golf course. As a result, the proposed Surf Lagoon and Surf Center will have no impact on water supplies. 8 CVWD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-20 Table 2.10-1 Total Projected Water Demand Land Use/Building Size/Unit Number Factor Water Demand (gallons per day/AFY) Water Demand (AFY) Square Feet Rooms / Units Quantity Source/Basis Planning Area 1 – Surf Lagoon and Surf Center Surf Lagoon -- -- -- Cloward Calculations 23,798,770 73.04 Surf Center Building Café Juice Bar 1,750 -- 230.00 gallons per square foot per year 402,500 1.24 Restaurant 2,250 -- 230.00 gallons per square foot per year 517,500 1.59 Bar 1,250 -- 230.00 gallons per square foot per year 287,500 0.88 All other uses 29,750 -- 0.19 gallons per square foot per day 2,063,163 6.33 Ancillary Restrooms/Changin g Rooms/Locker Buildings 1,500 -- 0.19 gallons per square foot per day 104,025 0.32 Ancillary Rental Building(s) 1,500 -- 0.19 gallons per square foot per day 104,025 0.32 East Lagoon Café and Bar 2,750 -- 230.00 gallons per square foot per year 632,500.00 1.94 Maintenance and Equipment Buildings 12,500 -- 0.19 gallons per square foot per day 866,875 2.66 Total Water Demand (AFY) 88.32 Planning Area 2 – Hotels and Villas Hotels 200,000 350.00 115.00 gallons per room per day 14,691,250 45.09 Hotel Spa 12,500 -- 0.26 gallons per square foot per day 1,186,250.00 3.64 Villas 105,000 88.00 117.70 gallons per unit per day 3,780,524 11.60 Villa Clubhouse 3,125 1.00 117.70 gallons per unit per day 42,961 0.13 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-21 Table 2.10-1 Total Projected Water Demand Land Use/Building Size/Unit Number Factor Water Demand (gallons per day/AFY) Water Demand (AFY) Square Feet Rooms / Units Quantity Source/Basis Maintenance and Equipment Buildings 2,500 -- 0.19 gallons per square foot per day 173,375 0.53 Total Water Demand (AFY) 60.99 Pool/Spa -- -- -- PD 80 -- 7.36 Total Landscaped Area 120,159 -- -- MAWA -- 8.54 Total Project Water Demand (AFY) 165.21 Total Turf Reduction Water Savings (AFY) 106.75 Project Water Demand with Use of Recycled Water and Turf Reduction Plan (AFY) 58.46 As described in the Project’s WSA, CVWD has sufficient water supplies to meet the demands of the Project for the next 20 years. This result is based on the volume of water available in the aquifer, CVWD's Colorado River contract supply, SWP Table A amounts, water rights, and water supply contracts, and CVWD’s commitment to eliminate overdraft and reduce per capita water use in CVWD’s service area. Based on these findings, the Project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Hotel and Villas The proposed Project will require water for domestic use and landscape irrigation for the hotel(s) and villas. Based on the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the Project, the hotel(s) and villas including spas and landscaping would require approximately 76.89 AFY of water at buildout. The Project landscaping will be connected to the existing CVWD recycled water system at Desert Willow Golf Course. It is anticipated that this component of the Project will use up to 8.54 AFY of recycled water for landscaping. The remaining 68.35 AFY of domestic water required to serve the hotel(s) and villas will be provided by the CVWD. As described above, the turf reduction program on the golf course will result in a water savings of 106.75 AFY, 88.32 AFY of which will offset the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center water demand. The remaining 18.43 AFY in water savings will reduce the net domestic water demand at the hotel(s) and villas to 49.92 AFY. The Project site is designated as Resort and Entertainment District on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, which allows bed and breakfast inns, recreational facilities, small retail, large retail, and lodging, support retail, and commercial services. These uses are generally consistent DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-22 with the proposed Project. CVWD works with the cities within its jurisdiction to update its urban water management plan every five years. Since, the Project is consistent with the general plan’s land use, and it will be offsetting its water use through the implementation of a turf reduction program on the Desert Willow golf course, its water demand would not be excessive to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The Project site is located within the CVWD service area, where urban water demands are estimated to grow from 114,600 AFY in 2020 to 194,300 AFY in 2040. The net total water demand for this part of the Project is expected to be 49.92 AFY. This represents approximately 0.04 percent of the total projected water supply of 114,600 AF for 2020, and would represent 0.03 percent of the total projected water supply of 194,300 AF for 2040, as determined in the WSA. Based on the volume of water available in the aquifer, CVWD's Colorado River contract supply, SWP Table A amounts, water rights and water supply contracts, and CVWD’s commitment to eliminate overdraft and reduce per capita water use in CVWD’s service area, CVWD has sufficient water supplies to meet the demands of the Project for the next 20 years. The Project’s water demand will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. In conclusion, as shown in Table 2.10-1, the whole Project would require approximately 165.21 AFY of water at buildout. This is approximately 0.14 percent of CVWD’s anticipated 2020 total urban water demand of 114,600 AF, and approximately 0.09 percent of CVWD’s anticipated 2040 total urban water demand of 194,300 AF. After applying the water demand offsets associated with implementation of the proposed turf reduction program at the Desert Willow Golf Course (106.75 AFY), the net total water demand for the Project is expected to be 58.46 AFY. This represents approximately 0.05 percent of the total projected water supply of 114,600 AF for 2020, and would represent 0.03 percent of the total projected water supply of 194,300 AF for 2040. Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management: The connection of the Project site to off-site storm drainage system will not utilize any water. No impact is anticipated. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: This operation does not involve any use of domestic water. In fact, water flushed from pools and the lagoon to the golf course lake would be utilized for landscaping purposes in the golf course. This will reduce the need for the use of CVWD irrigation water currently utilized for golf course landscaping. No impact is anticipated. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-23 Golf Course Turf Reduction and Landscaping Improvements: The Project site is located on the Desert Willow Golf Course property which has two golf courses: the Firecliff Course and the Mountain View Course. The City has had plans to replace turf areas on both golf courses with desert landscaping (low water demand plants) which would reduce irrigation water consumption. Table 2.10-2 quantifies the number of square feet proposed for conversion to desert landscaping. Table 2.10-2 Total Area of Golf Course for Turf Reduction Firecliff Golf Course Holes 1-9 Total Area (Square Feet) Holes 10-18 Total Area (Square Feet) Hole #1 35,271 Hole #10 50,606 Hole #2 30,965 Hole #11 41,470 Hole #3 9,836 Hole #12 36,522 Hole #4 29,796 Hole #13 25,719 Hole #5 13,446 Hole #14 5,698 Hole #6 7,812 Hole #15 15,971 Hole #7 45,527 Hole #16 47,850 Hole #8 16,755 Hole #17 0 Hole #9 13,393 Hole #18 12,525 Totals #1 - #9 202,801 Totals #10 - #18 236,361 Totals #1-#18 439,162 Mountain View Golf Course Holes 1-9 Total Area (Square Feet) Holes 10-18 Total Area (Square Feet) Hole #1 54,778 Hole #10 14,311 Hole #2 46,606 Hole #11 8,693 Hole #3 34,008 Hole #12 40,749 Hole #4 27,605 Hole #13 8,056 Hole #5 8,922 Hole #14 78,257 Hole #6 15,524 Hole #15 52,216 Hole #7 42,273 Hole #16 24,510 Hole #8 22,720 Hole #17 29,963 Hole #9 21,149 Hole #18 65,823 Totals #1 - #9 273,585 Totals #10 - #18 322,578 Totals #1-#18 596,163 Total Turf Area to be Converted to Desert Landscaping 1,035,325 Source: Firecliff and Mountain View Turf Reduction Data provided by the City of Palm Desert. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-24 As shown in Table 2.10-3, replacement of 439,162 square feet of turf with desert landscaping (drought tolerant plants) in the Firecliff Golf Course will save approximately 45.28 AFY of water which could be used to offset the proposed Project’s water demand. Table 2.10-3 Water Demand of Turf vs. Desert Landscaping Firecliff Golf Course ETo PF LA (square feet) Conv. Factor (gal per SF) Conv. Factor (CCF) IE ETWU (CCF) ETWU (AF) Turf 83 0.7 439,162 0.62 748 0.8 26,436.32 60.69 Low/Native 83 0.2 439,162 0.62 748 0.9 6,713.99 15.41 Difference 45.28 In addition, replacement of 596,163 square feet of turf with desert landscaping in the Mountain View Golf Course could save approximately 61.46 AFY of water which could be used towards the proposed Project’s water demand (Table 2.10-4). Table 2.10-4 Water Demand of Turf vs. Desert Landscaping Mountain View Golf Course ETo PF LA (square feet) Conv. Factor (gal per SF) Conv. Factor (CCF) IE ETWU (CCF) ETWU (AF) Turf 83 0.7 596,163 0.62 748 0.8 35,887.34 82.39 Low/Native 83 0.2 596,163 0.62 748 0.9 9,114.24 20.92 Difference 61.46 In preparing the WSA for the proposed Project, it was determined that the lagoon component of the Project had the potential to generate a high water demand. As a result, the WSA concluded that the City’s planned turf reduction program should be the responsibility of the proposed Project, in order to offset lagoon water demand. Table 2.10-5 Water Demand of Turf vs. Desert Landscaping Both Golf Courses (Combined) AFY Total Existing Water Demand for Turf (both golf courses) 143.08 Projected Water Demand for Replaced Low/Native Landscape (both golf courses) 36.34 Difference 106.75 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-25 Currently, approximately 143.08 AFY of water is being used to irrigate the 1,035,325 square feet of turf at both the Firecliff and Mountain View Golf Courses (Table 2.10-5). If the turf is replaced with desert landscaping, approximately 36.34 AFY would be required, resulting in water usage reductions of approximately 106.75 AFY. This water savings could be used to offset water demanded by the proposed Project. Project water demand is estimated to be 165.21 AFY (Table 2.10-1); if the 106.75 AFY of water saved from the Turf Reduction Program is redirected to the proposed Project, the Project’s remaining net domestic water demand would be 58.46 AFY. The Turf Reduction Program is anticipated to occur concurrent with the construction of the Project, and implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-4 will assure that the Turf Reduction Program is completed prior to the lagoon’s operation. Overflow Parking: The off-site parking lot will utilize a small amount of water for parking lot landscaping. The parking area is approximately 2.56 acres in size, and will require, based on the City’s parking lot landscaping requirements, 15% of the area to be landscaped. Assuming the required drought-tolerant landscaping plan, the off-site parking lot will generate a demand of 0.59 AFY of water for landscaping. Since recycled water is available adjacent to the site in Desert Willow Drive, this portion of the project would not generate demand for additional water from the aquifer. Less than significant impact is anticipated. Soil Removal/Storage: During construction, excavated soil would be stockpiled at the site until it is removed to off-site locations, either within Desert Willow golf course or at the Classic Club. A small amount of water will be sprayed on soil stockpiles to control soil erosion. It is anticipated that the stockpile would be removed from the site immediately. The water used for controlling soil erosion would be minimal. Less than significant impact is anticipated. c) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Lagoon and Surf Center The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it would result in modifications to drainage patterns that could lead to substantial erosion of soils or siltation during storm events. Such drainage pattern changes could be caused by grade changes, the exposure of soils for periods of time during which erosion could occur, or alterations to the course of a stream or river. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-26 The Project would not involve the direct modification of any watercourse; however, grading and excavation would be required to prepare the site for construction of the lagoon and surf center. Topographically, the Project site consists of flat terrain with a gradual slope toward the south.9 Stormwater percolates into ground surface soils or sheet flows to the south. There are no streams or rivers onsite. Development of the proposed Project will result in the demolition of the existing parking lot, onsite grading, and removal of soils to accommodate construction of the lagoon and surf center. It will result in the construction of impermeable surfaces (buildings, lagoon, pools, driveways, sidewalks, patios, hardscapes, etc.) onsite, as well as new stormwater conveyance pipes that connect to existing drainage facilities within the Desert Willow Golf Course. The proposed Project will alter existing drainage patterns onsite, but proposed stormwater management improvements are designed to adequately manage Project drainage such that the Project will not result in substantial erosion or siltation.10 The designed drainage system meets all standards of rainstorm protection as adopted by the City of Palm Desert. Drainage waste areas are already available off-site for retaining the 100- year storm event, and there will be no adverse impact, because the Desert Willow drainage plan was designed to accommodate all 100 year storm flows throughout the development. The Project drainage plans integrate into the existing Desert Willow drainage program, and tie into the existing facilities to the northwest and southeast of the site (see response 2.10.6.a. above). The proposed Project also includes a WQMP which provides for BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation entering the proposed drainage pipes. These requirements, to be implemented by mitigation measure HYD-1, will assure that impacts associated with erosion and siltation are reduced to less than significant levels. Hotel and Villas Grading and excavation would be required to prepare the site for construction of the hotel and villas. The site of the hotel and villas consists of flat terrain with a gradual slope toward the south.11 As is the case with the surf center portion of the site, stormwater percolates into the ground or sheet flows to the south. Development of the hotels and villas will result in the construction of impermeable surfaces (hotel building (s), villas, pools, driveways, sidewalks, patios, hardscapes, etc.), as well as new stormwater conveyance pipes that connect to existing drainages within the Desert Willow Golf Course. 9 Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Sladden Engineering in 2018 (Page 2). 10 Preliminary Hydrological Report for Tentative Tract Map No. 37639 – DSRT SURF prepared by The Altum Group, December 3, 2018. 11 Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Sladden Engineering in 2018 (Page 2). DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-27 Drainage waste areas are already available off-site for retaining the 100-year storm event. The Desert Willow drainage plan was designed to accommodate all 100 year storm flows throughout the development. The Project drainage plans integrate into the existing Desert Willow drainage program, and tie into the existing facilities to the northwest and south of the site (see response 2.10.6.a. above). The proposed Project BMPs control erosion and sedimentation entering the proposed drainage pipes. These requirements, to be implemented by mitigation measure HYD-1, will assure that impacts associated with erosion and siltation are reduced to less than significant levels. Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management and Pool/Lagoon Discharge: The development of the Project will result in an increase in surface runoff, due to increases in the amount of impervious surfaces. This lowers the infiltration rate through the Project site, resulting in the necessity for an on-site drainage system connecting to the existing Desert Willow drainage facilities. Construction of the connections to the existing system will consist of trenching in the existing golf course, laying pipe, and covering and restoring landscaping. These activities will be undertaken to City standards, including storm water BMPs included in both WQMP(s) and SWPPP(s) for these parts of the Project. Because these off-site improvements will be subject to mitigation measure HYD- 1, and with City requirements for the protection of surface waters, impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. Golf Course Turf Reduction: The existing turf areas are not causing any erosion or siltation. Implementation of mitigation measures HYD-1 and -2 will reduce the potential of erosion and siltation during turf reduction activities. Impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of these measures. Landscaping Improvements: The landscaping of the edge of the proposed Project’s transition to the golf course could result in both wind and water erosion. Implementation of mitigation measures HYD-1 and -2 will reduce the potential of erosion and siltation during landscaping activities. Impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of these measures. Overflow Parking: The existing off-site parking area is graded. Improvement of the lot will increase the impermeable surfaces on the site. As discussed above, the off-site parking would be required to retain storm waters on site, and to implement BMPs to contain eroded materials, consistent with City standards. Mitigation measures HYD-1 and 2 will assure that impacts associated with erosion and siltation are reduced to less than significant levels. Soil Removal/Storage: Construction of the proposed Project would require excavation and grading for new utility lines, access roads, trenching for the underground parking structures, and excavation and grading for surface parking lots. Soil material would be exposed to erosion or siltation. However, mitigation measures HYD-1 and 2, and the City’s requirements for dust control plans will reduce potential of soil erosion during excavation and transportation of excavated soil. Overall, impacts will be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-28 ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows? According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the site is located in Zone D, which represents “areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible.” No Project structures would be placed within a 100-yr flood hazard area such that flood flows would be impeded or redirected; therefore, there would be no impact under this criterion. Lagoon and Surf Center Construction Land-disturbing construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed Project, such as grading and excavating of foundations for the lagoon and surf center, roads, driveways, parking areas, and trenches for utilities, would result in the localized alteration of drainage patterns and potentially increase the rate of peak flow for any given precipitation event. Alterations may temporarily result in erosion and siltation if flows were substantially increased or routed to facilities or lakes without treatment. Construction impacts due to development of the proposed lagoon and surf center area would be minimized through compliance with the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, including implementation of a SWPPP and the MS4 Permit. Generally, construction permits require the discharger to perform a risk assessment for the proposed development with differing requirements based on quantified flows. Also, the permit requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP that must include erosion and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the determined risk level of the Construction General Permit. A construction site monitoring program that identifies monitoring and sampling requirements during construction is a required component of the SWPPP. As described above, the proposed Project would not alter a floodway in a manner that would redirect or impede flow during construction, and impacts will be less than significant. Operation Construction of the lagoon and surf center would alter existing on-site drainage patterns and flowpaths with the addition of new impervious surfaces. The Project includes tie-in to the existing storm drain system within the Desert Willow Golf Course for all planned components, including the lagoon and surf center area. As discussed above, the lagoon will be designed as a DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-29 “self-treating area,” which would not be generating any surface runoff during regular operational activities. Water from the lagoon will be discharged in to the artificial lake located south of the golf course via evacuation line. This water will be treated prior discharge. The surf center and associated parking structure are located in sub-drainage areas 3 and 4, which are designed to carry stormwater into two existing drainage waste areas located northwest and southeast of the site within the Desert Willow Golf Course. The lake and existing drainage waste areas have enough capacity to accommodate water from the lagoon and subareas 3 and 4 and would not exceed its capacity to cause surface runoff and flooding. Based on the hydrological analysis, the existing drainage waste areas and lake in the Desert Willow Golf Course have adequate capacity to accommodate projected flows from the lagoon and surf center. While the Project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces, the proposed drainage plan includes well-connected drainage areas that would retain runoff during storm events, allowing it to be released in a metered fashion that can be accommodated by the storm drain system. Overall, the Project would generate runoff due to increased amounts of impervious surfaces; however, it is not anticipated to create or make a significant contribution to runoff which would exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain system within the Desert Willow Golf Course and add substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. With compliance with the MS4 Permit, and implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3, the operational impacts would be less than significant. Hotel and Villas Construction Construction activities such as grading and excavating of new building foundations for the hotel and villas, internal roads, driveways, parking areas, and trenches for utilities would result in the localized alteration of drainage patterns and potentially increase the rate of peak flow for any given precipitation event. Alterations may temporarily result in erosion and siltation if flows were substantially increased . However, the Project’s impacts would be minimized through compliance with the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, including implementation of a SWPPP and the MS4 Permit, similar to the requirements described above for the surf center component of the project. With the implementation of site design features, low-impact design features, BMPs, and compliance with the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, construction of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts from the alteration of existing drainage or hydrology of the area. Additionally, the proposed hotel and villas would not alter a floodway in a manner that would redirect or impede flow. Impacts would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-30 Operation Similar to the lagoon and surf center, construction of the hotel and villas would add new impervious surfaces on the Project site which could result in the increase of surface runoff during major storm events. According to the hydrological map, the hotel and villas are located in sub-drainage areas 1 and 2 which are designed to carry surface runoff or stormwater into two existing drainage waste areas located northwest and south of the site within the Desert Willow Golf Course. These existing drainage waste areas in the Desert Willow Golf Course have adequate capacity to accommodate projected flows from the hotel and villas. While the Project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces, the proposed drainage plan includes well- connected drainage areas that would retain runoff during storm events, allowing it to be released in a metered fashion that can be accommodated by the storm drain system. Overall, the hotel and villas would generate runoff due to increased amounts of impervious surfaces; however, they is not anticipated to create or make a significant contribution to runoff which would exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain system within the Desert Willow Golf Course. With compliance with the MS4 Permit, and implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3, the operational impacts would be less than significant. Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management: The off-site stormwater pipes that will connect to the existing golf course facilities will be part of the overall drainage plan for the Project, and will therefore not increase runoff, but instead manage it. Their construction will occur in existing golf course areas. Pollutant control will be effected through the implementation of mitigation measures HYD-1 through HYD-3. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Water flushed from pools and the lagoon during daily operations will be treated, as required, and conveyed via an underground pipe to the golf course lake. These activities are part of the daily maintenance of the Project, and will not impact flooding, as any water accumulated in the lagoon or pools would be accommodated in these facilities, and would not increase on-site flows. This discharge is not anticipated to substantially degrade the existing lake by adding pollutants, as water would be treated, as required, prior to discharge into the lake. Golf Course Turf Reduction and Landscaping Improvements: Turf areas within the golf course currently are part of the existing golf course drainage plan, and drain into existing facilities. Replacement of turf with desert landscaping will not change these conditions, or the amount of stormflow generated in these areas. No impact is anticipated. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-31 Overflow Parking: This parking lot will be improved without any significant changes to its existing drainage pattern, with the addition of required retention facilities when the site is improved with pavement and landscaped areas. The requirements of mitigation measures HYD- 1 through HYD-3 will apply to this component of the Project, reducing impacts to less than significant levels Soil Removal/Storage: Soil removal and distribution on off-site locations will not contribute to increased storm flows. The distribution of soils on other parts of the golf course, or its transport to an off-site location at the Classic Club would not impact flood control systems. In either case, soil would be integrated into existing facilities, and storm flows would not be affected. No impact is anticipated. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Lagoon and Surf Center and Hotel and Villas The Project site is not located close to a large body of water, tidal or otherwise, that could result in inundation by seiche or tsunami. The Project is proposing to build a 7± million gallon lagoon with adjacent and nearby residential and commercial structures. This Project site is also in a seismically active region where strong seismic waves could cause oscillations in the lagoon, flooding nearby structures. Seismically-induced oscillations in the lagoon could cause water to spill over the sides of the lagoon. According to the Project’s geology report, the surf lagoon and wave generator structures will be made up of concrete retaining walls of up to 15 feet in height which could bear a seismic pressure of up to 20 pound-force per square foot (psf). In addition, these retaining walls would be designed using active pressure and active equivalent fluid pressure of up to 55 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for strength. A 15 feet high concrete lagoon wall would be sufficient to contain the seismically-induced oscillations within the lagoon without any structural damage to result in spill over or release of water.12 Overall, the proposed Project site is not in a flood hazard or tsunami inundation zone and would not be subject to inundation by a flood or tsunami. In addition, the surf lagoon would be a strong concrete structure to contain the any seismically-induced oscillations within the lagoon without any structural damage to result in spill over or release of pollutants. Less than significant impact is anticipated. 12 Tiffany L.L. Teo, Heather M. Coleman, Stuart J. Khan, Chemical contaminants in swimming pools: Occurrence, implications and control, Environment International, Volume 76, 2015. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-32 Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management: The underground pipes connecting the site from the Project site to the existing stormwater system are not subject to seiche. No impact will occur. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Water from pools and the lagoon will be flushed via underground pipe to the golf course lake during daily. There is no relationship between these activities and tsunami or seiche zones. No impact will occur. Golf Course Turf Reduction: This area is not located within the flood, tsunami or seiche hazard zone; no impact is anticipated. Landscaping Improvements: This area is not located within the flood, tsunami or seiche hazard zone; no impact is anticipated. Overflow Parking: This area is not located within the flood, tsunami or seiche hazard zone; no impact is anticipated. Soil Removal/Storage: The site is not located within the flood, tsunami or seiche hazard zone where the excavation would create any risk of flooding and release of pollutants. Mitigation Measures HYD-1 BMPs, as described in the Project-specific WQMP, shall be implemented to ensure that water quality impacts resulting from the Project meet the City’s NPDES standards. HYD-2 Exposed soil from excavated areas, stockpiles, and other areas where ground cover is removed shall be stabilized by wetting or other approved means to avoid or minimize the inadvertent transport by wind or water. HYD-3 The Project shall be subject to NPDES Construction General Permit requirements. HYD-4 The Turf Reduction Program shall be completed prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for the surf center. 2.10.7 Significance After Mitigation With implementation of the above-described Mitigation Measures, impacts to hydrology and water quality would be reduced to less than significant levels. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.10-33 2.10.8 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project, along with related projects in the Project vicinity, would have a potential impact on storm drainage and water quality. The proposed Project is located in an urbanized area where most of the surrounding properties are already developed, and the related projects are located in the Desert Willow Golf Course. The storm drainage system serving the Project vicinity has been designed to accommodate runoff from all sites within this nearly built-out environment. Development of the site would convert it to impervious surfaces contributing surface runoff. However, as previously discussed, the proposed Project would be designed to minimize impacts to the local storm drainage system, and would integrate into it, as would other future projects on the remaining vacant sites. Thus, the proposed Project would mitigate its incremental contribution to the local storm drainage system and would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact. With the implementation of the required City, CVWD, and other water discharge requirements, impacts on hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.11 Land Use and Planning 2.11.1 Introduction The Land Use and Planning section describes the existing land uses at the Project and its surroundings, and evaluates potential Project impacts on those lands. Land use regulations affecting the Project site are described, as are the Project’s appropriateness, suitability, and compatibility with existing and planned land uses in the vicinity. The Project is also analyzed in terms of consistency with General Plan and other land use designations in the area. The following discussion reviews the potential effects of the Project on surrounding existing and planned land uses. 2.11.2 Thresholds of Significance The thresholds of significance analyzed herein have been taken from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this EIR, the proposed Project would have a significant effect on existing and planned land use if it were to: a) Physically divide an established community. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 2.11.3 Regulatory Framework Regional/Local Palm Desert General Plan The Project site is designated Resort and Entertainment District on the City’s General Plan land use map. The City of Palm Desert General Plan sets forth long-range goals, policies, and programs for land use development, natural resources management, provision of public services, and other community issues. The Land Use Element of the General Plan includes a Land Use Map, which applies land use designations to parcels of land throughout the city and guides long-term development and redevelopment. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-2 The following General Plan goals, policies, and programs are intended to ensure the preservation of appropriate land use and planning in the City. Evaluation of the Project in the context of these policies will help determine the Project’s appropriateness to the site and compatibility with City long-term goals. Chapter 3. Land Use and Community Character GOAL 1. Quality Spaces. A beautiful city with a balance of high-quality open spaces and high-quality urban areas. • Policy 1.1 Scale of development. Require new development along the city’s corridors use design techniques to moderate height and use and ensure compatible fit with surrounding development. • Policy 1.2 Open space preservation. Balance the development of the city with the provision of open space, and especially the hillsides surrounding the City, so as to create both high quality urban areas and high quality open space. • Policy 1.3 Traffic generation. Balance medium and high intensity/density development with pedestrian-oriented and bicycle friendly design features so as to maximize trip and VMT reduction. • Policy 1.5 Community Amenities. Balance the impacts of new development, density, and urbanization through the provision of a high-level of neighborhood and community amenities and design features. GOAL 2. Human-Scaled Design. A city designed for people, fostering interaction, activity, and safety. • Policy 2.3 Landscaping. Require development projects to incorporate high quality landscaping in order to extend and enhance the green space network of the city. • Policy 2.6 Lighting. Require all new street lights in commercial areas to be pedestrian- oriented and scaled, attractively designed, compatible in design with other street furniture, and to provide adequate visibility and security in accordance with best practices for night sky protection. • Policy 2.12 Destination Accessibility. Direct the development of new centers, parks, schools, and similar destinations so as to provide all residences within town ¼ mile to at least two amenities. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-3 GOAL 4. Districts. A series of unique, destination-oriented districts that provide space for large-format retail, industrial and resort uses in order to increase access to jobs, provide amenities for residents, and enhance the fiscal stability of the City. • Policy 4.1 Resorts. Encourage the development of unique resort complexes. Locate resorts in areas of the city where citywide connectivity will not be negatively affected by the design of the project. • Policy 4.2 Resort design and connectivity. Allow resorts to be designed as isolated and gated developments as long as through traffic and external connectivity occurs at distances of no greater than 1,300 feet. Exceptions to this may be made where external connection is not possible because of steep slopes, or natural or man-made barriers. GOAL 8. Economic Development. A diverse, growing, and resilient local economy. • Policy 8.1 Long-term economic development. Support the development and implementation of long-term economic development strategies that seek to establish and keep new businesses. • Policy 8.7 Natural environment. Maintain and enhance the natural environment as critical to the attraction of tourists and ensure that new development does not adversely affect the natural environment as a tourist draw. • Policy 8.8 Recreational amenities. Strategically utilize City recreational investments to create and enhance development opportunities. GOAL 9. Fiscal Stability. A fiscally sound and sustainable city. • Policy 9.1 Fiscal impact assessment. For all major development projects, including but not limited to specific plans, annexations and changes in General Plan designations for areas over 5 acres in size, require a fiscal impact assessment to determine possible fiscal impact of the development project and use the information to formulate conditions of approval for the project. • Policy 9.2 Efficient growth. Manage growth in a manner that is fiscally sustainable and protects and/or enhances community value. • Policy 9.3 Diverse tax base. Guide development and public investments to maintain a fiscally sound city with a sustainable tax base and user fees including property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax, utilities user tax and user fees that pay for cost of services. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-4 Chapter 4: Mobility GOAL 2. Parking. An actively managed system of public and private parking facilities that supports future development. • Policy 2.1 Public Parking Facilities. Provide new public parking facilities only after applying appropriate techniques to manage parking demand and ensure efficient use of all public and private parking facilities.   • Policy 2.5 Innovative Parking Approaches. Allow the use of innovative parking supply and demand strategies such as shared parking, unbundling parking, and other related items within privately owned parking facilities to allow an appropriate level of flexibility for these private land owners.   • Policy 2.6 Formal Parking Evaluations. Perform formal evaluations of parking capacity on a biannual basis to identify areas where parking is under- or over-utilized.  Chapter 6: Environmental Resources GOAL 1. Water Resources. Protected and readily available water resources for community and environmental use. • Policy 1.1 Policy Water conservation technologies. Promote indoor and outdoor water conservation and reuse practices including water recycling, grey water re- use and rainwater harvesting. • Policy 1.2 Landscape design. Encourage the reduction of landscaping water consumption through plant selection and irrigation technology. • Policy 1.3 Conservation performance targeted to new construction. Incentivize new construction to exceed the state’s Green Building Code for water conservation by an additional 10 percent. • Policy 1.4 Greywater. Allow the use of greywater and establish criteria and standards to permit its safe and effective use (also known as on-site water recycling). • Policy 1.5 Waterways as amenities. When considering development applications and infrastructure improvements, treat waterways as amenities, not hazards, and encourage designs that embrace the waterways. GOAL 6. Energy. An energy efficient community that relies primarily on renewable and non- polluting energy sources. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-5 • Policy 6.1 Passive solar design. Require new buildings to incorporate energy efficient building and site design strategies for the desert environment that include appropriate solar orientation, thermal mass, use of natural daylight and ventilation, and shading. Masquerade • Policy 6.2 Alternative energy. Continue to promote the incorporation of alternative energy generation (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) in public and private development. • Policy 6.3 Energy Efficient Buildings. Encourage new buildings and buildings undergoing major retrofits to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards. • Policy 6.11 Energy-efficient infrastructure. Whenever possible, use energy-efficient models and technology when replacing or providing new city infrastructure such as streetlights, traffic signals, water conveyance pumps, or other public infrastructure. Chapter 8: Safety GOAL 3. Flood hazards. A community where flooding and inundation hazard are contained within areas reserved for open spaces. • Policy 3.1 Flood Risk in New Development. Require all new development to minimize flood risk with siting and design measures, such as grading that prevents adverse drainage impacts to adjacent properties, on-site retention of runoff, and minimization of structures located in floodplains. • Policy 3.2 Flood Infrastructure. Require new development to contribute to funding regional flood control infrastructure improvements. • Policy 3.3 Stormwater Management. Monitor, update, and enforce stormwater management plans in coordination with regional agencies, utilities, and other jurisdictions. • Policy 3.4 Open Space for Flood Control. Prioritize open space or uses that serve recreational purposes as a preferred land use within areas of high flood risk. Chapter 9: Public Utilities & Services GOAL 1. Stormwater. Stormwater management system that leads to clean water, basin recharge and increased water retention. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-6 • Policy 1.1 Stormwater infrastructure for new development. Require development projects pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that development (regional shallow ground water). • Policy 1.2 On-site stormwater retention and infiltration. Whenever possible, stormwater shall be infiltrated, evapotranspirated, reused or treated onsite in other ways that improve stormwater quality and reduce flows into the storm drain system. • Policy 1.3 Groundwater infiltration. Encourage the use of above-ground and natural stormwater facilities in new development and redevelopment, such as vegetated swales and permeable paving. • Policy 1.4 Stormwater re-use and recycling. Encourage innovative ways of capturing and reusing stormwater for non-drinking purposes to reduce the use of potable drinking water. • Policy 1.5 Recycled water. Work with the CVWD to encourage existing golf courses to connect to its recycled water system. • Policy 1.6 Collaborative stormwater management. Encourage collaborative, integrated stormwater management between multiple property owners and sites. • Policy 1.7 Low impact development. Require the use of low-impact development strategies to minimize urban run-off, increase site infiltration, manage stormwater and recharge groundwater supplies. • Policy 1.8 Green infrastructure in public rights-of-way. Encourage green streets with in- street bio-retention and other forms of stormwater retention and infiltration in streets and public rights-of-way. • Policy 1.10 Stormwater in urban context. Development projects shall incorporate stormwater management into landscaping, except in downtown designations where catch basins shall be prohibited. • Policy 1.11 Water quality detention basins. Require water detention basins to be aesthetically pleasing and to serve recreational purposes, such as in the form of a mini park. Detention basins designed for active uses are intended to supplement park and open space and should not be counted towards a developer’s minimum park requirements, unless otherwise determined by the Planning Commission or City Council. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-7 GOAL 2. Sewer. Sewer management and facility operations that allow for adequate disposal within the community. • Policy 2.1 Sewer system maintenance. Work with the Coachella Valley Water District to ensure sewers are operational and in good working order. • Policy 2.2 Sewer infrastructure for new development. Require development projects to pay for their share of new sewer infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that development. • Policy 2.3 Sewer connections. In the event that a sewer line exists in the right-of-way where a lateral line connection is required to serve a lot, require a sewer connection at the time the lot is developed. GOAL 3. Water Supply. Ensure a sustainable, clean, long-term water supply. • Policy 3.1 Agency coordination. Coordinate on an ongoing basis with the Coachella Valley Water District, and other agencies responsible for supplying water to the region. • Policy 3.3 Water infrastructure. Maintain existing water infrastructure to protect the supply, quality, and delivery of potable water. • Policy 3.4 Water infrastructure for new development. Require development projects to pay for their share of new water infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that project. • Policy 3.5 Recycled Water. Expanded use of recycled water in existing and new development. • Policy 3.6 Citywide water conservation and efficiency. Encourage and promote community water conservation and efficiency efforts, including indoor and outdoor efforts that exceed CalGreen requirements. Palm Desert Municipal Code Title 25 (Zoning Code) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code implements the General Plan and guides the development and use of land in the City. It specifies development standards and other factors that determine development densities and intensities for each parcel of land. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-8 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) is a comprehensive regional plan that seeks to balance the valley’s economic, development, and growth needs with the conservation needs of a variety of plant and animal species and natural vegetation communities. The CVMSHCP, approved in 2008, protects more than 240,000 acres of open space and 27 sensitive biological species (“covered species”), and streamlines compliance with federal and state endangered species laws for a 75-year term. The CVMSHCP involves numerous jurisdictions and public agencies as permittees including the City of Palm Desert. Overall management of the Plan is provided by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC), a joint powers authority of elected representatives. 2.11.4 Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is located in the central portion of Riverside County at the westernmost limits of the Sonoran Desert. The San Jacinto Mountains and San Bernardino Mountains form the western portions of the valley, while the Little San Bernardino and Santa Rosa Mountains form the northern and southern boundaries, respectively. Much of the urbanization in the Coachella Valley initially took place along the toe of the slopes of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains and has spread progressively onto the valley floor and southeastward through the City of Coachella to the communities of Thermal and Mecca. The region is noted for prime agricultural lands in the east valley areas, and for exclusive resort residential and world-class tourist developments primarily in the western and central portions of the valley, although this trend is continuing to move east. In the western portions of the valley, agriculture developed (primarily dates and citrus) early in the 20th Century gave way to resort, residential and commercial development. The area’s natural assets, including mountain views, varied wildlife and sunny weather, and a dependable water supply, have become progressively more important to the local economy and environment, and have contributed to the region’s character and desirability. 2.11.5 Existing Conditions The Project site is designated as Resort and Entertainment District on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, which allows theme parks, hotels, sports facilities, bed and breakfast inns, recreational facilities, small retail, large retail, and lodging, support retail, and commercial services along with specialized entertainment with a commercial floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 0.10, and multi-family residential land uses of up to 10 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). The City’s Zoning Map designates the site as Planned Residential (PR-5), allowing 5 DU/AC. The NSSP allows for a “Luxury Hotel” with a maximum of 500 rooms. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-9 Existing and Surrounding Land Use The Project site is located on the north side of Country Club Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street in the approximate center of the square mile Desert Willow development, which is a part of the City’s 1989 North Sphere Specific Plan. The Project site is located within planning area 10 (PA 10) of that plan and is designated for hotel and resort development. The subject property is currently partially developed with an existing surface parking lot and is located within the Desert Willow Golf Course. The Desert Willow development includes two championship golf courses, the Firecliff Course and Mountain View Course, as well as residential and resort developments. The following describes lands surrounding the Project site. • North: Desert Willow Golf Course, Clubhouse and a parking lot • South: Desert Willow Golf Course • East: Desert Willow Golf Course and Desert Willow Drive • West: Desert Willow Golf Course, the Westin Desert Willow Villas, Willow Ridge Drive. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-11 2.11.6 Project Impacts This analysis evaluates the potential for land use impacts, including short-term impacts on existing land uses that could result from temporary construction activities, and long-term impacts that could result from the operation of the proposed Project. Applicable plans, policies and regulations were reviewed to determine the proposed Project’s consistency. The following significance criteria are not discussed further in this section of the EIR because the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation determined there would be no environmental impacts as a result of the proposed Project: a) Would the Project physically divide an established community? The remaining significance criteria will have the potential for environmental impact as a result of the Project, as discussed below. b) Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? General Plan Consistency The City of Palm Desert is the Lead Agency and has sole jurisdiction over the proposed Project. As previously stated, the Project site is designated as Resort and Entertainment District on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, which allows bed and breakfast inns, recreational facilities, small retail, large retail, and lodging, support retail, and commercial services along with specialized entertainment with a commercial floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 0.10, and multi- family residential land uses of up to 10 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). In addition, the NSSP allows for a “luxury hotel” with up to 500 rooms. These uses are generally consistent with the proposed Project. An analysis of applicable goals, policies and programs contained in the General Plan was conducted. The findings of that analysis, which considered the Project as a whole, are summarized below. Chapter 3. Land Use and Community Character GOAL 1. Quality Spaces. A beautiful city with a balance of high-quality open spaces and high-quality urban areas. • Policy 1.1 Scale of development. Require new development along the city’s corridors use design techniques to moderate height and use and ensure compatible fit with surrounding development. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-12 • Policy 1.2 Open space preservation. Balance the development of the city with the provision of open space, and especially the hillsides surrounding the City, so as to create both high quality urban areas and high quality open space. • Policy 1.3 Traffic generation. Balance medium and high intensity/density development with pedestrian-oriented and bicycle friendly design features so as to maximize trip and VMT reduction. • Policy 1.5 Community Amenities. Balance the impacts of new development, density, and urbanization through the provision of a high-level of neighborhood and community amenities and design features. Consistency: The development of the proposed Project will result in improvements the area’s existing environment. These improvements will be in the form of new sidewalks and enhanced landscape areas as well as the construction of a recreational resort center on a currently vacant lot. The architectural style will be reflective of the desert mid-century modern aesthetic. The aesthetic character of the proposed Project, including architecture, landscaping, walls and fences, and signage, are consistent with the scale and quality of other projects within Desert Willow. The integration of a signature surf theme with related recreational amenities also supports the goals of the General Plan. The high-quality design attributes of the proposed Project, such as enhanced streetscapes and pedestrian walkways, will increase recreational and community amenities for City residents. GOAL 2. Human-Scaled Design. A city designed for people, fostering interaction, activity, and safety. • Policy 2.3 Landscaping. Require development projects to incorporate high quality landscaping in order to extend and enhance the green space network of the city. • Policy 2.6 Lighting. Require all new street lights in commercial areas to be pedestrian- oriented and scaled, attractively designed, compatible in design with other street furniture, and to provide adequate visibility and security in accordance with best practices for night sky protection. • Policy 2.12 Destination Accessibility. Direct the development of new centers, parks, schools, and similar destinations so as to provide all residences within town ¼ mile to at least two amenities. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-13 Consistency The proposed Project’s landscaped buffers and parkway improvements along its perimeter will blend into the existing Desert Willow landscapes. Landscape treatments, theme walls, and entry monumentation will visually enhance the currently vacant area. All lighting within the proposed Project will be subject to the Specific Plan’s standards for the Surf Lagoon, and the City’s Municipal Code for other land uses, and assure that lighting impacts are confined to the project site. GOAL 4. Districts. A series of unique, destination-oriented districts that provide space for large-format retail, industrial and resort uses in order to increase access to jobs, provide amenities for residents, and enhance the fiscal stability of the City. • Policy 4.1 Resorts. Encourage the development of unique resort complexes. Locate resorts in areas of the city where citywide connectivity will not be negatively affected by the design of the project. • Policy 4.2 Resort design and connectivity. Allow resorts to be designed as isolated and gated developments as long as through traffic and external connectivity occurs at distances of no greater than 1,300 feet. Exceptions to this may be made where external connection is not possible because of steep slopes, or natural or man-made barriers. Consistency The proposed Project’s uses will support balanced growth in the area since the Project adds to the existing Desert Willow amenities in a unique format by creating a surf community in the center of a desert resort city. Unlike any other resort development, the Project will create a unique resort complex within an existing resort and maintain the overall image of the site. GOAL 8. Economic Development. A diverse, growing, and resilient local economy. • Policy 8.1 Long-term economic development. Support the development and implementation of long-term economic development strategies that seek to establish and keep new businesses. • Policy 8.7 Natural environment. Maintain and enhance the natural environment as critical to the attraction of tourists and ensure that new development does not adversely affect the natural environment as a tourist draw. • Policy 8.8 Recreational amenities. Strategically utilize City recreational investments to create and enhance development opportunities. Consistency The proposed Project contributes to the economic well-being of the City by offering recreational and resort development that will provide a diversity of resort and commercial DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-14 businesses to the employment pool. In addition, the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center will expand the City’s sales tax revenues, and the hotels and villas will increase transient occupancy tax revenues. GOAL 9. Fiscal Stability. A fiscally sound and sustainable city. • Policy 9.1 Fiscal impact assessment. For all major development projects, including but not limited to specific plans, annexations and changes in General Plan designations for areas over 5 acres in size, require a fiscal impact assessment to determine possible fiscal impact of the development project and use the information to formulate conditions of approval for the project. • Policy 9.2 Efficient growth. Manage growth in a manner that is fiscally sustainable and protects and/or enhances community value. • Policy 9.3 Diverse tax base. Guide development and public investments to maintain a fiscally sound city with a sustainable tax base and user fees including property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax, utilities user tax and user fees that pay for cost of services. Consistency The City has required performance and market feasibility assessments to be prepared for the proposed Project in order to evaluate these impacts to the City. Since the proposed Project proposes a hotel and commercial uses that include restaurants and retail uses, taxes from these services will expand the City’s tax base. Chapter 4: Mobility GOAL 2. Parking. An actively managed system of public and private parking facilities that supports future development. • Policy 2.1 Public Parking Facilities. Provide new public parking facilities only after applying appropriate techniques to manage parking demand and ensure efficient use of all public and private parking facilities.   • Policy 2.5 Innovative Parking Approaches. Allow the use of innovative parking supply and demand strategies such as shared parking, unbundling parking, and other related items within privately owned parking facilities to allow an appropriate level of flexibility for these private land owners.   • Policy 2.6 Formal Parking Evaluations. Perform formal evaluations of parking capacity on a biannual basis to identify areas where parking is under- or over-utilized.  DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-15 Consistency Primary parking for the commercial component of the proposed Project will be provided immediately adjacent to the surf center building. Parking for the hotel and villa component will be provided adjacent to the corresponding buildings. Underground or structure parking is allowed for both Specific Plan Planning Areas. The parking standards stipulated in the Specific Plan were used in order to design the required parking spaces. Chapter 6: Environmental Resources GOAL 1. Water Resources. Protected and readily available water resources for community and environmental use. • Policy 1.1 Policy Water conservation technologies. Promote indoor and outdoor water conservation and reuse practices including water recycling, grey water re- use and rainwater harvesting. • Policy 1.2 Landscape design. Encourage the reduction of landscaping water consumption through plant selection and irrigation technology. • Policy 1.3 Conservation performance targeted to new construction. Incentivize new construction to exceed the state’s Green Building Code for water conservation by an additional 10 percent. • Policy 1.4 Greywater. Allow the use of greywater and establish criteria and standards to permit its safe and effective use (also known as on-site water recycling). • Policy 1.5 Waterways as amenities. When considering development applications and infrastructure improvements, treat waterways as amenities, not hazards, and encourage designs that embrace the waterways. Consistency As stipulated by SB 610 and SB 221 under Water Code Section 10910(a) the proposed Project has been analyzed through a water supply assessment and water supply verification in order to document the sufficiency of the CVWD water supply to meet the demand associated with the proposed land use. The proposed Project will also encourage water conservation through techniques such as the use of low volume irrigation systems and drought-tolerant landscaping. In addition, the Project is required to offset the lagoon’s water demand by participating in the Golf Course Turf Reduction Plan developed by the City of Palm Desert. GOAL 6. Energy. An energy efficient community that relies primarily on renewable and non- polluting energy sources. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-16 • Policy 6.1 Passive solar design. Require new buildings to incorporate energy efficient building and site design strategies for the desert environment that include appropriate solar orientation, thermal mass, use of natural daylight and ventilation, and shading. Masquerade • Policy 6.2 Alternative energy. Continue to promote the incorporation of alternative energy generation (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) in public and private development. • Policy 6.3 Energy Efficient Buildings. Encourage new buildings and buildings undergoing major retrofits to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards. • Policy 6.11 Energy-efficient infrastructure. Whenever possible, use energy-efficient models and technology when replacing or providing new city infrastructure such as streetlights, traffic signals, water conveyance pumps, or other public infrastructure. Consistency In addition to the solar panel design feature included in the Precise Plan application for the Surf Center, passive solar design such as the use of shade structures and building orientation will be used through the Project area. The proposed Project is also required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Sustainability Plan, including measures designed to reduce energy demand. Chapter 8: Safety GOAL 3. Flood hazards. A community where flooding and inundation hazard are contained within areas reserved for open spaces. • Policy 3.1 Flood Risk in New Development. Require all new development to minimize flood risk with siting and design measures, such as grading that prevents adverse drainage impacts to adjacent properties, on-site retention of runoff, and minimization of structures located in floodplains. • Policy 3.2 Flood Infrastructure. Require new development to contribute to funding regional flood control infrastructure improvements. • Policy 3.3 Stormwater Management. Monitor, update, and enforce stormwater management plans in coordination with regional agencies, utilities, and other jurisdictions. • Policy 3.4 Open Space for Flood Control. Prioritize open space or uses that serve recreational purposes as a preferred land use within areas of high flood risk. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-17 Consistency The Project site is located in Zone X, which represents “areas outside of 0.2% annual chance flood.” (Map No. 06065C1615G) as defined by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Development of the proposed Project will not add structures in an area that is subject to flood risk. The Project hydrology study integrates stormwater conveyance into the existing, master planned Desert Willow drainage system, assuring proper management of storm flows. Chapter 9: Public Utilities & Services GOAL 1. Stormwater. Stormwater management system that leads to clean water, basin recharge and increased water retention. • Policy 1.1 Stormwater infrastructure for new development. Require development projects pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that development (regional shallow ground water). • Policy 1.2 On-site stormwater retention and infiltration. Whenever possible, stormwater shall be infiltrated, evapotranspirated, reused or treated onsite in other ways that improve stormwater quality and reduce flows into the storm drain system. • Policy 1.3 Groundwater infiltration. Encourage the use of above-ground and natural stormwater facilities in new development and redevelopment, such as vegetated swales and permeable paving. • Policy 1.4 Stormwater re-use and recycling. Encourage innovative ways of capturing and reusing stormwater for non-drinking purposes to reduce the use of potable drinking water. • Policy 1.5 Recycled water. Work with the CVWD to encourage existing golf courses to connect to its recycled water system. • Policy 1.6 Collaborative stormwater management. Encourage collaborative, integrated stormwater management between multiple property owners and sites. • Policy 1.7 Low impact development. Require the use of low-impact development strategies to minimize urban run-off, increase site infiltration, manage stormwater and recharge groundwater supplies. • Policy 1.8 Green infrastructure in public rights-of-way. Encourage green streets with in- street bio-retention and other forms of stormwater retention and infiltration in streets and public rights-of-way. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-18 • Policy 1.10 Stormwater in urban context. Development projects shall incorporate stormwater management into landscaping, except in downtown designations where catch basins shall be prohibited. • Policy 1.11 Water quality detention basins. Require water detention basins to be aesthetically pleasing and to serve recreational purposes, such as in the form of a mini park. Detention basins designed for active uses are intended to supplement park and open space and should not be counted towards a developer’s minimum park requirements, unless otherwise determined by the Planning Commission or City Council. Consistency The proposed Project will implement the standard requirements for the conveyance of storm flows contained within the existing stormwater master plan for the Desert Willow project area. In addition, participates in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) will be required to protect surface waters from pollution, as well as maintain the City of Palm Desert’s Municipal Code 8.70.100 (On-Site Stormwater Retention), which requires all new developments to retain the 100-year storm flow on-site and/or off-site. GOAL 2. Sewer. Sewer management and facility operations that allow for adequate disposal within the community. • Policy 2.1 Sewer system maintenance. Work with the Coachella Valley Water District to ensure sewers are operational and in good working order. • Policy 2.2 Sewer infrastructure for new development. Require development projects to pay for their share of new sewer infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that development. • Policy 2.3 Sewer connections. In the event that a sewer line exists in the right-of-way where a lateral line connection is required to serve a lot, require a sewer connection at the time the lot is developed. Consistency The proposed Project will incorporate the use of the existing sewer and water facilities and infrastructure near the site and new storm drains to tie into existing facilities. The proposed Project lines will connect to existing lines beneath Willow Ridge and Desert Willow Drive. All new sewer facilities will be constructed and maintained in accordance with applicable standards. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-19 GOAL 3. Water Supply. Ensure a sustainable, clean, long-term water supply. • Policy 3.1 Agency coordination. Coordinate on an ongoing basis with the Coachella Valley Water District, and other agencies responsible for supplying water to the region. • Policy 3.3 Water infrastructure. Maintain existing water infrastructure to protect the supply, quality, and delivery of potable water. • Policy 3.4 Water infrastructure for new development. Require development projects to pay for their share of new water infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that project. • Policy 3.5 Recycled Water. Expanded use of recycled water in existing and new development. • Policy 3.6 Citywide water conservation and efficiency. Encourage and promote community water conservation and efficiency efforts, including indoor and outdoor efforts that exceed CalGreen requirements. Consistency The proposed Project will incorporated the CVWD’s water conservation measures, including techniques such as the use of low volume irrigation systems and drought-tolerant landscaping. The lagoon and added water features that will built in the Project area will be designed to minimize the use of excessive amounts of water. As required by Water Code Section 10910(f) a Water Supply Assessment was prepared for the proposed Project area to assess the condition of the groundwater basin and a sufficiency analysis of the basin to supply the Project area. Surf Lagoon and Surf Center All lands adjacent to the site are currently designated as Resort and Entertainment and developed as golf course except the Westin Desert Willow Villas to the southwest of the subject development site. The Surf Lagoon and Surf Center component of the Project are proposing a mix of entertainment, recreation and commercial uses consistent with those described in the General Plan, including the surf lagoon, pools, recreational activities, restaurants, bars, and event space for live music and other entertainment activities. The Project site appears to be appropriate for mixed used development of the type proposed. Therefore, the proposed plans for the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center are consistent with the City’s General Plan. Hotels and Villas All lands adjacent to the site are currently designated as Resort and Entertainment District, and developed as golf course, except the Westin Desert Willow Villas to the southwest of the subject development site. The Project proposes resort residential development comparable to DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-20 that permitted elsewhere within the Desert Willow development. The proposed hotel(s) will also be consistent with the other hotels (Embarc Palm Desert, Desert Springs JW Marriott, Residence Inn, and Courtyard by Marriott) in the surrounding area, and is consistent with the hotels proposed for Planning Area 10 of the North Sphere Specific Plan, which established the Desert Willow project. Therefore, the proposed land use plans for the Hotels and Villas are consistent with the City’s General Plan. Off-Site Improvements With the exception of off-site parking, all other off-site improvements will not result in a land use change. The off-site parking improvements (overflow parking) will occur on lands owned by the City and currently used as additional parking. Off-site improvements are consistent with General Plan land uses. Municipal Code and Zoning Consistency The City’s Zoning Map designates the site as Planned Residential (PR-5), allowing 5 units per acre. The Planned Residential zone also allows for the development of hotels with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) but prohibits the development of “Commercial Recreation Facilities” (Section 25.10.030-Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements). Commercial Recreation Facilities are defined as “any use or development either public or private, providing amusement, pleasure, or sport, which is operated or carried on primarily for financial gain.” Municipal Code Section 25.10.40 (Specific Use Standards), however, inconsistently states that Commercial Recreational Facilities are permitted in the PR zone with approval of a Conditional Use Permit “when not related to a permitted residential development.” This portion of the Zoning Ordinance would allow the proposed surf lagoon with approval of a CUP. This inconsistency is rectified through preparation of the proposed Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan would supersede the current zoning designations on the Project site and will guide the development of the Project overall. The proposed Specific Plan will set forth the planning principles, land use policies, development standards, and design guidelines for the proposed development, and on-site and off-site public improvements. The Project’s Specific Plan will address maximum development densities as shown in the Table below. All development on the Project site shall adhere to the standards and requirements set forth in the Specific Plan. Table 2.11-1 DSRT SURF Specific Plan Specific Plan Land Uses Surf Lagoon Planning Area (11.85 acres) Max/Min Allowed Surf Lagoon Max 6 acres Surf Center Building, including: Max 35,000 SF; Max Height 50 feet Restaurants/Bars Max. 8,000* SF DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-21 Table 2.11-1 DSRT SURF Specific Plan Specific Plan Land Uses Surf Lagoon Planning Area (11.85 acres) Max/Min Allowed Meetings/Events Max. 6,000 SF Retail Max. 4,000 SF Ancillary Restrooms/Changing Rooms/Locker Buildings Max 1,500 SF Ancillary Rental Building(s) Max 1,500 SF East Lagoon Café and Bar Max 2,750 SF Maintenance and Equipment Buildings Max 15,000 SF Landscaping/OS/Pool /Recreational Space Minimum 20% Planning Area site coverage Parking Per SP parking development code Hotel and Villas Planning Area (5.84 acres) Max/Min Allowed Hotels Max 350 rooms, Max 200,000 SF; Max Height 50 feet Hotel Spa Max 12,500 SF Villas Max 88 Villas; 1 to 4 bedrooms Villa Clubhouse Max 3,125 SF Maintenance and Equipment Buildings Max 2,500 SF Landscaping/OS/Pool /Recreational Space Minimum 25% Planning Area site coverage Parking Per SP parking development code * Seating areas only. Does not include kitchens, storage, etc. The Project also includes a Precise Plan, Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement for the Surf Lagoon Planning Area, which is further discussed below. Surf Lagoon and Surf Center The design, and development standards of the proposed Surf Lagoon Planning Area will be regulated through the Specific Plan and a Precise Plan based on City Municipal Code Section 25.72.030 (Precise Plan). The Surf Lagoon Planning Area was designed in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan and is therefore consistent with the Municipal Code and zoning standards. A Precise Plan further defines and implements the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan by providing specific designs and plans that ultimately regulate the construction of the Project. The following Table breaks down the Precise Plan land uses for the Surf Lagoon Planning Area. Overall, the Surf Lagoon Planning Area is consistent with applicable municipal code and zoning regulations through adherence to the proposed Specific Plan, thus resulting in no adverse impacts. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-22 Table 2.11-2 DSRT SURF Surf Lagoon Precise Plan Land Uses Land Use/Building SF AC Surf Lagoon 239,580 5.50 Surf Center Building, including: 30,300 0.88 Restaurants, Bars and associated kitchens 8,475 -- Meeting Rooms 5,625 -- Administrative offices 2,275 -- Gallery 3,275 -- Mechanical, restrooms, storage, corridors, etc. 11,925 Ancillary Restrooms/Changing Rooms/Locker Buildings 450 0.02 Ancillary Rental Building(s) 600 0.01 East Lagoon Café and Bar 650 0.06 Maintenance and Equipment Buildings 13,950 0.21 Landscape/OS/Pools/Rec./Amenities 104,789 2.41 Roadways/Driveways/Parking (asphalt paved areas) 120,307 2.76 Parking 239 spaces Hotels and Villas The design, and development standards of the proposed Hotels and Villas Planning Area will be regulated through the Specific Plan. Prior to approval, a Precise Plan for the Hotels and Villas Planning area shall be submitted to the City for review per City Municipal Code Section 25.72.030 (Precise Plan). The City shall review the Precise Plan for consistency with the Specific Plan to ensure the Hotels and Villas Planning area development is consistent with the Municipal Code and zoning standards, thus resulting in no adverse impacts. Off-Site Improvements With the exception of off-site parking, all other off-site improvements will be related to infrastructure or landscaping, and will not involve zoning. The off-site parking improvements (overflow parking) will occur on lands owned by the City and currently used as additional parking. Off-site improvements are consistent with the City’s Municipal Code and zoning. Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) The City of Palm Desert is a signatory to and participates in the implementation of the CVMSHCP. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP but is outside the boundaries of any of the Plan’s Conservation Areas. Lands not developed prior to DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.11-23 1996 are subject to the payment of a Development Mitigation Fee to mitigate impacts of urban development to covered species. The site is not within or adjacent to a CVMSHCP-designated Conservation Area; thus, the implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other related plans designed to avoid an environmental impact. Surf Lagoon Planning Area: No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. Hotels and Villas Planning Area: No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. Off-Site Improvements: No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. 2.11.7 Mitigation Measures No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 2.11.8 Significance After Mitigation Impacts associated with Land Use and Planning will be less than significant. 2.11.9 Cumulative Impacts The geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts on land use consists of each project area and the immediate vicinity around each of these sites where adverse land use impacts could occur. Any cumulative project impacts related to land use would be consistent with the land uses in the cumulative study area. There are no potential project conflicts or inconsistencies with applicable adopted plans, policies and regulations, and the project would not combine with others to result in a substantial cumulative impact. Overall, there will be a less than cumulatively substantial effect on existing and planned land uses generated by this project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.12 Noise 2.12.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential for noise and groundborne vibration impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Project, including impacts associated with a substantial temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site; exposure of people in the vicinity of the Project site to excessive noise levels, groundborne vibration, or groundborne noise levels; and whether this exposure is in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. Mitigation measures intended to reduce impacts to noise and vibration are proposed, where appropriate, to avoid or reduce significant impacts of the proposed Project. A Noise Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed Project, and is provided in Appendix G of this EIR.1 2.12.2 Thresholds of Significance Based upon Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project and its vicinity would be significantly affected by ambient noise and groundborne vibrations if they would: a) Generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. b) Result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. 1 Desert Wave Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, March 2019. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-2 c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 2.12.3 Regulatory Framework State General Plan Noise Elements State law requires that all counties and cities develop, in their General Plan, a Noise Element that effectively limits the exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels. California Noise Control Act of 1973 Pursuant to Sections 46000 through 46080 of the California Health and Safety Code, known as the California Noise Control Act of 1973, the State Legislature found that excessive noise is a serious hazard to the public health and welfare and that exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage. The state has a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and abatement of noise. It is the policy of the state to provide an environment for all Californians that is free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. State regulations (8 California Code of Regulations, Section 5095) also address worker exposure to noise levels. These regulations limit worker exposure to noise levels of 85 dBA or lower over an 8-hour period. The state has not established noise levels for non-work-related environments. Regional and Local Palm Desert General Plan The City’s General Plan takes steps to address stationary and mobile noise sources in the City and includes programs and policies to reduce these noise sources to the extent possible. The applicable policies would help the Project to avoid or reduce potential impacts to an acceptable level, including: Chapter 7. Noise • Policy 1.1 Noise Compatibility. Apply the Noise Compatibility Matrix, shown in Figure 7.1, as a guide for planning and development decisions. The City will require projects involving new development or modifications to existing development to implement mitigation measures, where necessary, to reduce noise levels to at least the normally compatible range shown in the City’s Noise Compatibility Matrix shown in Figure 7.1. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-3 Mitigation measures should focus on architectural features and building design and construction, rather than site design features such as excessive setbacks, berms and sound walls, to maintain compatibility with adjacent and surrounding uses. • Policy 1.2 Noise Buffers. Require an open space or other noise buffer between new projects that are a source of excessive noise and nearby noise-sensitive receptors. • Policy 1.3 Mixed Use. Require that mixed-use structures and areas be designed to prevent transfer of noise from commercial uses to residential uses, and ensure a 45 dBA CNEL level or lower for all interior living spaces. • Policy 2.1 Noise Ordinance. Minimize noise conflicts between neighboring properties through enforcement of applicable regulations such as the City’s Noise Control Ordinance. • Policy 2.2 Noise Control. Ensure that noise impacts from stationary sources on noise- sensitive receptors and noise emanating from construction activities, private developments/residences, landscaping activities, night clubs and bars, and special events are minimized. • Policy 2.3 Entertainment Uses. Ensure that entertainment uses, restaurants, and bars engage in responsible management and operation to control the activities of their patrons on-site and within reasonable and legally justifiable proximity to minimize noise impacts on adjacent residences and other noise-sensitive receptors, and require mitigation as needed for development of entertainment uses near noise-sensitive receptors. • Policy 2.5 Noise Barriers for Industrial/Commercial Sources. If necessary, and after implementation of measures utilizing architectural features and building design and construction consistent with Policy 1.2, require certain industrial and certain heavy commercial uses to use absorptive types of noise barriers or walls to reduce noise levels generated by these uses. To be considered effective, the noise barrier should provide at least a 5-dBA-CNEL noise reduction. • Policy 3.1 Roadway Noise. Implement the policies listed under Goal 1 to reduce the impacts of roadway noise on noise-sensitive receptors where roadway noise exceeds the normally compatible range shown in the City’s Noise Compatibility Matrix shown in Figure 7.1. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-4 The General Plan also includes a Noise Compatibility Matrix which establishes the parameters for acceptable, conditionally acceptable and unacceptable noise levels, based on the type of land use. These standards are based on Community Equivalent Noise Levels, and are shown in the Table below. Table 2.12-1 General Plan Noise Compatibility Matrix City of Palm Desert Municipal Code The standards for exterior noise levels are provided in the City’s Municipal Code, Section 9.24.030. Exterior noise levels are set by land use, and by time of day, as follows: DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-5 • Residential land uses: o 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) o 45 dBA Leq during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) • Commercial land uses: o 65 dBA Leq during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) o 55 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The Municipal Code further determines that in areas where the existing ambient noise level exceeds the base exterior standards above, the ambient noise level becomes the adjusted exterior noise level standard. As described below, the ambient noise level at some of the monitoring locations for the proposed Project currently exceed the exterior noise level standard, and therefore the standard at these locations has been modified to reflect current conditions. Construction Noise Standards: The City does not maintain numeric, quantified noise standards for construction activities. The City’s Municipal Code Section 9.24.030 instead limits construction activities to certain hours as provided below. October 1st through April 30th May 1st through September 30th Monday—Friday: 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday-Friday: 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday: Not allowed. Sunday: Not allowed. Holidays: Not allowed. Holidays: Not allowed. Vibration Standards: The City of Palm Desert does not have any vibration standards for temporary construction activities. However, the County of Riverside’s General Plan Noise Element does include the human reaction to typical vibration levels. According to the County’s general plan, vibration levels above 0.1968 inches per second are considered annoying to people in buildings. 2.12.4 Environmental Setting Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise Sound is a pressure wave which is created by a vibrating object. It is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch).2 The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been 2 Noise and its Measurements by EPA (1961). DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-6 devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady ambient noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from traffic on a major highway. Table 2.12-2 illustrates representative noise levels in the environment. Table 2.12-2 Representative Environmental Noise Levels Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities -110- Rock Band Jet Fly-over at 100 feet 105 -100- Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet 95 -90- 85 Food Blender at 3 feet Diesel Truck going 50 mph at 50 feet -80- Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area during Daytime 75 Gas Lawnmower at 100 feet -70- Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area 65 Normal Speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet -60- 55 Large Business Office Quiet Urban Area during Daytime -50- Dishwasher in Next Room 45 Quiet Urban Area during Nighttime -40- Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Area during Nighttime 35 -30- Library Quiet Rural Area during Nighttime 25 Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) -20- 15 -10- 5 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing -0- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement, October 1998. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/Technical%20Noise%20Supplement.pdf, accessed February 2019. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-7 Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 45 dBA, moderate in the 45–60 dBA range, and high above 60 dBA. Noise levels greater than 85 dBA can cause temporary or permanent hearing loss. Generally, a difference of 3 dBA over 24 hours is a barely-perceptible increase to most people. A 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, while a difference of 10 dBA would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. Noise levels from a particular source generally decline as distance to the receptor increases. A commonly used rule of thumb for roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source, the noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA. Noise from stationary or point sources is reduced by about 6 dBA for every doubling of distance. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA.3 There are several rating scales to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people is largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows: • Leq – An Leq or equivalent energy noise level: It is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night. • Lmax: It is the maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. • Lmin: It is the minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. • CNEL: The Community Noise Equivalent Level is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 PM to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24 hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL. 3 Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, U.S. Department of Transportation, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm, accessed March 2019. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-8 Fundamentals of Environmental Groundborne Vibration Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Vibration can result from a source (e.g., train operations, motor vehicles, machinery equipment, construction equipment etc.) causing the adjacent ground to move, thereby creating vibration waves that propagate through the soil to the foundations of nearby buildings. This effect is referred to as ground-borne vibration. Ground-borne vibration is measured as peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second.4 Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as the operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. 2.12.5 Existing Conditions The Project site is located within the Coachella Valley where several highways such as I-10, Highway 111, and State Routes 62, 74, and 86 run through the valley. Heavy and high-speed traffic on these highways can reach up to 75 dBA.5 Overall, primary sources of noise in the City include traffic, freeways, and major roadways. The City has the authority to set land use noise standards and place restrictions on private activities that generate excessive or intrusive noise. However, I-10 is under the purview of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA has developed noise standards that are typically used for federally funded roadway projects or projects that require either federal or Caltrans review. Existing Roadway Noise Sources and Levels Off-site The Project site is located within the Desert Willow Golf Course between Portola Avenue, Cook Street, Frank Sinatra Drive and Country Club Drive. Cook Street is designated as a “Vehicular- Oriented Arterial,” in the City’s Mobility Element. Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive are designated “Balanced Arterials” in the City’s Mobility Element.6 Noise levels on Portola Avenue, Cook Street, Frank Sinatra Drive and Country Club Drive can be expected to be greater than would be typical of local streets.7 The existing off-site transportation noise levels in the Project area are provided below. 4 Basic Ground-Borne Vibration Concepts (Chapter 7), https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dc7a/51aa1841a144497fa81cf3267fa425ce1604.pdf, accessed March 2019. 5 Palm Desert General Plan – Figure 7.1 Future Noise Contours, City of Palm Desert, adopted 2016. 6 Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan DEIR – Table 4.15-2 (Palm Desert Roadways), City of Palm Desert, 2016. 7 Ibid. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-9 Table 2.12-3 Existing Off-Site Noise Contours Road Segment Adjacent Planned (Existing) Land Use1 CNEL at Nearest Adjacent Land Use (dBA)2 Distance to Contour from Centerline (Feet) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. SRC 74.2 200 631 1996 Portola Av. n/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN / Employment 71.1 83 261 826 Portola Av. s/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN / Nbrhd (Public) 71.4 89 281 889 Cook St. n/o I-10 WB Ramps Employment (Vacant) 66.5 RW 107 339 Cook St. s/o I-10 EB Ramps Nbrhd / Employment 72.7 143 452 1429 Cook St. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. NC / Institutional 71.5 107 337 1067 Cook St. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. GC & RN / R&E 71.6 109 346 1094 Cook St. n/o Country Club Dr. SRC /GC & RN (Commercial) 72.0 121 384 1214 Cook St. s/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN / R&E 72.2 127 402 1272 Cook St. s/o Hovley Ln. Employment 72.8 122 387 1224 El Dorado Dr. n/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN 64.9 RW RW 198 El Dorado Dr. s/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN 65.7 RW 75 236 Tamarisk Row Dr. n/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN 71.2 40 126 400 Oasis Club Dr. s/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN 67.5 RW 114 361 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. NC / SRC 72.6 100 316 998 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. NC / SRC 71.2 100 318 1005 Country Club Dr. e/o Portola Av. Employment / GC & RN 71.8 96 303 958 Country Club Dr. e/o Desert Willow Dr. SRC 71.8 97 306 967 Country Club Dr. e/o Cook St. GC & RN 71.0 95 301 951 Country Club Dr. e/o El Dorado Dr. GC & RN 71.4 88 280 885 Country Club Dr. e/o Oasis Club Dr. GC & RN (Residential) 71.9 99 314 992 Hovley Ln. e/o Cook St. Employment 69.5 RW 181 574 Existing Ambient Daytime Noise Levels Currently, the Project site is partially developed with an existing surface parking lot where the noise sources include vehicles traveling to and from the golf course. Other noise sources in the vicinity of the golf course include stationary noise sources in the residential and commercial areas such as pool and spa equipment or heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) units. Temporary noise sources include landscape maintenance activities, home stereo systems, golf course users and carts, and barking dogs, which are governed by the provisions of the City Noise Ordinance and Municipal Code. To identify the existing ambient noise environment within the golf course, the Noise Impact Analysis included noise measurements at a number of locations (L1 to L6), shown in Exhibit 2.12-1. Table 2.12-4 shows the measurements at each measured location, and the corresponding CNEL for that measurement location. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-11 Table 2.12-4 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements Location1 Description Energy Average Noise Level (dBA Leq)2 CNEL Daytime Nighttime L1 Located on Portola Avenue west of the Project site, near existing single- family residential homes. 69.4 63.4 71.7 L2 Located within The Westin Desert Willow Villas, near the northeastern corner of the Project site boundaries. 49.3 46.1 53.4 L3 Located on Desert Willow Drive, near the eastern boundary of the Project site and existing golf courses. 55.7 51.8 59.1 L4 Located on Desert Willow Drive, southeast of the Project site, near Embarc Palm Desert Resort. 49.7 48.2 55.0 L5 Located on Willow Ridge within Embarc Palm Desert Resort, south of the Project site boundaries. 49.0 48.3 55.0 L6 Located on Willow Ridge, within The Westin Desert Willow Villas Resort, near the southwestern boundary of the Project site. 52.3 47.3 55.2 1 See Exhibit 5-A for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.2 of the Noise Report. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Based on the 24-Hour ambient noise level measurements, the background ambient noise levels in the Project area are currently dominated by the transportation-related noise associated with adjacent roadways, in addition to background stationary noise sources such as existing hotel and golf course activities. Special Activity Reference Noise Levels The proposed Project will include several activities not typically found in resort residential projects, including a wave-generating machine at the Surf Lagoon, outdoor activity at Surf Center and hotel and villa pools, and amplified music during special events at the Surf Center. In order to determine whether the proposed Project’s activities would result in significant impacts on and off the project site, the Noise Impact Analysis used reference noise measurements from other sites and events, as shown in Table 2.12-5, below. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-12 Table 2.12-5 Reference Noise Level Measurements Noise Source Duration (hh:mm:ss) Ref. Distance (Feet) Noise Source Height (Feet) Hourly Activity (Mins.)7 Reference Noise Level (dBA Leq) Sound Power Level (dBA)8 Daytime Nighttime @ Ref. Dist. @ 50 Feet Typical Operational Activities Surf Lagoon/Wave Machine1 00:00:16 160' 6' 60 60 73.5 83.6 115.3 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity2 00:10:00 5' 4' 60 60 77.8 57.8 89.5 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements3 01:00:00 20' 5' 60 60 58.0 50.0 84.6 Outdoor Game Activities4 00:15:00 5' 5' 60 60 63.4 43.4 78.0 Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units5 96:00:00 5' 5' 39 28 77.2 57.2 88.9 Additional Special Event Activities Outdoor Event Activity6 00:01:20 5' 8' 60 60 86.8 66.8 101.4 1 Source: Wave Garden Cove Noise Measurements, 8/11/2017. 2 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 3/16/2005 at the Westin Hotel in the City of Rancho Mirage. 3 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 5/17/2017 at the Staybridge Suites in the City of Lake Forest. 4 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 10/8/2014 by Urban Crossroads, Inc. at the Founder's Park in the unincorporated community of Ladera Ranch in the County of Orange. 5 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 7/27/2015 at the Santee Walmart located at 170 Town Center Parkway. 6 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 9/19/2013 at an outdoor live amplified music event at the Gate 12 Outdoor Event Space in the City of Laguna Woods. 7 Anticipated minutes of activity within a given hour based on the reference noise source activity. 8 Calculated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source. 2.12.6 Project Impacts The following significance criteria are not discussed further in this section of the EIR because the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation determined there would be no environmental impacts as a result of the proposed Project: c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The remaining significance criteria will have the potential for environmental impact as a result of the Project, as discussed below. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-13 a) Would the Project result in generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The Noise Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Project established criteria for potential noise impacts based on a number of sources, including the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, where standards were available, and on outside sources, where the City had no standard. For example, the City has no standard for construction noise or construction vibration. In these cases, the noise study established noise impact thresholds based on the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Riverside County General Plan, respectively. The criteria used to establish significance are summarized in the Table below. Table 2.12-6 Significance Criteria Summary Analysis Land Use Condition(s) Significance Criteria Daytime Nighttime Off-Site Traffic Noise Noise- Sensitive1 if ambient is < 60 dBA CNEL ≥ 5 dBA CNEL Project increase if ambient is 60 - 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase if ambient is > 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 1.5 dBA CNEL Project increase Non-Noise- Sensitive2 if ambient is < 70 dBA CNEL ≥ 5 dBA CNEL Project increase if ambient is > 70 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase Operational Noise Noise- Sensitive Exterior Noise Level Standards3 Residential land uses: o 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) o 45 dBA Leq during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Commercial land uses: o 65 dBA Leq during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) o 55 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). if ambient is < 60 dBA Leq1 ≥ 5 dBA Leq Project increase if ambient is 60 - 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 3 dBA Leq Project increase if ambient is > 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 1.5 dBA Leq Project increase Construction Noise & Vibration Noise- Sensitive Noise Level Threshold5 85 dBA Leq Vibration Level Threshold4 0.01 in/sec RMS 1 Source: FICON, 1992. 2 Source: City of Palm Desert General Plan, Table 7.1. 3 Source: City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 9.24.030 (Appendix 3.1). 4 Source: County of Riverside General Plan Noise Element, Policy N 16.3. 5 Acceptable threshold for construction noise based on the Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure prepared by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-14 Project-wide Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts For purposes of the noise analysis, and consistent with both the air quality and traffic analyses, a conservative approach was taken in estimating build out, insofar as it was assumed that the proposed Project will be constructed in phases over a two year period. As described elsewhere in this EIR, the Project currently proposes a Precise Plan application for only the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center component of the site, which if approved, would proceed immediately. The timing of construction of the hotel(s) and villas is not currently known. The Noise Impact Analysis considered the impacts of the proposed Project’s traffic on off-site locations, to determine whether the Project would impact noise levels off-site. The analysis considered current noise levels, as shown in Table 2.12-3, Existing Off-Site Noise Contours, and then added ambient growth (increased traffic due to the anticipated annual growth in traffic volumes), as well as growth based on approved cumulative projects (projects approved and/or under construction). The trips added to the regional road system by the proposed Project were then added, to determine the level of impact. Table 2.12-7 displays the Existing, Plus Ambient, Plus Cumulative Projects (EAC) noise levels without the proposed Project in 2022. Table 2.12-7 EAC 2022 Without Project Noise Contours Road Segment Adjacent Planned (Existing) Land Use1 CNEL at Nearest Adjacent Land Use (dBA)2 Distance to Contour from Centerline (Feet) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. SRC 74.5 216 682 2155 Portola Av. n/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN / Employment 71.6 92 291 919 Portola Av. s/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN / Nbrhd (Public) 71.8 96 304 962 Cook St. n/o I-10 WB Ramps Employment (Vacant) 69.0 RW 192 607 Cook St. s/o I-10 EB Ramps Nbrhd / Employment 73.1 157 496 1567 Cook St. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. NC / Institutional 71.9 119 377 1191 Cook St. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. GC & RN / R&E 71.8 114 361 1143 Cook St. n/o Country Club Dr. SRC /GC & RN (Commercial) 72.3 130 412 1304 Cook St. s/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN / R&E 72.6 138 435 1375 Cook St. s/o Hovley Ln. Employment 73.1 131 416 1314 El Dorado Dr. n/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN 64.8 RW RW 193 El Dorado Dr. s/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN 65.8 RW 76 241 Tamarisk Row Dr. n/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN 71.9 47 148 469 Oasis Club Dr. s/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN 67.6 RW 116 367 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. NC / SRC 72.9 107 338 1070 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. NC / SRC 71.4 105 332 1049 Country Club Dr. e/o Portola Av. Employment / GC & RN 71.8 97 307 971 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-15 Table 2.12-7 EAC 2022 Without Project Noise Contours Road Segment Adjacent Planned (Existing) Land Use1 CNEL at Nearest Adjacent Land Use (dBA)2 Distance to Contour from Centerline (Feet) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL Country Club Dr. e/o Desert Willow Dr. SRC 71.8 96 304 962 Country Club Dr. e/o Cook St. GC & RN 71.0 96 302 955 Country Club Dr. e/o El Dorado Dr. GC & RN 71.6 91 289 915 Country Club Dr. e/o Oasis Club Dr. GC & RN (Residential) 72.2 105 333 1052 Hovley Ln. e/o Cook St. Employment 72.0 102 322 1018 1 Source: City of Palm Desert General Plan Land Use Element (Figure 3.1). 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. The Noise analysis then added Project traffic to the EAC condition, resulting in the noise contours shown in Table 2.12-8 below. Table 2.12-8 EAC 2022 With Project Noise Contours Road Segment Adjacent Planned (Existing) Land Use1 CNEL at Nearest Adjacent Land Use (dBA)2 Distance to Contour from Centerline (Feet) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. SRC 74.6 217 687 2172 Portola Av. n/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN / Employment 71.6 94 296 936 Portola Av. s/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN / Nbrhd (Public) 71.8 98 308 975 Cook St. n/o I-10 WB Ramps Employment (Vacant) 69.1 RW 196 621 Cook St. s/o I-10 EB Ramps Nbrhd / Employment 73.3 164 520 1643 Cook St. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. NC / Institutional 72.2 127 401 1267 Cook St. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. GC & RN / R&E 72.1 123 388 1228 Cook St. n/o Country Club Dr. SRC /GC & RN (Commercial) 72.5 135 428 1353 Cook St. s/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN / R&E 72.7 141 446 1411 Cook St. s/o Hovley Ln. Employment 73.2 134 424 1340 El Dorado Dr. n/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN 65.1 RW 65 206 El Dorado Dr. s/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN 66.0 RW 80 253 Tamarisk Row Dr. n/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN 72.1 48 153 484 Oasis Club Dr. s/o Country Club Dr. GC & RN 67.8 RW 121 383 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-16 Table 2.12-8 EAC 2022 With Project Noise Contours Road Segment Adjacent Planned (Existing) Land Use1 CNEL at Nearest Adjacent Land Use (dBA)2 Distance to Contour from Centerline (Feet) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. NC / SRC 72.9 108 343 1084 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. NC / SRC 71.5 108 340 1076 Country Club Dr. e/o Portola Av. Employment / GC & RN 72.0 102 323 1022 Country Club Dr. e/o Desert Willow Dr. SRC 72.1 104 330 1044 Country Club Dr. e/o Cook St. GC & RN 71.3 103 326 1031 Country Club Dr. e/o El Dorado Dr. GC & RN 71.8 96 304 962 Country Club Dr. e/o Oasis Club Dr. GC & RN (Residential) 72.3 108 341 1078 Hovley Ln. e/o Cook St. Employment 72.1 103 325 1028 Based on a comparison of EAC without and with Project conditions, the analysis was able to determine the level of noise the Project would contribute, and whether the Project’s increase represented a significant increase in noise levels off-site, based on the criteria shown in Table 2.12-6, Significance Criteria Summary. As shown in Table 2.12-9 below, the proposed Project will not significantly increase off-site noise levels associated with the Project’s increases in traffic within the area surrounding the proposed Project. Table 2.12-9 Unmitigated EAC With Project Traffic Noise Impacts Road Segment CNEL at Adjacent Land Use (dBA)1 Noise- Sensitive Land Use? Threshold Exceeded?2 No Project With Project Project Addition Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 74.5 74.6 0.0 No No Portola Av. n/o Country Club Dr. 71.6 71.6 0.1 Yes No Portola Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 71.8 71.8 0.1 Yes No Cook St. n/o I-10 WB Ramps 69.0 69.1 0.1 No No Cook St. s/o I-10 EB Ramps 73.1 73.3 0.2 No No Cook St. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 71.9 72.2 0.3 No No Cook St. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 71.8 72.1 0.3 Yes No Cook St. n/o Country Club Dr. 72.3 72.5 0.2 Yes No Cook St. s/o Country Club Dr. 72.6 72.7 0.1 Yes No Cook St. s/o Hovley Ln. 73.1 73.2 0.1 No No DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-17 Table 2.12-9 Unmitigated EAC With Project Traffic Noise Impacts El Dorado Dr. n/o Country Club Dr. 64.8 65.1 0.3 Yes No El Dorado Dr. s/o Country Club Dr. 65.8 66.0 0.2 Yes No Tamarisk Row Dr. n/o Country Club Dr. 71.9 72.1 0.1 Yes No Oasis Club Dr. s/o Country Club Dr. 67.6 67.8 0.2 Yes No Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.9 72.9 0.1 Yes No Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 71.4 71.5 0.1 Yes No Country Club Dr. e/o Portola Av. 71.8 72.0 0.2 Yes No Country Club Dr. e/o Desert Willow Dr. 71.8 72.1 0.4 No No Country Club Dr. e/o Cook St. 71.0 71.3 0.3 Yes No Country Club Dr. e/o El Dorado Dr. 71.6 71.8 0.2 Yes No Country Club Dr. e/o Oasis Club Dr. 72.2 72.3 0.1 Yes No Hovley Ln. e/o Cook St. 72.0 72.1 0.0 Yes No Project-wide Operational Impacts The proposed Project will generate noise from commercial recreational activities, hotel activities, and villa activities. These were analyzed to determine the level of noise that would be created by typical project activities, and the impacts of these activities on surrounding sensitive receptors analyzed (Exhibit 2.12-2). As shown in Table 2.12-10 and Table 2.12-11, below, the impact of typical project activities on surrounding sensitive receptors will be less than significant during both daytime and nighttime hours, when compared to the thresholds provided in Table 2.12-6, Significance Criteria Summary. Table 2.12-10 Unmitigated Typical Project Daytime Noise Level Contributions Receiver Location1 Land Use Total Project Operational Noise Level2 Meas. Location3 Reference Ambient Noise Levels4 Combined Project and Ambient5 Project Increase6 Threshold7 Threshold Exceeded?7 R1 Residential 30.1 L1 69.4 69.4 0.0 1.5 No R2 Commercial 49.2 L2 49.3 52.3 3.0 5.0 No R3 Commercial 46.3 L6 52.3 53.3 1.0 5.0 No R4 Commercial 42.9 L5 49.0 50.0 1.0 5.0 No R5 Residential 38.5 L4 49.7 50.0 0.3 5.0 No R6 Residential 36.8 L2 49.3 49.5 0.2 5.0 No 1 See Exhibit 2.12-2 for the sensitive receiver locations. 2 Total Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 9-3 of Appendix G. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A of Appendix G. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1 of Appendix G. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance Criteria as defined in Table 2.12-6, Significance Criteria Summary. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-18 Table 2.12-11 Unmitigated Typical Project Nighttime Noise Level Contributions Receiver Location1 Land Use Total Project Operational Noise Level2 Meas. Location3 Reference Ambient Noise Levels4 Combined Project and Ambient5 Project Increase6 Threshold7 Threshold Exceeded?7 R1 Residential 30.1 L1 63.4 63.4 0.0 3.0 No R2 Commercial 49.2 L2 46.1 50.9 4.8 5.0 No R3 Commercial 46.3 L6 47.3 49.8 2.5 5.0 No R4 Commercial 42.9 L5 48.3 49.4 1.1 5.0 No R5 Residential 38.5 L4 48.2 48.6 0.4 5.0 No R6 Residential 36.8 L2 46.1 46.6 0.5 5.0 No 1 See Exhibit 2.12-2 for the sensitive receiver locations. 2 Total Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 9-3 of Appendix G. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A of Appendix G. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1 of Appendix G. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance Criteria as defined in Table 2.12-6, Significance Criteria Summary. Noise levels at the six sensitive receiver locations will increase during proposed Project activities by 0.2 to 3.0 dBA during the daytime, which is considered less than significant because the project would not exceed City’s residential and commercial noise standards (Table 2.12-6 Significance Criteria Summary). Similarly, during the nighttime, noise levels at the six sensitive receiver locations will increase by 0.4 to 4.8 dBA, which is also considered less than significant because the project would not exceed City’s residential and commercial noise standards (Table 2.12-6, Significance Criteria Summary). The noise associated with specific Project features, including special events, is discussed individually based on the Project component, below. Lagoon and Surf Center Construction Noise Impact Currently, the project site is partially developed with an existing surface parking lot. The main noise source is vehicular traffic on the northeastern portion of the site, at the existing parking lot, and from the adjacent roadway (Desert Willow Drive). The nearest sensitive receptors are multi-family residences to the northwest. This part of the proposed Project will result in the construction of a surf lagoon and surf center facilities, including an underground parking structure. The existing surface parking lot will also be demolished as part of Project construction. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-19 Construction Reference Noise Levels Construction of the proposed Project would require the use of heavy equipment for the demolition of the existing on-site parking lot, Project site preparation/excavation, installation of new utilities, and building fabrication. Construction activities would also involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise. During each stage of construction, a different mix of equipment would be operating, and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of the activity. In order to determine the project’s impacts on noise levels, noise levels generated by various type of construction equipment were evaluated (Table 2.12-12). Table 2.12-12 Construction Reference Noise Levels Noise Source Duration (h:mm:ss) Reference Distance From Source (Feet) Reference Noise Levels @ Reference Distance (dBA Leq) Reference Noise Levels @ 50 Feet (dBA Leq)5 Truck Pass-Bys & Dozer Activity1 0:01:15 30' 63.6 59.2 Dozer Activity1 0:01:00 30' 68.6 64.2 Construction Vehicle Maintenance Activities2 0:01:00 30' 71.9 67.5 Foundation Trenching2 0:01:01 30' 72.6 68.2 Rough Grading Activities2 0:05:00 30' 77.9 73.5 Framing3 0:02:00 30' 66.7 62.3 Concrete Mixer Truck Movements4 0:01:00 50' 71.2 71.2 Concrete Paver Activities4 0:01:00 30' 70.0 65.6 Concrete Mixer Pour & Paving Activities4 0:01:00 30' 70.3 65.9 Concrete Mixer Backup Alarms & Air Brakes4 0:00:20 50' 71.6 71.6 Concrete Mixer Pour Activities4 1:00:00 50' 67.7 67.7 As shown above, noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 63.6 dBA to in excess of 77.9 dBA at a source point. The highest noise levels (up to 77.9 dBA Leq) would be generated during grading. Noise levels from construction equipment can be expected to lessen by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance. To analyze the proposed Project construction noise impacts, six locations where sensitive receptors currently occur were analyzed. Receiver locations R1, R3, R4, R5, and R6 are located off-site at a distance of 1,387 feet, 408 feet, 769 feet, 1,705 feet, and 1,165 feet, respectively from the project site (Exhibit 2.12-2). Receiver location R2 is located adjacent to the site at a distance of 90 feet. The noise analysis considered various types of construction equipment and activity, including grading construction and paving, and the noise levels that can be anticipated at each of the noise reference locations. The results of that analysis are summarized in Table 2.12-13 (please also see Tables 10-2 through 10-6 of the Noise Impact Analysis for individual construction phase tables in Appendix G). DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-20 Table 2.12-13 Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary (dBA Leq) Receiver Location1 Construction Noise Level (dBA Leq) Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Architectural Coating Paving Highest Activity Noise Levels2 R1 30.3 39.6 34.3 33.6 37.7 39.6 R2 59.1 68.4 63.1 62.4 66.5 68.4 R3 45.9 55.2 49.9 49.2 53.4 55.2 R4 40.4 49.7 44.4 43.7 47.9 49.7 R5 28.5 37.8 32.5 31.8 35.9 37.8 R6 36.8 46.1 40.8 40.1 44.3 46.1 1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 2.12-2, Sensitive Receiver Locations. 2 Estimated construction noise levels during peak operating conditions. As shown in the table, the highest construction noise levels will be perceived at receiver location R2 during grading, which could reach up to 68.4 dBA Leq at 90 feet. It should be noted that the construction equipment is mobile, and will move across the site. These noise levels would diminish with distance at a rate of approximately 6 dB(A) per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 68.4 dBA Leq measured at 90 feet from the source at receptor location R2 would reduce to 62.4 dBA Leq at 180 feet from the source (Exhibit 2.12-2). The lagoon and surf center are located on the east side of the project site, 1,652 from receiver location R5 (Montecito), and 720 feet from receiver location R4 (Embark). At these locations, noise levels during construction will range from 36.8 to 49.7 dBA Leq during construction activities. At receiver location R3, 364 feet from the south edge of the project site, construction noise levels will range from 45.9 to 55.2 dBA Leq. The noise analysis prepared for the proposed Project further considered whether the project noise levels would exceed the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) standards for construction noise standards. Those standards consider a noise level in excess of 85 dBA Leq to be significant. Based on this threshold, noise levels affecting sensitive receptors closest to the proposed Project will be less than significant, as shown in Table 2.12-14. Table 2.12-14 Construction Equipment Noise Level Compliance (dBA Leq) Receiver Location1 Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Highest Construction Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold Exceeded? R1 39.6 85 No R2 68.4 85 No R3 55.2 85 No DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-21 Table 2.12-14 Construction Equipment Noise Level Compliance (dBA Leq) R4 49.7 85 No R5 37.8 85 No R6 46.1 85 No 1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 2.12-2, Sensitive Receiver Locations. 2 Estimated construction noise levels during peak operating conditions, as shown on Table 2.12-13, Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary 3 Construction noise thresholds as shown on Table 2.12-6, Significance Criteria Summary. It should be noted that any increase in noise levels during construction would be temporary in nature, would occur during daytime hours, and would not generate continuously high noise levels. In addition, the construction noise during the heavier initial periods of construction (i.e., excavation and grading work) would typically be reduced in the later construction phases (i.e., interior building construction) as the physical structure would obstruct the line-of-sight noise emitting from the construction area. Therefore, overall, impacts will be less than significant during the construction phase of the lagoon and surf center. Operational Noise Impact In addition to the noise normally associated with commercial recreational activities, described above under “Project-wide Operational Impacts,” the Surf Lagoon will include equipment used to generate waves. It is also anticipated that at build out, surf competition and other special events would be organized at the site. During recreational/competitive surf and other events, amplified musical equipment could be used. Surf Lagoon/Wave Machine Activity: Development of the surf lagoon is unique not only in the City of Palm Desert but also in the State of California. There are very limited stand-alone surf lagoons in the state. Therefore, reference noise level measurements taken at the Wave Garden Demonstration Facility in Aizarnazabal, Spain, were used in analyzing the Project’s noise impact. The noise level measurements represent the typical noise levels generated by the wave machine, including two waves at eight seconds each. The Project will be using Wave Garden equipment, therefore, these noise levels are expected to be comparable to the Project’s wave machine activity. Based on these measurements, a maximum noise level of 83.6 dBA Leq at 50 feet could be generated at the site by the wave machine. Outdoor Game Activities: Some outdoor game field activities would also be conducted in this planning area. Such activities may include beach volleyball, bocce ball, pickle ball, tennis, and adventure rope courses. To analyze the potential noise levels during such activities, a reference noise level measurement was used from the Founders Park, in the County of Orange, in 2014. The reference noise levels include kids playing, parents speaking on cell phones, and background soccer games with coaches and shouting and people cheering and clapping. These types of noise sources and levels are comparable to the Project’s proposed activities. Based on these measurements, a maximum noise level of 43.4 dBA Leq at 50 feet could be generated at the site by the outdoor game field activities. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-22 Special Events Outdoor Event Activity: As discussed above, amplified musical equipment could be used at the site during special events. To determine the potential noise levels during outdoor special event activities at the site, a reference noise level measurement taken at a live, amplified music concert and community event in the City of Laguna Woods (2013) was used. The noise level measurements were of a community concert including a stage, speakers, and crowd noise. This type of event (live outdoor music and crowds) can be expected during a special event, which is comparable to the Project’s proposed activities. Based on those measurements, during outdoor special events, maximum noise levels could reach up to 66.8 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the noise source (Exhibit 2.12-3). During special events, unmitigated stationary-source noise levels at the six sensitive receiver locations will range from 30.1 to 49.2 dBA Leq, as shown in the Table 2.12-15, which will not exceed City’s exterior noise level standards during both daytime and nighttime. Table 2.12-15 Unmitigated Special Event Project-Only Operational Noise Levels Receiver Location1 Land Use Noise Level at Receiver Locations (dBA Leq)2 Threshold Exceeded?3 Residential Commercial Daytime (55 dBA Leq) Nighttime (45 dBA Leq) Daytime (65 dBA Leq) Nighttime (55 dBA Leq) R1 Residential 30.1 No No - - R2 Commercial 49.2 - - No No R3 Commercial 46.5 - - No No R4 Commercial 43.2 - - No No R5 Residential 38.7 No No - - R6 Residential 36.9 No No - - 1 See Exhibit 2.12-2 for the receiver and noise source locations. 2 Estimated Project operational noise levels with special event activities (Appendix 9.1 of the Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix G. 3 Do the estimated Project operational noise levels meet the operational noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Summary The dominant noise sources attributable to the lagoon and surf center planning area are the wave generating machine and special events outdoor activities. Based on the analysis described above, the noise levels of 83.6 and 66.8 dBA at 50 feet would attenuate to 49.2 dBA Leq at the closest sensitive receiver, R2. None of the project components is expected to exceed the City’s exterior noise level standards for either daytime or nighttime conditions at any of the sensitive receivers. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Hotel and Villas Construction of the proposed hotel and residential villas would require the use of heavy equipment for Project site preparation/excavation, installation of new utilities, and building construction. Like the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center, development activities of this planning area DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-23 would involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise. As discussed above, the highest construction noise levels will be perceived at receiver location R2 during grading which could reach up to 68.4 dBA Leq at 90 feet. These noise levels would reduce with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dB(A) per doubling of distance. As shown in Table 2.12-13, Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary, the maximum unmitigated construction noise level will range from approximately 28.5 dBA to 68.4 dBA Leq at the receiver locations. Construction activities will not exceed the NIOSH standard, and will be less than significant. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant during the construction phase of the hotel and residential villas. Operational Noise Impact This planning area will consist of hotel(s), residential villas, swimming pools, spas, and parking lots. Similar to the Surf Center area, the nearest sensitive receptors are residential and commercial land uses located adjacent to the project site. For this component of the project, the nearest sensitive receptor locations are R2, 10 feet from the western boundary of the site, and R3, 364 feet from the boundary of the site. As shown in Table 2.12-10, Unmitigated Typical Project Daytime Noise Level Contributions, and Table 2.12-11, Unmitigated Typical Project Nighttime Noise Level Contributions, combined ambient and Project noise levels at receiver R2 will be 52.3 dBA during the day, and 50.9 at night, and at receiver location R3, 53.3 dBA during the day, and 49.8 at night. Both these locations will experience less than significant noise levels during operation of the hotel(s) and villas. Furthermore, noise generated by the residents and hotel occupants and visitors are expected to be consistent with noise levels at any residential and hotel development, and will not exceed City standards. These noise levels will be within the City’s General Plan noise standards (General Plan; Table 7.1). Therefore, operational activities in the hotel(s) and villas area will not significantly impact surrounding land uses. Summary The dominant noise sources in this planning area would be vehicular traffic accessing the site, grounds maintenance equipment, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) units, and outdoor swimming pool/spa activities which could reach up to 57.8 dBA Leq at 50 feet. Based on the project’s noise impact analysis, the City’s noise standards allow outdoor noise levels of 65 and 55 dBA CNEL in the commercial area during the day and night times, respectively. None of the project components is expected to exceed City’s exterior noise level standards for either daytime and nighttime (Table 2.12-10 and Table 2.12-11). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-24 Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management: The Project’s connections to existing off-site storm drainage systems would generate temporary noise associated with trenching and excavation. These noise levels would not be expected to be any greater than the noise levels generated by Project construction. As demonstrated above, Project construction noise levels will be less than significant at all the closest sensitive receptors. Therefore, construction of the stormwater management infrastructure would also result in less than significant noise impacts. Once connections are completed, no noise would be generated. Overall, less than significant impacts are anticipated. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: The Project’s connections to the existing lake to provide for pool and lagoon drainage pipes would generate temporary noise associated with trenching and excavation. These noise levels would not be expected to be any greater than the noise levels generated by Project construction. As demonstrated above, Project construction noise levels will be less than significant at all the closest sensitive receptors. Therefore, construction of the pool and lagoon drainage infrastructure would also result in less than significant noise impacts. Once connections are completed, no noise would be generated. Overall, less than significant impacts are anticipated. Golf Course Turf Reduction: Removal and replacement of existing turf areas with desert landscaping will cause temporary noise impacts typical of landscaping activities. These noise levels will be no greater than those considered for Project construction, and would therefore be less than significant. Once the replacement is completed, no noise would be generated. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Landscaping Improvements: Landscaping improvements would be conducted along the edges of the site, abutting the Project area, to transition the Project to the existing golf course. Construction activities associated with grading and landscaping would be consistent with that identified for Project construction, and would be expected to be less than significant. Once completed, this Project component will not cause any permanent increase in ambient noise at the site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Overflow Parking: The off-site parking area is already graded, and will be improved with pavement, curbs and gutters. The installation of these facilities would generate temporary ambient noise; however, it would be temporary in nature and would occur during daytime hours. At buildout, this site will be used to accommodate vehicles off-site during special events where the main noise source would be vehicular traffic. As shown in Table 2.12-5, Reference Noise Level Measurements, parking lot activities can be expected to generate noise levels of 50.0 dBA at 50 feet. Since the off-site parking area is located adjacent to commercial development, this noise level will be less than significant, based on the City’s noise thresholds. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-25 Soil Removal/Storage: The proposed Project would involve excavation and transportation of excavated materials to off-site locations. Excavation and transportation of these materials would generate temporary noise consistent with the noise levels described above for construction activities. These activities would occur during daytime hours, and would not generate continuously high noise levels. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-29 b) Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Project-wide Construction-Related Groundborne Vibration Impact Both the planning areas are expected to be constructed in phases, over a two-year period. Construction activities such as grading activities, construction equipment and trucks hauling project materials would have the potential to generate low levels of ground-borne vibration within the Project area. Table 2.12-16 provides vibration levels for construction equipment. Table 2.12-16 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet Small bulldozer 0.003 Jackhammer 0.035 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Large bulldozer 0.089 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, September 2018. As shown in the above table, a large bulldozer would generate a peak source of vibration with a reference velocity of 0.089 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet. The noise analysis used these reference measurements, and the anticipated equipment proposed for the project’s construction to determine vibration levels during project construction. These are summarized in Table 2.12-17. Table 2.12-17 Project Construction Vibration Levels Receiver1 Distance to Const. Activity (Feet) Receiver PPV Levels (in/sec)2 RMS Velocity Levels (in/sec)3 Threshold Threshold Exceeded?4 Small Bulldozer Jack- hammer Loaded Trucks Large Bulldozer Peak Vibration R1 1,387' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 No R2 90' 0.000 0.005 0.011 0.013 0.013 0.009 0.01 No R3 408' 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.01 No R4 769' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.01 No R5 1,705' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 No R6 1,165' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 No 1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 2.12-2. 2 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 2.12-16. 3 Vibration levels in PPV are converted to RMS velocity using a 0.71 conversion factor identified in the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013. 4 Does the vibration level exceed the maximum acceptable vibration threshold? DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-30 As shown in the table above, construction vibration velocities would reach up to 0.009 inches per second RMS. The threshold for construction vibration velocity in Riverside County is 0.01 inches per second RMS. Construction vibration velocities at all six locations would be below the threshold and therefore are considered less than significant. According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), construction vibration levels ranging from 0.12 to 0.5 inches per second PPV are damaging for buildings. As shown in Table 2.12-17, the Project-related construction vibration levels would reach up to 0.013 inches per second PPV, which is below the 0.12 inches per second PPV. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated. Operational-Related Groundborne Vibration Impact At buildout, no operational components of the proposed Project include significant groundborne noise or vibration sources and no significant vibrations sources currently exist, or are planned, in the Project area. Thus, no significant groundborne noise or vibration impacts would occur with the operation of the proposed Project. Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management: Construction activities to connect the Project’s sub-areas to the existing off-site storm drainage systems will result in a limited groundborne vibration consistent with that detailed above for Project construction. Impacts will be less than significant. Once connections are completed, no impacts would be generated. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Construction activities to connect the Project’s sub-areas to the existing lake for pool and lagoon discharge will result in a limited groundborne vibration consistent with that detailed above for Project construction. Impacts will be less than significant. Once connections are completed, no impacts would be generated. Golf Course Turf Reduction: Removal and replacement activities would be limited to the surface areas, and would not generate any groundborne vibration. No impact is anticipated. Landscaping Improvements: Landscaping improvements would not generate any groundborne vibration. No impact is anticipated. Overflow Parking: The off-site parking area is already graded, and will be improved with as part of the project. Use of heavy construction equipment would generate limited and temporary groundborne vibration consistent with that associated with Project construction. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.12-31 Soil Removal/Storage: Excavation and transportation of excavated materials would cause limited and temporary groundborne vibration consistent with that associated with Project construction. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 2.12.7 Mitigation Measures No significant adverse impacts will occur as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. 2.12.8 Significance After Mitigation Noise impacts will be less than significant. 2.12.9 Cumulative Impacts Noise levels tend to diminish quickly with distance from a source; therefore, the geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to noise would be limited to projects within approximately 0.25 mile of proposed Project components and access routes. This area is defined as the geographic extent of the cumulative impact area because noise impacts would generally be localized, mainly within approximately 500 feet from any noise source; however, it is possible that noise from different sources within 0.25 mile of each other could combine to create a significant impact to receptors at any point between the projects. At distances greater than 0.25 mile, construction noise would be briefly audible and steady construction noise from the proposed Project would generally dissipate into background noise levels. A cumulative traffic noise impact occurs when the noise level would exceed the applicable standard and result in a substantial noise level increase. As discussed above, the Project’s contribution to the future noise level on area roadways is determined by comparing future noise conditions without and with the proposed Project. Results show that adding the proposed Project’s noise levels to the future noise levels would not result in an adverse cumulative noise increase as defined by the Noise Element, at the closest sensitive receptor location, because of the low project noise levels and distance. Therefore, the proposed Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.13-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.13 Population and Housing 2.13.1 Introduction This section of the EIR describes existing conditions with regard to population, housing and socio-economic resources within the Project area and analyzes the potential impacts of the project to these resources. 2.13.2 Thresholds of Significance Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact on population and housing if it would: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 2.13.3 Regulatory Framework Regional/Local Palm Desert General Plan The following criteria have been used to evaluate potential project-related impacts and to develop appropriate mitigation measures where necessary. They include relevant goals and policies set forth in the Palm Springs General Plan. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.13-2 Chapter 3. Land Use and Community Character GOAL 3. Neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that provide a variety of housing types, densities and mix of uses and services that support heathy and active lifestyles. • Policy 3.3 Variety of types of neighborhoods. Promote a variety of neighborhoods within the City and ensure that neighborhood types are dispersed throughout the City. GOAL 8. Economic Development. A diverse, growing, and resilient local economy. • Policy 8.3 Jobs-housing balance. Strive to improve the jobs-housing balance in the city by actively pursuing new employment generating uses for the city. • Policy 8.6 Joint-use. Promote joint use of public and private facilities for community use, tourism, conference, convention and cultural uses. • Policy 8.8 Recreational amenities. Strategically utilize City recreational investments to create and enhance development opportunities. GOAL 9. Fiscal Stability. A fiscally sound and sustainable city. • Policy 9.1 Fiscal impact assessment. For all major development projects, including but not limited to specific plans, annexations and changes in General Plan designations for areas over 5 acres in size, require a fiscal impact assessment to determine possible fiscal impact of the development project and use the information to formulate conditions of approval for the project. Housing Element GOAL 1. • A variety of housing types that meet all of the housing needs for all income groups within the City. 2.13.4 Environmental Setting In the early twentieth century, the Coachella Valley economy was based on agriculture. Over many decades, however, it has developed into a diverse economy largely based on tourism, tennis and golf-oriented resort residential development, and professional and retail services. It is now considered an important part of, and is influenced by, the economies of western Riverside County and the Inland Empire region. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.13-3 Like much of the Coachella Valley region and nation as a whole, the City of Palm Desert experienced an economic downturn beginning around 2008. However, its economy has shown signs of recovery. Between 2016 and 2017, the median price of existing homes increased by 3.8% from $316,300 to $328,300.1 Between 2010 and 2018, the City’s population increased approximately 8.9% from 48,445 to 52,769.2 The median age of residents is 52.4 years. There are 38,473 households, with an average household size of 2.17 persons. Median household income in 2017 was estimated at $56,262.3 The Project area is largely built out, with a mix of resort style hotels, golf courses, single family residences, and commercial retail land uses. Vacant lands within the project area are within the General Plan’s Resort and Entertainment District and zoned for Planned Residential (PR). 2.13.5 Existing Conditions As of 2018, the population of the City of Palm Desert is 52,769, which represents a 1.4 percent increase over 2017. The City is composed of a mix of single-family and multi-family development, but the majority (55%) of housing units are single-family homes. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) estimates that the City will have a total population of 61,700 in 2040.4 2.13.6 Project Impacts The following significance criteria are not discussed further in this section of the EIR because the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation determined there would be no environmental impacts as a result of the proposed Project: b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The remaining significance criteria will have the potential for environmental impact as a result of the Project, as discussed below. 1 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 2 “Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2011-2018, with a 2010 Benchmark,” California Department of Finance, released May 1, 2018. 3 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 4 2016-2040 Demographics and Growth Forecast by Southern California Association of Governments – Page 27. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.13-4 a) Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The Project would result in the construction of 88 new resort style villas, up to 350 hotel rooms and amenities, and a surf lagoon with surf center facilities to include restaurant, bar, retail and similar facilities. Surf Lagoon and Surf Center The proposed surf center and lagoon will generate a variety of new jobs, including retail, restaurant service jobs, recreational instructors and emergency personnel. However, on-site employment opportunities are expected to be filled by people already living in the valley; therefore, new employment opportunities associated with the proposed Project are expected to be minor and less than significant. Development of the Surf Lagoon Planning Area will not require the expansion, extension or construction of new public streets or utilities that would indirectly induce population growth because all infrastructure required to serve the Project exists adjacent to the Project. Impacts will be less than significant. Hotels and Villas The proposed hotel(s) and villas will generate a variety of new jobs, including retail and hotel service jobs, as will the villas if operated as extensions of the hotel(s) or as timeshare or fractional units. However, on-site employment opportunities are expected to be filled by people already living in the valley; therefore, new employment opportunities associated with the proposed Project are expected to be minor and less than significant. Currently, it is anticipated that the 88 villas will operate as either timeshares and/or an extension of a future hotel. However, the Specific Plan allows for single-family housing units. Given the city’s average household size of 2.17 persons5, 88 new residential villas of the Project could potentially increase the permanent population by approximately 191 persons. This represents 0.3% of the City’s anticipated 2040 population of 61,700, which would have a less than significant impact on the overall population of the area. Development of the Hotels and Villas Planning Area will not require the expansion, extension or construction of new public streets or utilities that would indirectly induce population growth because all infrastructure required to serve the Project exists adjacent to the Project. Impacts will be less than significant. 5 “Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2011-2018, with a 2010 Benchmark,” California Department of Finance, released May 1, 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.13-5 Off-Site Improvements Off-site improvements include stormwater management, pool/lagoon discharge, golf course turf reduction, landscaping improvements, overflow parking, and soil removal/storage. These activities will not induce population growth either directly or indirectly, and therefore there will be no impacts. 2.13.7 Mitigation Measures The proposed Project will not have a significant adverse effect on area or regional population or housing, and no mitigation measures are required. 2.13.8 Significance After Mitigation Impacts associated with population and housing will be less than significant. 2.13.9 Cumulative Impacts It is expected that Project-related employment opportunities will be filled by current residents and therefore will not significantly increase the local population or increase demand for housing. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.14-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.14 Public Services 2.14.1 Introduction This section describes the existing conditions and regulatory setting for public services, including police and fire services, schools, parks and other governmental facilities, and evaluates impacts that could occur as a result of the implementation of the DSRT SURF Specific Plan. 2.14.2 Thresholds of Significance Using the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G, the Project would have a significant effect on public services, if: a) The project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: • Fire protection • Police protection • Schools • Parks • Other public facilities 2.14.3 Regulatory Framework State California Government Code Section 66477 Since the passage of the Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) in 1975, counties and cities have been authorized to pass ordinances requiring developers to set aside DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.14-2 land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. Quimby Act generated revenues cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities. The Quimby Act was originally designed to ensure “adequate” open space acreage in jurisdictions adopting Quimby Act standards (i.e., 3 to 5 acres per 1,000 residents). According to the California Department of Parks and Recreation’s overview of the Quimby Act, the Quimby Act was substantially amended in 1982 to further define acceptable uses of or restrictions on Quimby funds, provide acreage/population standards and formulas for determining the exaction, and indicate that the exactions must be closely tied (i.e., have a nexus) to a project’s impacts as identified through traffic studies required by the California Environmental Quality Act (California Department of Parks and Recreation 2002). Regional and Local Palm Desert General Plan The City of Palm Desert General Plan (2016) provides the following public services policies that is applicable to the project: Chapter 5. Health and Wellness • Policy 1.8 New development. Ensure that new residential developments provide adequate on-site recreational and open space amenities consistent with the values and standards of the community and the needs of new development. Chapter 9. Public Utilities and Services • Policy 7.2 Review of New Development. Work with the Riverside County Sherriff’s Department and the Riverside County Fire Department to review and modify development proposals to incorporate defensible space, Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, and other public safety design concepts into new development. 2.14.4 Environmental Setting Fire protection, first response, emergency medical services, and natural disaster preparedness services in the City are provided by the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), in cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). The City contracts with Riverside County for fire protection and emergency services and is a member of the Cove Communities Services Commission, which includes the cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells. The Palm Desert Police Department (PDPD), under contract through the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, provides police protection services to preserve the peace and prevent crime and disorder by enforcing state laws and city ordinances in the Palm Desert. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.14-3 Two school districts (Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD)) and the Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD)) serve the City. The City owns, operates, and maintains several developed park and recreation facilities. The City partners with the Desert Recreation District to offer recreational programs and activities year- round, and rents City park facilities for private events. 2.14.5 Existing Conditions Fire Protection The City of Palm Desert contracts with Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) for fire protection services. RCFD is one of the largest regional fire service organizations in the State of California. The RCFD operates 96 fire stations in 15 battalions.1 Services provided by the RCFD include fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue, and fire prevention services. The RCFD is staffed with approximately 952 career and 1,100 volunteer personnel, and currently serves approximately two million residents in an area of 7,004 square miles. The RCFD service area consists of all unincorporated areas in Riverside County, 18 contract cities, and one Community Service District (CSD). Under contract with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the RCFD is the Operational Area Coordinator for the California Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System for all fire service jurisdictions in the County of Riverside. As such, RCFD has also been given the authority to enter into several automatic aid agreements with city jurisdictions, as well as with adjacent National Forests. The nearest fire station to the Project site is Riverside County Fire Station 71 at 73995 Country Club Drive, approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the Project site. This station also receives backup fire support from station No. 55 in Indian Wells and Stations No. 50 and No. 69 in Rancho Mirage. The station physically closest to the emergency will respond even if it is outside the station’s official jurisdiction. Fire Station Number Location Distance to the Project Site Station No. 71 73995 Country Club Drive 0.53 miles Station No. 55 44900 Eldorado Drive 3.14 miles Station No. 69 71751 Gerald Ford Drive 2.76 miles Emergency Medical Services The City contracts with Riverside County for emergency services and is also a member of the Cove Communities Services Commission, which includes the cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells. The RCFD also provides paramedic services to the City of Palm Desert.2 1 Riverside County Fire Department Annual Report 2016. 2 Palm Desert General Plan Draft EIR – Page 4.14-1. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.14-4 There are three valley hospitals (Eisenhower Medical Center, John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital and Desert Regional Medical Center) that can provide care and personnel in the event of an emergency in the valley including within the City of Palm Desert. These are: Desert Regional Medical Center 1150 N Indian Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 Eisenhower Medical Center 39000 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital 47111 Monroe St Indio, CA 92201 Police Protection The City of Palm Desert contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD) for police protection services. RCSD provides several law enforcement services, such as general community policing, as well as the operation and maintenance of several correctional facilities, to areas under its jurisdiction. The RCSD is a "demand response" agency that maintains limited patrol services throughout the County of Riverside. The RCSD has established the following criteria for its staffing requirements in unincorporated areas of the County: one sworn officer per 1,000 population; one supervisor and one support staff employee per seven officers; one patrol vehicle per three sworn officers; and one school resource officer per school. The nearest police station is the Palm Desert Police Station on Gerald Ford Drive, approximately 1.6 mile to the northwest. Staffing consists of 70 sworn officers that include 45 deputies, 10 of which are dedicated to traffic enforcement. The City of Palm Desert currently provides about 1.75 sworn officers for every 1,000 residents. The current average response time by priority is as follows:3 Priority 1 calls < 5 minutes Priority 2 calls < 19 minutes Priority 3 calls < 35 minutes Schools Two school districts, Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) and the Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD) serve the City of Palm Desert. DSUSD consists of 19 elementary schools, one charter elementary school, six middle schools, one charter middle school, four 3 Provided by Lieutenant Robert Castro at Riverside County Sheriff’s Department in August 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.14-5 comprehensive high schools, two continuation high schools, one alternative education school, and one preschool.4 PSUSD consists of sixteen elementary schools, five middle schools, three comprehensive high schools, and one continuation high school.5 The project site is within DSUSD’s jurisdiction.6 The nearest school is James Earl Carter Elementary School, located approximately 1.10 miles southwest of the project site. The City has several undergraduate and graduate schools within its boundaries, including College of the Desert (COD), University of California-Riverside/Palm Desert (UCR Palm Desert), and California State University - San Bernardino Palm Desert Campus (CSUSB Palm Desert). COD is a community college that opened in September 1962. The COD main campus is located on Monterey Avenue in Palm Desert; it offers a two-year college programs and has an average enrollment of 10,000 students per semester. COD offers a wide range of vocational and technical programs, including nursing and health sciences, digital design and production, turf grass management and ornamental horticulture, advanced transportation technologies, and a full range of administration of justice courses. UCR Palm Desert is an extension of University of California-Riverside (UCR); it opened in 2005. UCR Palm Desert’s campus is located on Cook Street; it offers a number of bachelor’s and graduate programs. CSUSB Palm Desert is an extension of California State University - San Bernardino; it opened in 2012. CSUSB Palm Desert is located on Cook Street just south of Interstate-10. The CSUSB Palm Desert Campus offers several academic programs, including bachelor’s and graduate degree programs. Parks The City of Palm Desert has a total of 163 acres of park lands and an additional 56 acres dedicated for future parks.7 Beyond the Desert Willow golf course, within which the Project is located, the nearest public park to the project site is Hovley Soccer Park, approximately 1.1 mile south of the proposed Project. Other Public Facilities Other public facilities in the City include city hall, the public library, museums, and medical/emergency facilities. 4 Desert Sands Unified School District; https://www.dsusd.us, accessed November 2018. 5 Palm Springs Unified School District; https://www.psusd.us/, accessed November 2018. 6 Desert Sands Unified School District Boundary Map; https://www.dsusd.us/sites/default/files/DSUSD_SchoolFacilities.pdf, accessed November 2018. 7 Palm Desert General Plan Draft EIR – Page 4.14-18. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.14-6 Facility Location Distance to the Project Site City Hall 73510 Fred Waring Drive 2.46 miles Palm Desert Public Library 73300 Fred Waring Drive 2.56 miles Palm Springs Art Museum in Palm Desert 72567 CA-111 3.34 miles Eisenhower Medical Center 34130 Gateway Drive 2.45 miles The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens 47900 Portola Ave 4.32 miles Desert Willow Golf Course 38995 Desert Willow Drive 0 miles 2.14.6 Project Impacts a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: • Fire protection • Police protection • Schools • Parks • Other public facilities Police Protection Project-wide Construction Impacts The construction of all components within the proposed Project will result in a potential increase in the need for security to prevent theft or vandalism of construction activities and equipment. This potential impact can be avoided with the implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-4, which requires that construction sites and equipment and storage areas be fenced and locked outside of construction hours. With implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts associated with public safety during construction of the proposed Project components will be reduced to less than significant levels. Lagoon and Surf Center This component of the proposed Project would result in development of a lagoon and surf center which would increase visitors, patrons, and employees onsite, thereby generating a potential increase in the level of police protection service calls from the Project site. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.14-7 While there is not a direct proportional relationship between increases in land use activity and increases in demand for police protection services, the number of requests for assistance calls for police response to vehicle burglaries, damage to vehicles, traffic-related incidents, and crimes against persons would be anticipated to increase with the increase in onsite activity and traffic on adjacent streets and arterials. Such calls are typical in the City and do not represent unique law enforcement issues specific to the proposed Project. The golf course and other resort facilities within the Desert Willow project area are currently served by existing RCSD personnel, including patrol and crime response services. As described in Section 1, Project Description, the Project is expected to host special events that could attract an estimated 3,500 ticketed spectators. Such events may require coordination with the Palm Desert Police Department for additional onsite police support, such as directing traffic or increased foot patrols. Special events will occur occasionally and are expected to be consistent with other regional entertainment venues and sporting competitions, requiring additional police support but not increasing demand to the extent that new or expanded police personnel or facilities are needed. The Project will also include bars, restaurants, and a surf center that could attract late-night patrons. Trained security personnel should be employed onsite to minimize impacts to the Palm Desert Police Department at onsite facilities and during daily operations and special events. The proposed Project would include adequate and strategically positioned functional and thematic lighting to enhance public safety at the lagoon and surf center. Visually obstructed and infrequently accessed “dead zones” would be limited and, outside of public use areas, security would be controlled to limit public access. The building and layout design of the proposed Project would also include crime prevention features, such as nighttime security lighting, full-time onsite professional security, building security systems, and secure subterranean parking facilities. In addition, the continuous visible and non-visible presence of patrons and employees at all times of the day would provide a sense of security during evening and early morning hours. Overall, with the buildout of the proposed lagoon and surf center, the net increase in persons at the project site on a daily basis would not require a substantial increase in police protection services in order to maintain the current officer to civilian ratio. No new or expanded police stations, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, would be needed as a result of the proposed Project. However, additional police support may be required during special events, and private security personnel should be employed onsite to minimize additional demands for police services. To assure that impacts associated with public safety services are mitigated, Mitigation Measures PS-1 through PS-3 are provided below. These measures require the provision of private security services on site, and the coordination and approval of RCSD for special events. With implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1 through PS-3, impacts to police protection services would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.14-8 Hotel and Villas This part of the proposed Project would result in development of 88 villas and up to 350 rooms in full service hotel(s), providing spas, recreation, bars and restaurants. At build out, the Project would include approximately 191 villa residents at the Project site; this estimate is based on a city-wide average household size of 2.17 persons per household.8 Implementation of the proposed Project would also result in an increase of site guests, visitors, patrons, hotel guests, and employees onsite, thereby generating a potential increase in the level of police protection service calls from the Project site. As will be the case for the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center, the hotel(s) and villas will result in more activity on the site, and a concurrent increase in the need for public safety service calls. Such calls are typical in the City and do not represent unique law enforcement issues specific to the proposed Project. The project is consistent with other resort and residential development in the vicinity and is not expected to increase the crime rate in the area to the extent that a new or expanded police station or other facility would be required. The same design components addressing safety and security would be applied to the hotel(s) and villas, including a need for security patrols, safety lighting, and the prevention of dead zones not visible from public areas. Overall, with the buildout of the proposed hotel(s) and villas would not require a substantial increase in police protection services in order to maintain the current officer to civilian ratio. No new or expanded police stations, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, would be needed as a result of the proposed Project. As is the case with the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center component of the Project, with implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1 through PS-3, will reduce impacts to police protection services to less than significant levels. Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management and Pool/Lagoon Discharge: This component of the project would not generate any demand for police protection services, therefore, no impact is anticipated. Golf Course Turf Reduction and Landscaping Improvements: This component of the project would not generate any demand for police protection services, therefore, no impact is anticipated. Overflow Parking: The use of the off-site parking facility will be associated with the special events held at the Surf Lagoon, and would be tied to safety and traffic plans for these events. The use of the parking lot will have similar impacts to police protection during special events as the surf center, and would be subject to Mitigation Measures PS-2 and PS-3, assuring that impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. 8 “Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2011-2018, with a 2010 Benchmark,” California Department of Finance, released May 1, 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.14-9 Soil Removal/Storage: This component of the project would not generate any demand for police protection services, therefore, no impact is anticipated. Fire Protection Project-wide Construction Impacts The construction of all components within the proposed Project will result in a marginal potential increase in fire and medical response demand associated with construction activities and equipment. However, the Fire Code requires that water connections be available prior to the initiation of construction, thereby assuring that should a fire occur, water will be available to fight it. Lagoon and Surf Center The construction and operation of the lagoon and surf center will increase the demand for fire protection and emergency response services. Potential ignition sources during construction- related activities include chain saws, wood chippers, grinders, torches, earth-moving equipment, and other vehicles that could create sparks, be a source of heat, or leak flammable materials, that would increase the possibility of fire. During the operational phase of the Project, increased risks may include water safety and emergency medical incidents, particularly at the surf lagoon and during special events. The major public roads that serve the Project site are Desert Willow Drive, Willow Ridge Road, Country Club Drive, Portola Avenue, Frank Sinatra Drive, Cook Street, and Gerald Ford Drive. A new internal loop road would be created on the Project site. The internal roadway would be privately owned and maintained. In addition to the public access points provided on Desert Willow Drive, a third emergency access will be provided at the northwestern portion of the project, from the adjacent Westin project Willow Ridge roadway. Emergency vehicles would circulate through the Project area using the internal roadway system. The internal roadway system would be designed to provide looped secondary emergency vehicle access and egress. Fire lanes, turning radii and back up space around buildings will require approval of the Fire Marshall, so as to be assure adequate access for emergency and fire equipment vehicles. Pavements are required to support loads created by emergency vehicle traffic. Standpipe and fire suppression system connections are required for architectural design elements and in locations accessible to fire equipment. The Project would incorporate a number of fire safety features in accordance with applicable RCFD fire-safety codes and City regulations for construction, access, fire flows, and fire hydrants. In addition, all buildings within the Project area will be required to be equipped with automated sprinkler systems, thereby reducing potential for major fire events at the Project site. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.14-10 These fire safety features include, but are not limited to, ample roads, adequate building spacing, use of fire resistant building materials, and adequate vegetative clearance around structures. The majority of the Project site is currently undeveloped, and the Project would result in development of the surf lagoon and surf center. At build out, the Project would represent a more intense use of the site. More intense land uses can be expected to result in an increased potential for fire and emergency response services. Thus, the Project would create an increased demand for such services. However, the Project’s demand for services is expected to be consistent with that of other commercial development in the Desert Willow project area. It is not expected to require the construction of new or physically altered fire facilities that might result in physical environmental impacts. The surf lagoon includes lifeguard facilities, including a lifeguard tower on the north end of the lagoon with visibility over all parts of the lagoon. This design feature assures that impacts associated with emergency medical events at the lagoon would assure that impacts associated with the lagoon would remain less than significant. The proposed Project would be required to pay the Fire Facilities Impact Fee, which is charged on new residential and commercial development. Funding provided by the Project would result in capital that would be used toward future fire facilities. Hotel and Villas The construction and operation of the hotel(s) and villas will increase the demand for fire protection and emergency response services. The potential hazards associated with construction of the hotel(s) and villas will be similar to those associated with construction of the lagoon and surf center. During the operational phase of the Project, increased risks may include water safety at hotel and villa pools, and emergency medical incidents at the hotel or villa areas. The major public roads that serve the Project site are the same as those described above for the surf lagoon and surf center. The internal roadway would be privately owned and maintained. In addition to the public access points provided on Desert Willow Drive, a third emergency access will be provided at the northwestern portion of the project, from the adjacent Westin project Willow Ridge roadway. The internal roadway system would be designed to provide looped secondary emergency vehicle access and egress. The same requirements for fire lanes, turning radii and back up space around buildings will apply to the hotel(s) and villas, and will require approval of the Fire Marshall. Pavements will be required to support emergency vehicle traffic. Standpipe and fire suppression system connections are required for architectural design elements and in locations accessible to fire equipment. In addition, all buildings within the Project area will be required to be equipped with automated sprinkler systems, thereby reducing potential for major fire events at the Project site. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.14-11 The majority of the project site is currently undeveloped, and the Project would result in development of 88 villas and a hotel(s). At build out, the Project would represent a more intense use of the site. The Project’s demand for services is expected to be consistent with that of other residential and resort development in the Project vicinity. It is not expected to require the construction of new or physically altered fire facilities that might result in physical environmental impacts. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The proposed Project would be required to pay the Fire Facilities Impact Fee, which is charged on new residential and commercial development. Funding provided by the Project would result in capital that would be used toward firefighting and emergency response augments for fire facilities. Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management, Pool/Lagoon Discharge, Golf Course Turf Reduction and Landscaping Improvements: These components of the Project would not generate any demand for fire protection services, therefore, no impact is anticipated. Overflow Parking: The use of the off-site parking facility will be associated with the special events held at the Surf Lagoon, and would be tied to safety and traffic plans for these events. The use of the parking lot will have similar impacts to fire protection during special events as the surf center, and would be subject to Mitigation Measures PS-2 and PS-3, assuring that impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Soil Removal/Storage: These components of the Project would not generate any demand for fire protection services, therefore, no impact is anticipated. Schools According to the DSUSD, the District currently has school capacity to serve approximately 28,503 students.9 Elementary school facilities are sufficient to serve 12,582 students in kindergarten through fifth grade; middle school facilities are sufficient to serve 6,666 students in sixth through eighth grade; and high school facilities are sufficient to serve 9,255 students in ninth through twelfth grade. Currently, approximately 28,756 students are enrolled into the DSUSD system which reflects excess capacity at the elementary school level. Furthermore, approximately 24,089 new dwelling units are anticipated to be constructed within the DSUSD jurisdictional boundaries by the year 2035. 9 Desert Sands Unified School District - Fee Justification Study For New Residential And Commercial/Industrial Development (May 2018), https://www.dsusd.us/sites/default/files/Fee%20Justification%20Study%206-12- 18.pdf, accessed November 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.14-12 Lagoon and Surf Center This component of the proposed Project will not generate permanent population and, therefore, will have no impact on schools. As described in Section 2.13, Population and Housing, employees are expected to be current or future residents. The Project will, however, be required to pay the mandated school mitigation fees imposed by the State for commercial construction. Based on the developer fees established by DSUSD, the Project would be required to pay $0.58 per square feet of commercial development. Based on Section §65996 of the California Government Code, the payment of such fees is deemed to fully mitigate the impacts of new development on school services. Therefore, with payment of these required developer fees, Project impacts to school services would be less than significant. Hotel and Villas The demand for new or expanded school facilities and services is determined by permanent increases to the local population. The Project would result in development of 88 villas and a hotel(s) facility. The nature of the villas has not been determined, and they could be either hotel- related resort units occupied by tourists, or permanent housing units. At buildout, the villas could introduce approximately 191 new residents to the Project site. This estimate is based on the city- wide average household size of 2.17 persons per household.10 As stated above, the schools that serve the Project area are currently over capacity. Based on DSUSD student generation rates shown in Table 2.14-1 Villa Estimated Student Generation, the Project has the potential to generate approximately 31 kindergarten through twelfth grade students, if the villas are occupied by permanent residents. This is a conservative estimate based on the Project’s 88 new villas being occupied by families with children residing on the project site on a fulltime, year-round basis. In actuality, these units are likely to be occupied on a temporary basis by individuals and families during vacations. Nonetheless, the potential student increase represents less than 1% of DSUSD’s current student body. 10 “Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2011-2018, with a 2010 Benchmark,” California Department of Finance, released May 1, 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.14-13 Table 2.14-1 Villa Estimated Student Generation School Type Generation Rate (per residential unit) Project’s Student Generation Elementary School 0.1682 13 Middle School 0.0922 7 High School 0.1275 10 Total: 31 Source: Desert Sands Unified School District - Fee Justification Study For New Residential And Commercial/Industrial Development (May 2018) and project materials. The hotel(s) and villas will, like the surf center, be required to pay the State mandated school mitigation fee. Based on the developer fees established by DSUSD, the Project would be required to pay $3.48 per square foot of residential development and $0.58 per square feet of commercial development. Based on Section §65996 of the California Government Code, the payment of such fees is deemed to fully mitigate the impacts of new development on school services. Therefore, with payment of these required developer fees, Project impacts to school services would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Off-site Improvements None of the off-site improvements would generate permanent population and, therefore, will have no impact on schools. These components of the Project will not increase the student population and there will be no impacts. Parks Lagoon and Surf Center The proposed surf lagoon is expected to be the primary attraction for Project patrons and guests. Some visitors may attend events and undertake activities at local parks however, such visits are expected to be minimal and are not expected to require new or expanded park facilities that could result in adverse environmental impacts. Project-related impacts to parks will be less than significant. Hotel and Villas Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the development of 88 new villas that could generate approximately 190 new residents, including approximately 31 school-aged children, if the villas are developed as permanent housing units. The Project proposes resort hotel and residential uses, outdoor use areas, and multiple options for recreational amenities, including lounges, swimming pools, a spa/wellness center, and a surf lagoon. In addition, the Project will be located within the Desert Willow golf course, providing additional recreational opportunities. The Project’s proposed recreational amenities, in conjunction with the City’s current parks and recreational facilities and the collection of Developer Impact Fees (DIFs) that DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.14-14 support the City’s park and recreation fund (as required by City’s Municipal Code 25.40.13011), would be adequate to accommodate the Project’s demand for parks and recreational services. The Project could increase the usage of local parks and recreational facilities. However, the Project’s other component, the surf lagoon, is expected to be the main recreational attraction; use of local parks and recreational facilities is expected to be secondary and minimal. Therefore, Project impacts to parks would be less than significant. Off-site Improvements None of the off-site improvements would generate demand for park services and, therefore, no impact is anticipated. Other Public Facilities As mentioned above, the Project’s recreational facilities, particularly the surf lagoon, are expected to be the primary attraction for Project patrons and guests. Some visitors may attend the local library, museums, or other attractions, and some may require medical services at local hospitals. However, such visits are expected to be minimal and are not expected to require new or expanded facilities that could result in adverse environmental impacts. Project-related impacts to other public facilities will be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. 2.14.7 Mitigation Measures PS-1. All components of the Project shall be required to employ on-site private security. PS-2. Per the City’s Municipal Code Sections 5.87.180 and 5.100.02012, at least two weeks prior to a special event at the lagoon area, the applicant shall file a “Special Event Temporary Entertainment Permit.” Event notifications and specifics shall be approved in advance with the RCSD and Fire Marshall prior to scheduled events. PS-3. Project facilities shall be designed and maintained to maximize public safety, including providing secure facilities access and parking, adequate nighttime lighting, maximization of defensible space and minimization of “dead zones,” and professional security personnel. The Project proponent shall coordinate with the Police Department to assure the Project is designed to address these and other safety concerns. PS-4. During construction, excavation areas, construction staging, and storage areas shall be fenced and locked. All equipment shall be returned to staging and storage areas at the end of each work day. 11 Palm Desert Municipal Code 25.40.130 (Required Park Dedication Fees). No building permit shall be issued for any new development until the use established is in compliance with all applicable regulations of the City’s local park dedication or payment of fees in lieu thereof requirement, as provided by the Subdivision Ordinance. (Ord. 1259 § 1, 2013). 12 Palm Desert Municipal Code 5.87.180 (Special events notification required) and 5.100.020 (Special event temporary entertainment permit required). DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.14-15 2.14.8 Significance After Mitigation With implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1 through PS-4, impacts to police and fire protection services would be reduced to a less than significant level. Project impacts to schools, parks, and other public facilities would be less than significant without mitigation. 2.14.9 Cumulative Impacts Police Protection Implementation of the proposed Project in conjunction with the other related projects in the area would increase the demand for police services. Over time, increases in population in the City have the potential to increase calls for police protection services. The project alone would marginally increase both the permanent and tourist populations whose impacts would be reduced by the incorporation of Mitigation Measures PS-1 through PS-4. The proposed Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. Fire Protection Implementation of the proposed Project in conjunction with the other related projects in the area would further increase the demand for fire protection services over time. The project alone would marginally increase both the permanent and tourist populations; impacts would be reduced by the incorporation of Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2 and payment of Fire Facilities Fees. The proposed Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. Schools It is expected that land designated for residential development in Palm Desert will be developed in the future, increasing the student population and impacts to public schools. The proposed Project, in combination with the related projects, is expected to result in a cumulative increase in the demand for school services. As discussed above, as of 2018, the DSUSD is over its capacity. The DSUSD has determined that approximately 4.49 additional elementary schools, 1.96 middle schools, and 1.24 high schools will need to be constructed in order to provide adequate facilities to house students in the future. The estimated costs of these school facilities, excluding interim housing requirements, is over $450 million dollars.13 Payment of school impact fees will help the DSUSD expand its facilities as needed. The proposed Project will generate only a minimal student population, if any, and its contribution to school impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Parks and Other Public Facilities 13 Desert Sands Unified School District - Fee Justification Study For New Residential And Commercial/Industrial Development (May 2018) – Page iii-iv. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.14-16 The proposed Project in combination with the related projects would be expected to increase residents’ demands upon parks, recreational, and other public facilities in the project area. Although the proposed Project would contribute to the cumulative demand for parks and recreational services, its contribution would be minimal because it would provide ample onsite recreational opportunities. The Project’s cumulative impact would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.15 Transportation 2.15.1 Introduction This section of the EIR describes the existing transportation conditions within the Project area and analyzes the potential impacts of the DSRT SURF Project on traffic, circulation, and emergency access. A wide range of data and information, from research and analysis conducted for specific projects in the area, to regional-scale planning and environmental documents, have been used in researching and analyzing the Project and its potential effects. These include detailed analysis of major roadway facilities and future traffic conditions and the Project- specific Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads in March 20191 (see Appendix H). 2.15.2 Thresholds of Significance Using CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G, the Project would have a significant effect on transportation and traffic if it would: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). d) Result in inadequate emergency access. 1 “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-2 2.15.3 Regulatory Framework Regional CVAG Active Transportation Plan Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) is the regional planning agency coordinating government services in the Coachella Valley. To improve the transportation system in the Coachella Valley, CVAG prepared the Active Transportation Plan2 in 2016 which establishes a long-range plan for developing regional bicycle, pedestrian, and neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) facilities. Implementation of these facilities is proposed through a combination of local and regional efforts and funding. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program is administered by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) to generate additional funds required for improvements to the regional transportation system. The CVAG TUMF boundary covers the entire Coachella Valley region, including the City of Palm Desert. TUMF development impact fees are collected by participating jurisdictions from new residential and non-residential development at the building or occupancy permit stage. Collected fees are transferred to CVAG for allocation to the Regional Arterial Program. Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies The Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) specifies the policies, projects, and programs necessary over a 20+ year period to maintain, manage, and improve the transportation systems in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. The RTP/SCS is required to be updated every four years. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS includes regional growth forecasts, a strategic plan, and a sustainable communities strategy to improve the transportation system to meet the demands of a growing population. The 2016 RTP/SCS promotes active transportation improvements, such as a regional greenway network, regional bikeway network, bike share services, complete sidewalks and bikeways networks, and neighborhood mobility areas.3 Congestion Management Plan (CMP) The Riverside County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) was prepared by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in 2011 to improve the transportation system in the County of Riverside. The main purpose of the CMP is to link land use, transportation, and air 2 “Coachella Valley Association of Governments Active Transportation Plan,” Michael Baker International, 2016. 3 The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy, prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments, 2016. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-3 quality in the region, including the Coachella Valley, to promote reasonable growth management programs, alleviate traffic congestion, and improve air quality. Local agencies work with the County to meet CMP goals. The CMP establishes minimum traffic level-of-service (LOS) standards for a system of highways and roadways, including state highways and principal arterials, designated by RCTC. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies are also adopted to improve LOS. In the Palm Desert area, the CMP system includes Highway 111, Highway 74, and Monterey Avenue between Highway 111 and Interstate-10.4 None of the CMP roadway segments are in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project. Local Palm Desert General Plan Local jurisdictions are responsible for implementing transportation standards on local roadways, including speed limits, bicycle and pedestrian networks, and hauling permits for oversized or excessive load vehicles on city streets. Local jurisdictions set forth future transportation goals, policies, and programs in their General Plans and other planning documents. Applicable policies from Chapter 4 (Mobility) of the City of Palm Desert General Plan include the following: • Policy 1.1 Complete Streets. Consider all modes of travel in planning, design, and construction of all transportation projects to create safe, livable, and inviting environments for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transit users of all ages and capabilities. • Policy 1.2 Transportation System Impacts. Evaluate transportation and development projects in a manner that addresses the impacts of all travel modes on all other travel modes through the best available practices. • Policy 1.3 Facility Service Levels. Determine appropriate service levels for all modes of transportation and develop guidelines to evaluate impacts to these modes for all related public and private projects. • Policy 1.6 Emergency Vehicle Access. Evaluate the impacts of transportation network changes on emergency vehicle access and response times. 4 Table 2-1, 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-4 • Policy 2.1 Public Parking Facilities. Provide new public parking facilities only after applying appropriate techniques to manage parking demand and ensure efficient use of all public and private parking facilities. • Policy 2.2 Parking Management. Actively manage public parking facilities to ensure that all potential users are benefitting from this civic resource. • Policy 2.7 Pick-up and Drop-off Zones. Encourage parking lots to be designed with pick- up and drop-off zones to accommodate the trend towards increased use of autonomous vehicles and shared vehicle services. • Policy 3.1 Pedestrian Network. Provide a safe and convenient circulation system for pedestrians that include sidewalks, crosswalks, places to sit and gather, appropriate street lighting, buffers from moving vehicles, shading, and amenities for people of all ages. • Policy 3.3 Roadway Sidewalks. Where feasible, provide adequate sidewalks along all public roadways. • Policy 3.4 Access to Development. Require that all new development projects or redevelopment projects provide connections from the site to the external pedestrian network. • Policy 4.3 Bicycle Parking. Require public and private development to provide sufficient bicycle parking. • Policy 5.3 Private Transit. Encourage the implementation of private transit services in a manner which minimizes negative impacts on public transportation facilities. • Policy 5.5 Private Development Access to Transit. Review development proposals to limit impacts on existing or proposed transit facilities. • Policy 6.1 Fair Share Costs. Require that new development pay for its fair share of construction costs related to new and/or upgraded infrastructure needed to accommodate the development. • Policy 6.2 Multi-Modal Impacts. Develop and apply funding mechanisms that require fair share contributions for impacts to all modes of transportation associated with development or redevelopment. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-5 • Policy 8.3 Emerging Mobility Strategies. Encourage the deployment of emerging transportation approaches such as transportation network companies, mobility hubs and comprehensive mobility providers by private vendors. • Policy 8.6 Electric Vehicles. Encourage the use of electric vehicles (EV), including golf carts and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV) by supporting the use of EVs and encouraging NEV charging stations to be powered with renewable resources. 2.15.4 Environmental Setting The project site is located in the Coachella Valley which is connected to surrounding areas through Interstate 10 (I-10), Highway 111, and State Routes 62, 74, and 86. I-10 is the southernmost cross-country interstate highway in the United States; it connects the Coachella Valley with western Riverside County, Orange County, and Los Angeles County to the west, and the State of Arizona to the east. Highway 111 connects the communities of the Coachella Valley, from Palm Springs on the west to North Shore on the east; it continues further south to the U.S.–Mexico border. State Route 62 (SR-62) is an east-west highway beginning at the I-10 interchange near Palm Springs and running northeast through the cities and communities of the high desert in San Bernardino County, terminating at the California-Arizona state line on the Colorado River.5 SR-74 is an east-west route that connects Riverside and Orange Counties, with its eastern terminus at the southern Palm Desert city limits.6 SR-86 is a north-south highway which runs from Highway 111 near Coachella to Highway 111 near the Mexico border. 2.15.5 Existing Conditions The main components of the City’s transportation system are roadway systems, bicycle systems, golf cart facilities, and a public transit system providing both local and regional bus service. Roadway System Regional connectivity to the City is provided by Interstate 10, Highway 111, and State Route 74. Major roadways include Highway 111, Fred Waring Drive, Country Club Drive, Frank Sinatra Drive, Gerald Ford Drive, Dinah Shore Drive, Monterey Avenue, Portola Avenue, Cook Street, and Washington Street. Higher volume roadways include Washington Street, Monterey Avenue, Highway 111, and Fred Waring Drive which are designed to carry approximately 51,000 (avg.), 37,400 (avg.), 39,800 (avg.), and 36,300 (avg.) vehicles per day at General Plan buildout (2040), respectively. 5 Transportation Concept Report – State Route 62 (District 8) by Caltrans. 6 Transportation Concept Report – State Route 74 (District 8) by Caltrans. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-6 All roadways are classified according to their functional capacity and other characteristics, such as cross-section, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and speed management mechanisms. Roadway classifications include Enhanced Arterial, Vehicular-Oriented Arterial, Balanced Arterial, Enhanced Secondary Roadway, Secondary Street, Downtown Collector, and Collector Street. El Paseo, a key commercial corridor that prioritizes property access and a high level of pedestrian amenities, is assigned its own classification. Major roadways in the vicinity of the Project site include Country Club Drive to the south, Portola Avenue to the west, Cook Street to the east, and Frank Sinatra Drive to the north. At General Plan buildout, these major roadways could carry approximately 34,900 (avg.), 14,600 (avg.), 21,700 (avg.), and 12,300 (avg.) vehicles per day, respectively.7 Existing (year 2019) traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit 2.15-1. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to define the performance of a roadway system. Currently, the desired and optimal level of service for intersections and roadway segments within the City is LOS C; however, LOS D is considered the generally acceptable service level.8 7 Palm Desert General Plan (DEIR) – Table 4.15-24, The City of Palm Desert, 2016. 8 Palm Desert General Plan (DEIR) – Page 4.15-14, The City of Palm Desert, 2016. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-8 Bicycle and Golf Cart Facilities Bicycles and golf cart facilities consist of separated paths (Class I), striped lanes (Class II), shared roadways (Class III), and shared sidewalks (Class S).9 Class I separated paths are generally planned away from the roadway where cross flows with motor traffic are minimal.10 Class II striped lanes are planned along Highway 74, major arterials, and connector streets in the vicinity of Highway 111. Class III shared roadways are planned on El Paseo, Shadow Mountain Drive, Town Center Way, San Gorgonio Way, De Anza Way, and other roads.11 Bicycle facilities in the immediate Project area include Class III bike lanes along Country Club Drive, Cook Street, Portola Avenue, and Frank Sinatra Drive.12 The Project site is located within the Desert Willow golf course property, and golf cart paths runs along all sides of the property. Meandering pathways also extend along much of Desert Willow Drive.13 CV Link CV Link is a multi-modal transportation pathway which, at full buildout, will extend ±49 miles through 12 Coachella Valley jurisdictions, from Palm Springs on the west to the Salton Sea on the east.14 Currently, approximately 2.4 miles of CV Link have been constructed in the City of Cathedral City. In the City of Palm Desert, CV Link will be constructed along the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel, and generally along Parkview Drive and Magnesia Falls Drive. CV Link will connect users to shopping, schools, recreational facilities, and employment centers. It is anticipated that CV Link, once fully constructed, will contribute to increased fitness, local reductions in traffic volumes and associated air pollutants, and expanded economic opportunities. Truck Routes I-10 and Highway 111 are part of the State highway truck route system. I-10 is included in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Network, which allows larger trucks with no maximum overall length. SR-111 is also included in the STAA Network, except between Gateway Drive and Gene Autry Trail, where it is designated as part of the California Legal Network, which allows trucks with maximum overall length between 65 and 75 feet.15 9 Palm Desert General Plan (DEIR) – Page 4.15-5, The City of Palm Desert, 2016. 10 A Guide to Bikeway Classification, prepared by Caltrans in July 2017; http://www.dot.ca.gov/d4/bikeplan/docs/caltrans-d4-bike-plan_bikeway-classification- brochure_072517.pdf, accessed February 2019. 11 Palm Desert General Plan (DEIR) – Page 4.15-5, The City of Palm Desert, 2016. 12 “Coachella Valley Association of Governments Active Transportation Plan,” Michael Baker International, 2016. 13 Google Earth Pro Version 7.3.2.5491. 14 CV Link Draft EIR (2017). 15 Truck Networks on California State Highways (map) for District 8, Caltrans, last revised June 6, 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-9 In addition to I-10 and Highway 111, the City has designated numerous arterials as truck routes. Truck routes in the immediate Project area include County Club Drive, Cook Street, Portola Avenue, and Frank Sinatra Drive.16 Public Transit System Public transportation in the Coachella Valley consists of transit bus service operated by the SunLine Transit Agency. Currently, six SunLine bus routes serve the City of Palm Desert: 20, 21, 32, 54, 70, 111, and Commuter Link 220.17 Sunline also provides paratransit service to supplement fixed route service. Current service headways range from 20 minutes to 60 minutes during the weekdays. Less frequent service is provided on nights and weekends. The closest bus route to the Project site is Route 20 which extends along Cook Street. The nearest bus stop to the Project site is located at Cook Street, approximately ½ mile to the east. Pedestrian Access Connections between roadways and transit facilities are provided through a network of sidewalks and crosswalks. The nearest pedestrian sidewalk to the Project site is along Desert Willow Drive. Sidewalks also exist along Country Club Drive, Cook Street, Portola Avenue, and Frank Sinatra Drive. Airports The Coachella Valley is served by three airports. The Palm Springs International Airport is the largest and primary air transportation link for the region. It is located approximately 8 miles northwest of the subject property and is classified in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) as a long-haul commercial service airport. It also handles air freight and provides heliport access that is largely limited to medical evacuation flights between the Desert Regional Medical Center and Eisenhower Medical Center. The Bermuda Dunes Airport is a privately owned, public use airport located approximately 5.5 miles northeast of the subject property. It accommodates corporate and private aircraft and is the designated airport for medivac flights for John F. Kennedy Hospital and Eisenhower Medical Center. The Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport is located in the unincorporated community of Thermal, approximately 15 miles southeast of the Project site. It caters to business class and private aviation aircraft. 16 Palm Desert General Plan, Figure 4.3, adopted 2016. 17 SunLine Transit Agency Website, https://www.sunline.org, accessed February 2019. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-10 Intersection Operations Level-of-service (LOS) is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. LOS ratings range from LOS A through LOS F, with LOS A representing free-flow conditions, and LOS F representing unacceptable delays and stop- and-go conditions. Although the City’s optimal level-of-service for intersections and roadway segments is LOS C, LOS D is considered the generally acceptable service level, and the City’s General Plan traffic analysis considered LOS D as the minimum acceptable LOS.18 The Project-specific Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (Appendix H) studied twelve (12) intersections in the Project area based on the Project description and input from City staff. Current (year 2019) LOS conditions for each of the studied intersections are shown on Exhibit 2.15-2 and the following table. Conditions were evaluated for weekday PM peak hours and Saturday peak hours, when the proposed Project is expected to be busiest. The data show that all studied intersections are operating at acceptable LOS during one or more peak hours, except for the intersection at Cook Street and Market Place Drive, which is operating at LOS F during the PM peak hour only. Table 2.15-1 Existing (2019) Conditions Intersection Analysis Intersection Traffic Control Delay (secs.) Level of Service PM SAT PM SAT Monterey Ave. & Country Club Dr. TS 32.3 25.7 C C Portola Ave. & Country Club Dr. TS 39.0 29.8 D C Desert Willow Dr. & Country Club Dr. TS 18.7 19.4 B B Cook St. & I-10 WB Ramps TS 38.0 29.3 D C Cook St. & I-10 EB Ramps TS 13.0 12.7 B B Cook St. & Gerald Ford Dr. TS 28.1 23.2 C C Cook St. & Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 27.9 20.4 C C Cook St. & Market Place Dr. CSS 81.9 26.6 F D Cook St. & Country Club Dr. TS 35.9 29.2 D C Cook St. & Hovley Ln. TS 30.2 22.7 C C Eldorado Dr. & Country Club Dr. TS 18.4 16.6 B B Tamarisk Row Dr./Oasis Club Dr. & Country Club Dr. TS 17.8 14.3 B B 18 “City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report,” Page 4.15-14, Michael Baker International, August 2016. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-12 Traffic Signal Warrants As shown in the table above, the intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive is currently unsignalized. Based on existing peak hour intersection turning volumes, it warrants a traffic signal.19 All other studied intersections are controlled with traffic signals. I-10 Off-Ramp Queuing The westbound and eastbound off-ramps at the I-10 and Cook Street interchange are in the Project vicinity and could potentially be impacted by Project operations. Queuing analysis for both off-ramps indicates they are currently operating at acceptable levels during the PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour, and there are no existing queuing issues.20 I-10 Mainline Segments The eastbound and westbound mainline segments of I-10, both east and west of Cook Street, are currently operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS B) during the PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour.21 I-10 Merge/Diverge Operations Freeway ramp merge and diverge areas at the I-10 and Cook Street interchange are currently operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or higher) during the PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour.22 2.15.6 Project Impacts For analysis purposes, the Project-specific Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) assumed the Surf Lagoon Planning Area and the Hotels and Villas Planning Area would be constructed within a single phase of development with a projected Opening Year of 2022. Therefore, the potential impacts of the Surf Lagoon and Surf Center, and the Hotel and Villas, are analyzed below as a single, combined component. Potential impacts of the Off-Site Improvements are analyzed separately. a) Does the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities The surf lagoon, surf center, hotel, and villas will have no impact on transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. The Project site is ½ mile from the nearest Sunline transit route and bus stops on Cook Street, and ⅓-mile from the nearest sidewalk and bike lane on Country Club Drive. The Project will not impact sidewalks or golf paths within Desert Willow Golf Course. It 19 Page 43, “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. 20 Page 47 and Table 3-2, Ibid. 21 Page 47 and Table 3-3, Ibid. 22 Page 47 and Table 3-4, Ibid. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-13 does not propose new transit or bicycle facilities, or modifications to existing ones, and will not conflict with any such programs, plans, ordinances, or policies. Internal walkways and trails will connect to existing sidewalks and pathways on Desert Willow Drive, which then connect to sidewalks on Country Club Drive. Palm Desert LOS Policy According to the Palm Desert General Plan, the City’s optimal level-of-service for intersections and roadway segments is LOS C, but LOS D is considered the minimum acceptable service level. The TIA determined that the intersection at Cook Street and Market Place Drive currently operates at an unacceptable LOS during PM peak hours, and with the addition of the Project, it will continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS during one or more peak hours. Mitigation will be required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, as provided in Mitigation Measure TRANSP-1, which requires that the Project pay its fair share of the installation of a traffic signal at this location. Further, the Development Agreement requires that the payment be made by the Project proponent, and that the City install the signal prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Surf Center. This assures that the improvement will be complete at the time that the Project is operational, and that the impact will be less than significant when the Project begins operations. TIA Assumptions and Scenarios The TIA evaluated five (5) Project impact scenarios; three (3) impact scenarios are described below, and two (2) cumulative impact scenarios are described in Section 2.15.9, Cumulative Impacts. Detailed descriptions, data tables, and exhibits are contained in the TIA (Appendix H of this DEIR). Where ambient growth was included in the analysis, an ambient growth factor of 6.12% (2% per year over 3 years, compounded annually) was used to account for background traffic growth. The TIA assumed that all project components would be built out by 2022. Although the Project will be implemented in two phases, and both phases may not be completed by 2022, this represents a worst-case scenario in which all traffic impacts occur simultaneously. The TIA further considered existing conditions plus Project conditions, a hypothetical scenario that nevertheless considers the Project’s impacts on current traffic movements. The TIA also considered Year 2022 impacts, studying both typical daily operations and special events. Typical daily operations were assumed to include up to 95 surfers at one time in the lagoon, activity at surf center retail and restaurant facilities, and full occupation of the hotel(s) and villas. Special event operations considered the addition of up to 3,500 ticketed guests at the surf lagoon, in addition to the operational characteristics described above. The findings of the TIA for each of these scenarios are described below. Scenarios addressing cumulative projects are described in Section 2.15.9. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-14 1) Existing Conditions Plus Project (E+P) As shown in the following tables, E+P conditions will result in unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive. Table 2.15-2 E+P Intersection Analysis Intersection Traffic Control2 Existing (2019) E+P Delay1 Level of Delay1 Level of (secs.) Service (secs.) Service PM SAT PM SAT PM SAT PM SAT Monterey Av. & Country Club Dr. TS 32.3 25.7 C C 32.6 26.2 C C Portola Av. & Country Club Dr. TS 39.0 29.8 D C 40.2 30.8 D C Desert Willow Dr. & Country Club Dr. TS 18.7 19.4 B B 19.9 21.5 B C Cook St. & I-10 WB Ramps TS 38.0 29.3 D C 39.1 29.6 D C Cook St. & I-10 EB Ramps TS 13.0 12.7 B B 13.6 13.2 B B Cook St. & Gerald Ford Dr. TS 28.1 23.2 C C 28.2 23.6 C C Cook St. & Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 27.9 20.4 C C 27.9 20.4 C C Cook St. & Market Place Dr. CSS 81.9 26.6 F D >100.0 56.1 F F Cook St. & Country Club Dr. TS 35.9 29.2 D C 37.1 30.1 D C Cook St. & Hovley Ln. TS 30.2 22.7 C C 30.5 22.8 C C El Dorado Dr. & Country Club Dr. TS 18.4 16.6 B B 18.7 17.1 B B Tamarisk Row Dr./Oasis Club Dr. & Country Club Dr. TS 17.8 14.3 B B 18.0 14.6 B B BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), 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. 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal Table 2.15-3 E+P Findings and Recommended Improvements Analysis TIA Findings Recommended Improvements Intersection Operations • Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS F during PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour). • All other studied intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS. Install a traffic signal at Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection Traffic Signal Warrants Consistent with existing conditions, the Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection would warrant a traffic signal. Install a traffic signal at Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection. Signal timing should be coordinated with existing signal at Cook St. & Country Club Dr. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-15 Table 2.15-3 E+P Findings and Recommended Improvements I-10 Off-Ramp Queuing No potential queuing issues anticipated. None I-10 Mainline Segments Expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours. None I-10 Merge/Diverge Areas Expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours. None Source: Section 5, “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. As shown in the table below, with installation of a traffic signal (Mitigation Measure TRANSP-1), the Cook Street and Market Place Drive intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS. Expansion of the eastbound left turn lane on Market Place Drive at Cook Street to a minimum of 165 feet (Mitigation Measure TRANSP-2) will also reduce Project impacts at this intersection. See Exhibit 2.15-3. TRANSP-3 and TRANSP-4 will further enhance site access and traffic safety at the Project site by requiring implementation of onsite traffic signing and striping plans and review of sight distance at Project access points. Table 2.15-4 E+P Conditions with Improvements Intersection Traffic Control Delay (seconds) Level of Service PM SAT PM SAT Cook St. & Market Place Dr. Without improvements CSS > 100.0 56.1 F F With improvements TS 7.7 10.4 A B DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-17 2) Existing Conditions + Ambient Growth + Project (EAP (2022, Typical Operation)) As shown in the tables below, EAP (2022, Typical Operation) conditions will result in unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive. Table 2.15-5 EAP (2022, Typical Operations) Intersection Analysis Intersection Traffic Control2 Existing (2019) EAP (2022) Delay1 Level of Delay1 Level of (secs.) Service (secs.) Service PM SAT PM SAT PM SAT PM SAT Monterey Av. & Country Club Dr. TS 32.3 25.7 C C 34.3 27.2 C C Portola Av. & Country Club Dr. TS 39.0 29.8 D C 43.3 31.9 D C Desert Willow Dr. & Country Club Dr TS 18.7 19.4 B B 20.5 21.8 C C Cook St. & I-10 WB Ramps TS 38.0 29.3 D C 41.3 29.5 D C Cook St. & I-10 EB Ramp TS 13.0 12.7 B B 14.9 13.7 B B Cook St. & Gerald Ford Dr. TS 28.1 23.2 C C 29.2 23.4 C C Cook St. & Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 27.9 20.4 C C 29.9 20.6 C C Cook St. & Market Place Dr. CSS 81.9 26.6 F D >100.0 72.2 F F Cook St. & Country Club Dr. TS 35.9 29.2 D C 39.6 30.9 D C Cook St. & Hovley Ln. TS 30.2 22.7 C C 32.3 23.3 C C El Dorado Dr. & Country Club Dr. TS 18.4 16.6 B B 19.2 17.4 B B Tamarisk Row Dr./Oasis Club Dr. & Country Club Dr. TS 17.8 14.3 B B 18.9 15.0 B B BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), 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. 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal Table 2.15-6 EAP (2022, Typical Operation) Findings and Recommended Improvements Analysis TIA Findings Recommended Improvements Intersection Operations • Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS F during PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour). • All other studied intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS. Install a traffic signal at Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-18 Table 2.15-6 EAP (2022, Typical Operation) Findings and Recommended Improvements Analysis TIA Findings Recommended Improvements Traffic Signal Warrants Consistent with existing conditions, the Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection would warrant a traffic signal. Install a traffic signal at Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection. Signal timing should be coordinated with existing signal at Cook St. & Country Club Dr. I-10 Off-Ramp Queuing No potential queuing issues anticipated. None I-10 Mainline Segments Expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours. None I-10 Merge/Diverge Areas Expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours. None Source: Section 6, “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. As shown in the table below, with installation of a traffic signal (Mitigation Measure TRANSP-1), the Cook Street and Market Place Drive intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS. Expansion of the eastbound left turn lane on Market Place Drive at Cook Street to a minimum of 165 feet (Mitigation Measure TRANSP-2) will also reduce Project impacts at this intersection. See Exhibit 2.15-3. TRANSP-3 and TRANSP-4 will further enhance site access and traffic safety at the Project site by requiring implementation of onsite traffic signing and striping plans and review of sight distance at Project access points. Table 2.15-7 EAP (2022, Typical Operations) Conditions with Improvements Intersection Traffic Control Delay (seconds) Level of Service PM SAT PM SAT Cook St. & Market Place Dr. Without improvements CSS > 100.0 72.2 F F With improvements TS 7.7 10.6 A B 3) EAP (2022, Special Event) (Existing Conditions + Ambient Growth + Project) Special event analysis assumes weekend arrival and departure peak hours. As shown in the tables below, EAP (2022, Special Event) conditions will result in unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-19 Table 2.15-8 EAP (2022, Special Event) Intersection Analysis Intersection Traffic Control2 Typical Operation Special Event Delay1 Level of Delay1 Level of (secs.) Service (secs.) Service SAT Peak Hour SAT Arrival SAT Departure SAT Arrival SAT Departure Monterey Av. & Country Club Dr. TS 27.2 C 27.2 27.2 C C Portola Av. & Country Club Dr. Desert Willow Dr. & Country Club Dr. Cook St. & I-10 WB Ramps Cook St. & I-10 EB Ramps Cook St. & Gerald Ford Dr. Cook St. & Frank Sinatra Dr. Cook St. & Market Place Dr. TS 31.9 C 31.8 31.5 C C TS 21.8 C 21.9 24.7 C C TS 29.5 C 34.6 30.6 C C TS 13.7 B 16.8 13.8 B B TS 23.4 C 23.3 23.6 C C TS 20.6 C 20.4 20.8 C C CSS 72.2 F >100.0 >100.0 F F Cook St. & Country Club Dr. Cook St. & Hovley Ln. El Dorado Dr. & Country Club Dr. Tamarisk Row Dr./Oasis Club Dr. & Country Club Dr. TS 30.9 C 31.0 34.0 C C TS 23.3 C 23.2 23.3 C C TS 17.4 B 17.3 17.1 B B TS 15.0 B 14.8 14.8 B B BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), 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. 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal Table 2.15-9 EAP (2022, Special Event) Findings and Recommended Improvements Analysis TIA Findings Recommended Improvements Intersection Operations • Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS F during Saturday arrival peak hour and Saturday departure peak hour) • All other studied intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS. Install a traffic signal at Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection Traffic Signal Warrants Consistent with existing conditions, the Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection would warrant a traffic signal. Install a traffic signal at Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection. Signal timing should be coordinated with existing signal at Cook St. & Country Club Dr. I-10 Off-Ramp Queuing No potential queuing issues anticipated. None I-10 Mainline Segments Expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours. None I-10 Merge/Diverge Areas Expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours. None Source: Section 7, “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-20 As shown in the table below, with installation of a traffic signal (Mitigation Measure TRANSP-1), the Cook Street and Market Place Drive intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS. Expansion of the eastbound left turn lane on Market Place Drive at Cook Street to a minimum of 165 feet (Mitigation Measure TRANSP-2) will also reduce Project impacts at this intersection. See Exhibit 2.15-3. TRANSP-3 and TRANSP-4 will further enhance site access and traffic safety at the Project site by requiring implementation of onsite traffic signing and striping plans and review of sight distance at Project access points. Table 2.15-10 EAP (2022, Special Event) Conditions with Improvements Intersection Traffic Control Delay (seconds) Level of Service PM SAT PM SAT Cook St. & Market Place Dr. Without improvements CSS > 100.0 > 100.0 F F With improvements TS 9.8 15.1 A B The TIA also analyzed potential impacts of the proposed Project on the I-10 freeway ramps at Cook Street, since special events are expected to attract travelers from more distant locations that will require freeway travel. As shown in the table below, the freeway off-ramps will operate at acceptable levels during special events. Table 2.15-11 EAP (2022, Special Event) I-10 Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing Summary Intersection Movement Available Stacking Distance (Feet) Typical Operation Special Event 95th Percentile Queue (Feet)2 Acceptable? 1 95th Percentile Queue (Feet)2 Acceptable? 1 SAT Peak Hour SAT SAT Arrival SAT Departure SAT Arrival SAT Departure Cook St. / I- 10 WB Ramps WBL/T 1,650 271 Yes 377 321 Yes Yes WBR 250 15 Yes 13 15 Yes Yes Cook St. / I- 10 EB Ramps EBL 1,250 51 Yes 47 52 Yes Yes EBT/R 1,250 75 Yes 145 82 Yes Yes EBR 450 74 Yes 144 80 Yes Yes 1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown on this table, where applicable. 2 Maximum queue length for the approach reported. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-21 Off-Site Improvements Stormwater Management: This Project component involves installation of subsurface stormwater management infrastructure. It will have no impact on circulation system plans, policies, or programs. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: The installation of pool/lagoon discharge infrastructure will have no impact on circulation plans, policies, or programs. Golf Course Turf Reduction: The turf removal and replacement program will have no impact on circulation plans, policies, or programs. Landscaping Improvements: Installation of landscaping materials will have no impact on circulation plans, policies, or programs. Overflow Parking: It is expected that the proposed Project will host special events that could result in up to 3,500 guests. Additional parking for such events is planned at the overflow parking lot at the southeast corner of Desert Willow Drive and Market Place Drive. Preliminary designs for this parking lot estimate that approximately 285± parking spaces can be provided at this location in a fully improved parking lot. As explained in Section 2.15.3, above, the Palm Desert General Plan includes policies that require the effective management of parking demand and efficient use of parking facilities. During standard operations, the lot will be vacant, and no special traffic management strategies will be necessary. However, during special events, vehicles will access the overflow parking lot via Cook Street, Country Club Drive, and Market Place Drive. The TIA included an analysis of potential parking demand, and determined that with a fully attended special event, up to 1,459 vehicles would require parking during a special event day. This estimate is based on the estimated number of guests at special events (3,500) and a vehicle occupancy ratio of 2.4 persons per vehicle. It is a conservative estimate that does not account for reductions in parking demand that could occur if guests use alternative modes of transportation to access the site, such as SunLine transit buses, taxis, ridesharing services, or walking. The TIA further determined that since these guests would be coming and going, up to 1,021 parking spaces would be required to accommodate a special event. Assuming that 285 parking spaces would be available at the overflow parking lot, up to 736 additional parking spaces would be required. As is the case with numerous other special events in the valley, off-site parking venues and shuttle service would be required to supplement the Project’s parking demand. A number of off-site locations are possible, including a portion of the 13,000 parking spaces available at the Indian Wells Tennis Garden, which has indicated that it would have capacity to rent parking spaces to the proposed Project for special events. Without additional off-site parking, however, potential impacts associated with parking and site access could result in significant impacts to the Project site and surrounding roadway network. However, implementation of Mitigation DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-22 Measures TRANSP-5 through TRANSP-14 will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. They require the Project proponent to implement a Special Event Traffic Management Plan that uses temporary signage, flaggers, traffic signal timing adjustments, shuttle services, and other mechanisms to facilitate the movement of special event traffic and reduce impacts to roads in the Project vicinity. The Specific Plan sets forth site-specific parking requirements, and the Project will be required to meet those standards. Shuttle service is proposed to transport guests from the overflow lot to the Project site via Desert Willow Drive. To further minimize potential impacts of special events, the TIA recommends implementation of a Special Event Traffic Management Plan. A Special Event Traffic Management Plan for the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit 2.15-4. This serves as a starting point and should be expanded and refined in accordance with Mitigation Measures TRANSP-5 through TRANSP-14. The final Plan may include the use of portable changeable message signs (CMS), law enforcement personnel and/or flaggers to direct traffic, public service announcements to provide route and parking information, and signal timing adjustments based on peak arrival and departure periods of events. With implementation of these mitigation measures, parking impacts during special events will be reduced to less than significant levels. Soil Removal/Storage: The removal and storage of soils will have no impact on circulation plans, policies, or programs. Any haul trucks transporting excess Project soils to the Classic Club (2.5 miles to the north) can be expected to use Country Club Drive and Cook Street, both of which are designated truck routes. No impacts to transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities would occur. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-24 b) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, as amended December 2018, states that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. A lead agency may use models or other methods to analyze a project’s VMT quantitatively or qualitatively. For land use projects, such as the proposed DSRT SURF Project, “projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact.” Surf Lagoon and Surf Center/Hotel and Villas Construction Phase: The CalEEMod software used to calculate air emissions considers construction-related vehicle emissions from vendor deliveries, use of construction equipment, and worker commutes. Based on Project-specific construction details, it is estimated that total worker trips would result in 6,578 VMT, vendor trips would result in 967 VMT, and hauling trips would result in 32,188 VMT. CalEEMod does not generate VMT for construction equipment, however air quality impacts associated with construction equipment are captured and analyzed in Section 2.3 Air Quality. Potential impacts associated with haul trucks are further discussed below (see Off-Site Improvements, Soil Removal/Storage). Operational Phase: The TIA estimated the proposed Project’s trip generation using trip generation rates provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th edition, 2017) for the hotel, villas, and retail portions of the Project. The ITE Manual does not include trip generation rates for a surf lagoon, so trip generation for the lagoon was based on assumptions about the anticipated number of guests and vehicle occupancy. Two trip generation estimates were prepared – one for typical operation, and one for special events. The table below summarizes trip generation rates and total anticipated trips generated by the surf lagoon, surf center, hotel, and villas during typical operation. As shown, these components would generate a combined total of 5,496 weekday daily trips during typical operation DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-25 Table 2.15-12 Project Trip Generation Summary – Typical Operation Trip Generation Rates1 Land Use ITE Code Units Weekday Weekend Peak Hour Weekday Daily PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Resort Hotel3 330 Rooms 0.18 0.23 0.41 0.40 0.32 0.72 8.36 Surf Lagoon4 N/A Shopping Center 820 TSF2 1.83 1.98 3.81 2.34 2.16 4.50 37.75 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 TSF 6.06 3.71 9.77 5.71 5.48 11.19 112.18 Total Trip Generation Land Use Quantity Weekday Weekend Peak Hour Weekday Daily PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Hotel/Villas 438 rooms 79 101 180 175 140 315 3,662 Surf Lagoon4 1,350 guests 31 31 62 31 31 62 1,126 Retail 4,000 TSF 7 8 15 9 9 18 152 Internal Trip Reduction6 -4 -4 -8 -5 -5 -10 -76 Retail Subtotal 3 4 7 4 4 8 76 Restaurant/Café/Bar5 11.250 TSF 68 42 110 64 62 126 1,264 Internal Trip Reduction6 -34 -21 -55 -32 -31 -63 -632 Restaurant/Café/Bar Subtotal 34 21 55 32 31 63 632 TOTAL: 147 157 304 242 206 448 5,496 1 Source: ITA (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017. 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 No weekend or weekday daily data available for ITE Land Use 330. As such, weekday daily and Saturday data for Hotel (ITE Land Use 310) has been utilized. 4 Vehicle trips are calculated based on estimated number of guests during normal operations and vehicle occupancy of 2.4. 5 Trips have been calculated based on rates for LUC 932 – High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant. 6 Internal capture reductions reduction of 50% has been applied as a significant portion would be internal to the resort. Source: Table 4-1, “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. The table below summarizes trip generation rates and total anticipated trips generated by the surf lagoon, surf center, hotel, and villas during special events. As shown, these components would generate a combined total of 7,288 weekend daily trips during special events. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-26 Table 2.15-13 Project Trip Generation Summary – Special Event Trip Generation Rates1 Land Use ITE Code Units Arrival Peak Hour Departure Peak Hour Weekend Daily In Out Total In Out Total Resort Hotel3 330 Rooms 0.40 0.32 0.72 0.40 0.32 0.72 8.19 Surf Lagoon4 N/A Shopping Center 820 TSF2 2.34 2.16 4.50 2.34 2.16 4.50 46.12 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 TSF 5.71 5.48 11.19 5.71 5.48 11.19 122.40 Total Trip Generation Land Use Quantity Arrival Peak Hour Departure Peak Hour Weekend Daily In Out Total In Out Total Hotel/Villas 438 rooms 175 140 315 175 140 315 3,588 Surf Lagoon4 1,350 guests 365 10 375 10 365 375 2,918 Retail 4,000 TSF 9 9 18 9 9 18 184 Internal Trip Reduction6 -5 -5 -10 -5 -5 -10 -92 Retail Subtotal 4 4 8 4 4 8 92 Restaurant/Café/Bar5 11.250 TSF 64 62 126 64 62 126 1,380 Internal Trip Reduction6 -32 -31 -63 -32 -31 -63 -690 Restaurant/Café/Bar Subtotal 32 31 63 32 31 63 690 TOTAL: 576 185 761 221 540 761 7,288 1 Source: ITA (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017. 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 No weekend or weekday daily data available for ITE Land Use 330. As such, weekday daily and Saturday data for Hotel (ITE Land Use 310) has been utilized. 4 Vehicle trips are calculated based on estimated number of guests during normal operations and vehicle occupancy of 2.4. 5 Trips have been calculated based on rates for LUC 932 – High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant. 6 Internal capture reductions reduction of 50% has been applied as a significant portion would be internal to the resort. Source: Table 4-2, “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. The above estimates quantify the number of vehicles expected to access the Project site, but not the distance the vehicles will travel to access the site (VMT). During typical operation, it is anticipated that many surf lagoon guests will be those staying at the Project’s hotel/villa component and other resort projects within Desert Willow; local residents and visitors already in the area for other attractions may also attend. The Project is centrally located in the Coachella Valley; vehicles traveling from the furthest points of the valley from the Project site would travel approximately 15 miles to the Project, while those in the denser population centers would travel 10 miles or less. During special events, spectators could travel from areas outside the Coachella Valley; western Riverside County and Los Angeles, for example, are 60 miles and 100 miles from the Project site, respectively. For analysis purposes, it was assumed that the average distance traveled per trip was 25 miles, resulting in an annual VMT of 12,213,217 under typical operation and 16,511,125 when accounting for special events. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-27 A number of factors will reduce the amount of driving required to access the Project. It is reasonable to assume that many surf lagoon and surf center patrons will stay onsite as guests of the hotel or villas and that trip reductions will result from that relationship. For those staying off-site, the Project site is centrally located in the Coachella Valley and directly accessed by an existing network of arterials connecting it to neighboring cities; those in the immediate Project vicinity include Cook Street, Country Club Drive, Portola Avenue, and Fred Waring Drive. The Project site is 1½ miles from the I-10/Cook Street interchange and 3 miles from the I- 10/Monterey Avenue interchange, which provide direct access throughout the valley and connect it to other southern California regions. Additionally, the Project site is ½-mile west of Sunline Transit Agency’s Bus Lines 20 and 21 which travel along Cook Street (see TIA Exhibit 3-8 in Appendix H). Line 21 connects northern Palm Desert (Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive) with the Highway 111 commercial corridor in Palm Desert (Town Center Way). Line 20 follows the same route but extends further to Desert Hot Springs via I-10. The two closest bus stops are ½ mile east of the Project site at Cook Street/Country Club Drive and Cook Street/Frank Sinatra Drive. Lines 20 and 21 connect to other Sunline routes serving the Coachella Valley. The Project’s central location and proximity to arterials, I-10, and established transit routes are expected to reduce the amount of driving required to access the Project. Impacts will be less than significant. Off-Site Improvements Stormwater Management: Installation of stormwater infrastructure will involve the operation of construction vehicles, but they will be largely contained onsite and will not travel on area roadways. After construction is complete, this Project component will not generate any vehicle trips. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Construction vehicles will be contained onsite and will not travel on area roadways. After construction is complete, this Project component will not generate any vehicle trips. Golf Course Turf Reduction: Construction vehicles will be contained onsite and will not travel on area roadways. After the program is complete, this Project component will not generate any vehicle trips. Landscaping Improvements: Construction vehicles will be generally contained onsite and will not travel on area roadways. After landscape installation, this Project component will not generate any vehicle trips. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-28 Overflow Parking: Construction vehicles will be contained onsite and generally will not travel on area roadways. Once operational, the overflow parking lot will not generate trips or impact VMT. It will be used to accommodate vehicles already accessing the site during special events. Soil Removal/Storage: During construction, an estimated 12,875 haul trips (equivalence)23 will transport excess soils to either: 1) vacant land on the Desert Willow Golf Course, less than ¼ mile from the Project site, or 2) along Cook Street to the Classic Club 2½ miles to the north. For conservative analysis, it was assumed that all excess soil will be hauled to the Classic Club, resulting in approximately 32,188 VMT. Once construction is complete, this Project component would generate no VMT. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Surf Lagoon and Surf Center/Hotel and Villas Primary access to the surf lagoon, surf center, hotel, and villas will be provided at two access points on Desert Willow Drive, and emergency access will be provided via a gated access point on Willow Ridge. An internal road will be used to access onsite facilities and parking. No roads, intersections, or design features are proposed that would increase hazards. Construction vehicles using Desert Willow Drive and/or Willow Ridge to access the site could inconvenience passenger vehicles on those roads; however, their presence would be only temporary (limited to the construction phase), would be managed through the City’s requirements for construction management planning, and would not increase hazards. During long-term operation, vehicles accessing the site will be similar to those accessing the adjacent golf course. No impact would occur. Off-Site Improvements Stormwater Management: This Project component involves installation of subsurface stormwater infrastructure. Construction vehicles will be largely contained onsite and will not increase traffic hazards. Once operational, this component will have no impact on traffic- related hazards. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: This Project component involves installation of drainage improvements. Construction vehicles will be largely contained onsite and will not increase traffic hazards. Once operational, this Project component will have no impact on traffic. 23 CalEEMod generates the number of “haul trips” and associated hauling emissions based on the quantity/weight of material being hauled and the distance to the haul site. The number of haul trips generated in CalEEMod provides an equivalent emissions projection based on haul load assumptions programmed into the software. Based on project haul data, CalEEMod assumes that the project will require 12,875 material haul trips. It is assumed that an average haul load is 20 tons (or 16 cubic yards). DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-29 Golf Course Turf Reduction: Removal of turf and installation of desert landscaping will not result in traffic-related hazards. Construction vehicles and equipment will be largely contained on the Desert Willow Golf Course. Once complete, this component will have no impact on traffic-related hazards. Landscaping Improvements: This Project component involves installation of landscaping materials. Construction vehicles will be largely contained onsite and will not increase traffic hazards. After installation, this component will have no impact on traffic. Overflow Parking: Improvement of the overflow parking lot will not increase hazards due to dangerous features or incompatible uses. During standard operations, the lot will remain vacant. During special events, the vehicle mix will be compatible with other vehicles on area roadways. No impact will occur. Soil Removal/Storage: During construction, excavated soils will be removed and hauled to either a vacant site within Desert Willow Golf Course or a material storage site adjacent to the Classic Club 2.5 miles to the north. The presence of construction vehicles on area roadways may be a temporary nuisance but will not increase hazards. Haul trips will cease once construction is complete, and no impact will occur during Project operation. d) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Surf Lagoon and Surf Center/Hotel and Villas Emergency vehicles will be able to access the surf lagoon, surf center, hotel, and villas via two main driveways on Desert Willow Drive and a gated emergency entrance on Willow Ridge. The internal roadway will provide vehicular access around the perimeter of the lagoon. Prior to the initiation of any site disturbance, the Project proponent will be required to confer with the City Public Works, Fire, and Police departments to assure that demolition (of the existing parking lot), grading, and construction plans provide adequate emergency access. All development plans will be reviewed by the Police and Fire Departments to assure that adequate fire lanes, vehicle turning radius, and signage is provided for emergency vehicles during all phases of development and operation (Mitigation Measures TRANSP-15 through TRANSP-19). With implementation of these mitigation measures, Project-related impacts will be less than significant. Off-Site Improvements Stormwater Management: Construction of all Project components, including stormwater management infrastructure, will be subject to plan review by the Public Works, Fire, and Police Departments (TRANSP-15), which will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. After construction is complete, this Project component will have no impact on emergency access. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-30 Pool/Lagoon Discharge: Construction of all Project components, including the pool/lagoon discharge improvements, will be subject to plan review by the Public Works, Fire, and Police Departments (TRANSP-15), which will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. After construction is complete, this Project component will have no impact on emergency access. Golf Course Turf Reduction: The replacement of turf with desert landscaping will have no impact on emergency access. After the program is complete, this Project component will have no impact on emergency access. Landscaping Improvements: Installation of perimeter landscaping will be incorporated into project plans, and will be subject to the same coordination with Public Works, Fire and Police as other project components, which will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. After installation is complete, this Project component will have no impact on emergency access. Overflow Parking: Direct emergency access to the overflow parking lot is currently provided via Market Place Drive on the north and Desert Willow Drive on the west; this will remain the same after the parking lot is paved and improved. Construction and vehicle staging plans associated with improvement of the parking lot will be subject to review by the Public Works, Fire, and Police Departments (TRANSP-15), which will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. After improvements are complete, access will remain via both roads currently serving the site, and will provide emergency access for Fire and Police calls. Soil Removal/Storage: All Project components, including the staging of haul trucks, will be subject to plan review by the Public Works, Fire, and Police Departments (TRANSP-15), which will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Any trucks transporting soil off-site to the Classic Club will travel on existing roads; Mitigation Measure TRANSP-16 will assure that any Project-related spills are cleaned up immediately. After construction is complete, soil removal/storage will cease, and this Project component will have no impact on emergency access. 2.15.7 Mitigation Measures Site Access Improvements TRANSP-1 The Project proponent shall pay its fair share of the costs of installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive. The fair share amount shall be 12.1%, as defined in Table 1-5 of the “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” prepared by Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. Signal timing shall be coordinated with the traffic signal at the intersection of Cook Street and Country Club Drive. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-31 TRANSP-2 The Project shall extend the eastbound left turn lane on Market Place Drive at Cook Street to provide a minimum of 165 feet of storage. TRANSP-3 Onsite traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site. TRANSP-4 Sight distance at each Project access point shall be reviewed with respect to Caltrans and City of Palm Desert sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans. Special Event Traffic Management TRANSP-5 The Project proponent shall coordinate with City staff to prepare, refine, and approve a Special Event Traffic Management Plan that facilitates the safe and efficient movement of special event traffic, shuttles, and pedestrians. A master management plan shall be prepared that details all potential measures required for a special event, which shall be supplemented with individual plans addressing specific special events based on their size and duration. The Special Event Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to the City prior to certificate of occupancy for the Surf Center. Individual management plans for specific special events shall be submitted at least 30 days prior to the start of the event. The Special Event Traffic Management Plan shall include the measures identified in Mitigation Measures TRANSP-6 through 14, below. TRANSP-6 Shuttle service shall be provided to transport spectators between the Project site and overflow parking lot via Desert Willow Drive, and for any other off-site parking location required to accommodate the parking requirements for each special event. The calculation for number of parking spaces required shall be based on the number of planned attendees, divided by 2.4, and multiplied by 0.70 (70%) (as described in Section 1.10 of the “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” prepared by Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019). Shuttle routes and stops shall be identified in the Special Event Traffic Management Plan. TRANSP-7 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the Project proponent shall include the use of portable changeable message signs (CMS) along Country Club Drive and Cook Street to facilitate event traffic to and from on-site and off- site parking. TRANSP-8 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the Project proponent shall include the use of law enforcement personnel and/or special event flaggers to direct traffic at the following locations: 1) Desert Willow Drive & Country Club Drive, 2) Cook Street & Market Place Drive, 3) Desert Willow Drive & Market Place Drive, and 4) Desert Willow Drive & Project entrance. Any plans involving law enforcement personnel shall be coordinated with the Palm Desert Police Department. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-32 TRANSP-9 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the Project proponent and City shall include the use of public service announcements (PSA) to provide information to event guests prior to the event. Examples include, but are not limited to, online event information (i.e., suggested routes, parking, etc.), changeable message signs (CMS) prior to the event, and brochures. TRANSP-10 The City shall provide traffic signal timing adjustments based on the expected peak arrival and departure periods of the special event at the following locations: 1) Desert Willow Drive & Country Club Drive, 2) Cook Street & Market Place Drive, and 3) Cook Street & Country Club Drive. TRANSP-11 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the Project proponent shall include the designation of convenient and accessible drop-off and pick-up areas to promote ridesharing and reduce parking demands. The Plan may also include short-term parking with time restrictions of 10-15 minutes for staging areas for ridesharing vehicles. TRANSP-12 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the Project proponent shall include providing off-site parking facilities for employees to increase available on-site parking for guests. Employee parking sites shall be served by shuttles that transport employees to and from the Project site. TRANSP-13 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the Project Proponent shall include implementing valet parking to increase available on-site parking capacity. TRANSP-14 The Project proponent shall demonstrate availability of additional parking spaces at Desert Springs Marketplace, the Indian Wells Tennis Garden or other location(s) prior to each special event. Shuttle service to/from the Project site shall be provided to serve all off-site parking locations. Emergency Access TRANSP-15 Prior to site disturbance, construction staging plans shall be approved by the Public Works, Fire, and Police Departments to assure they adequately consider and account for temporary detours, changing access to business and residential areas, and emergency access, and that they cause minimal disruption to adjoining streets and land uses, during all phases of Project development. TRANSP-16 The Construction Manager shall be required to identify and promptly repair any Project-related damage to existing public roads upon completion of each phase of Project development. The Construction Manager shall monitor the condition of these routes throughout the construction process and, in the event of an DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-33 accidental load spill or other Project-related incident, shall arrange for the immediate clean-up of any material with street sweepers or other necessary procedures. TRANSP-17 The final location and design of the site access points and internal circulation improvements shall comply with City of Palm Desert access and design standards and be reviewed by the City Engineer and Fire and Police Departments. TRANSP-18 Parking adjacent to the surf lagoon, surf center, hotel, villas, and other buildings shall be prohibited, where necessary, to provide unobstructed access by emergency service vehicles and first responders. TRANSP-19 The Police and Fire Departments shall be provided with a Knox Box or other master key or access code that enables immediate entry to the Project’s secured emergency access gate on Willow Ridge. Cumulative Impact Mitigation TRANSP-20 The Project proponent shall participate in the CVAG’s TUMF program by paying the requisite TUMF fees. 2.15.8 Significance After Mitigation With implementation of the above mitigation measures, Project-related impacts will be less than significant. 2.15.9 Cumulative Impacts The geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts on transportation systems consists of 95 development projects that are either approved or currently being processed in the Project area, including Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, and portions of unincorporated Riverside County. A list and map of the projects are provided in the TIA (see TIA Table 4-3 and Exhibit 4-5). Two cumulative impact scenarios were analyzed -- one for typical operation, and one for special events – and both scenarios included Project-generated traffic in addition to existing conditions, background traffic from ambient growth, and background traffic from cumulative development projects. An ambient growth rate of 6.12% was used. 1) EAPC (2022, Typical Operation) (Existing Conditions + Ambient Growth + Project + Cumulative) As shown in the tables below, EAPC-Typical Operation conditions will result in unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-34 Table 2.15-14 EAPC (2022, Typical Operations) Intersection Analysis Intersection Traffic Control 2 Existing (2019) EAPC (2022) Delay1 (secs.) Level of Service Delay1 (secs.) Level of Service PM SAT PM SAT PM SAT PM SAT Monterey Av. & Country Club Dr. TS 32.3 25.7 C C 34.7 27.4 C C Portola Av. & Country Club Dr. TS 39.0 29.8 D C 44.1 32.7 D C Desert Willow Dr. & Country Club Dr. TS 18.7 19.4 B B 20.6 22.0 C C Cook St. & I-10 WB Ramps TS 38.0 29.3 D C 51.9 31.5 D C Cook St. & I-10 EB Ramps TS 13.0 12.7 B B 18.4 17.5 B B Cook St. & Gerald Ford Dr. TS 28.1 23.2 C C 31.8 27.1 C C Cook St. & Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 27.9 20.4 C C 37.8 22.0 D C Cook St. & Market Place Dr. CSS 81.9 26.6 F D >100.0 79.9 F F Cook St. & Country Club Dr. TS 35.9 29.2 D C 42.5 31.9 D C Cook St. & Hovley Ln. TS 30.2 22.7 C C 32.9 23.1 C C El Dorado Dr. & Country Club Dr. TS 18.4 16.6 B B 19.3 17.3 B B Tamarisk Row Dr./Oasis Club Dr. & Country Club Dr. TS 17.8 14.3 B B 19.0 14.9 B B BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), 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. 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-35 Table 2.15-15 EAPC (2022, Typical Operation) Traffic Conditions Analysis TIA Findings Recommended Improvements Intersection Operations • Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS F during PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour). • All other studied intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS. Install a traffic signal at Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection Traffic Signal Warrants Consistent with existing conditions, the Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection would warrant a traffic signal. Install a traffic signal at Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection. Signal timing should be coordinated with existing signal at Cook St. & Country Club Dr. I-10 Off-Ramp Queuing No potential queuing issues anticipated. None I-10 Mainline Segments Expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours. None I-10 Merge/Diverge Areas Expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours. None Source: Section 8, “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. As shown in the tables below, with installation of a traffic signal (Mitigation Measure TRANSP- 1), the intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive will operate at an acceptable LOS. Payment of TUMF fees (TRANSP-20) will also reduce Project-related cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. Table 2.15-16 EAPC (2022, Typical Operation) Conditions with Improvements Intersection Traffic Control Delay (seconds) Level of Service PM SAT PM SAT Cook St. & Market Place Dr. Without improvements CSS > 100.0 79.9 F F With improvements TS 7.7 10.8 A B CSS = Cross-street stop TS = Traffic Signal Improvement Source: Table 8-5, “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. 2) EAPC (2022, Special Event) (Existing Conditions + Ambient Growth + Project + Cumulative) As shown in the tables below, EAPC-Special Event conditions will result in unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-36 Table 2.15-17 EAPC (2022, Special Event) Intersection Analysis Intersection Traffic Control2 Typical Operation Special Event Delay1 (secs.) Level of Service Delay1 (secs.) Level of Service SAT Peak Hour SAT Arrival SAT Departure SAT Arrival SAT Departure Monterey Av. & Country Club Dr. TS 27.4 C 27.4 27.4 C C Portola Av. & Country Club Dr. TS 32.7 C 32.6 32.1 C C Desert Willow Dr. & County Club Dr. TS 22.0 C 22.0 24.8 C C Cook St. & I-10 WB Ramps TS 31.5 C 31.9 32.7 C C Cook St. & I-10 EB Ramps TS 17.5 B 20.0 17.9 B B Cook St. & Gerald Ford Dr. TS 27.1 C 30.1 30.7 C C Cook St. & Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 22.0 C 22.0 22.5 C C Cook St. & Market Place Dr. CSS 79.9 F >100.0 >100.0 F F Cook St. & Country Club Dr. TS 31.9 C 31.9 34.9 C C Cook St. & Hovley Ln. TS 23.1 C 23.1 23.1 C C El Dorado Dr. & Country Club Dr. TS 17.3 B 17.2 17.1 B B Tamarisk Row Dr./Oasis Club Dr. & Country Club Dr. TS 14.9 B 14.7 14.7 B B BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), 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. 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.15-37 Table 2.15-18 EAPC (2022, Special Event) Traffic Conditions Analysis TIA Findings Recommended Improvements Intersection Operations • Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS F during PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour). • All other studied intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS. Install a traffic signal at Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection Traffic Signal Warrants Consistent with existing conditions, the Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection would warrant a traffic signal. Install a traffic signal at Cook St. & Market Place Dr. intersection. Signal timing should be coordinated with existing signal at Cook St. & Country Club Dr. I-10 Off-Ramp Queuing No potential queuing issues anticipated. None I-10 Mainline Segments Expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours. None I-10 Merge/Diverge Areas Expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours. None Source: Section 9, “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. As shown in the table below, with installation of a traffic signal (Mitigation Measure TRANSP-1), the intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive will operate at an acceptable LOS. Payment of TUMF fees (TRANSP-20) will also reduce Project-related cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. As described in Section 2.15.3, the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program provides funds for transportation improvements of major regional significance, such as interchanges, roads, and bridges. The program is intended as a fair and equitable method of distributing the costs of improvements necessary to accommodate traffic volumes generated by future regional growth. The Project would contribute traffic to regional roads and transportation facilities, and payment of TUMF fees is a method of offsetting its impacts. Table 2.15-19 EAPC (2022, Special Event) Conditions with Improvements Intersection Traffic Control Delay (seconds) Level of Service PM SAT PM SAT Cook St. & Market Place Dr. Without improvements CSS > 100.0 > 100.0 F F With improvements TS 9.8 15.3 A B CSS = Cross-street stop TS = Traffic Signal Improvement Source: Table 9-5, “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. In summary, with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRANSP-1 and TRANSP-20, Project- related cumulative impacts during typical operation and special events will be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.16-1 DSRT SURF Specific Plan DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2.16. Utilities and Service Systems 2.16.1 Introduction This section of the EIR discusses potential impacts to utilities and service systems, including water supply, wastewater/sewer service, storm drainage, and solid waste hauling and disposal resulting from implementation of the DSRT SURF Project. A wide range of available resources, including the City’s General Plan and CVWD, SCE, and Burrtec published documents and annual reports, have been used in researching and analyzing the project and its potential effects. These include detailed analysis of existing utility lines and future extensions and conditions. 2.16.2 Thresholds of Significance The following criteria from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G have been used to evaluate the significance of the proposed Project’s potential impacts to utilities and service systems. The Project would have significant impacts if it would: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.16-2 e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 2.16.3 Regulatory Framework State California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Public Resources Code, Division 30), enacted through Assembly Bill (AB) 939 and modified by subsequent legislation, required all California cities and counties to implement programs to reduce, recycle, and compost at least 50 percent of wastes by the year 2000 (Public Resources Code Section 41780). CalRecycle determines compliance with this mandate to divert generated waste, which includes both disposed and diverted waste. In 2007, Senate Bill (SB) 1016 amended AB 939 to establish a per capita disposal measurement system. The per capita disposal measurement system is based on a jurisdiction’s reported total disposal of solid waste divided by its population. California’s Integrated Waste Management Board sets a target per capita disposal rate for each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction must submit an annual report to California’s Integrated Waste Management Board with an update of its progress in implementing diversion programs and its current per capita disposal rate. California Assembly Bill 341 In October 2011, Assembly Bill 341 was signed into law, setting a 75% recycling goal for California by Year 2020. The legislation mandates that all California commercial or public entities that generate 4 or more cubic yards of solid waste per week, and for those multifamily dwellings of 5 or more units, must arrange recycling services by and following July 1, 2012. Individual jurisdictions determined compliance measures and due dates. Per Public Resources Code Section 41821 (annual reporting), each jurisdiction is required to electronically report the progress achieved which is reviewed by CalRecycle. CALGreen Code CALGreen Code Section 4.408, Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal and Recycling mandates that, in the absence of a more stringent local ordinance, a minimum of 50 percent of non- hazardous construction and demolition debris must be recycled or salvaged. The Code also requires the applicant to have a waste management plan for on-site sorting of construction debris. Senate Bills 610 and 221 On January 1, 2002, Senate Bill (SB) 610 took effect. SB 610, which was codified in the California Water Code, Section 10910 et seq., requires preparation of a water supply assessment for projects within cities and counties that propose to construct 500 or more residential units or DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.16-3 the equivalent. SB 610 provides that, when environmental review of certain development projects is required, the water agency that is to serve the development must complete the water supply assessment to evaluate water supplies that are or will be available during a normal year, single dry year, and multiple-dry years during a 20-year projection to meet existing and planned future demands, including the demand associated with the proposed Project. SB 221, enacted in 2001 and codified in Government Code Section 66473.7, requires a county, city, or local agency to include a condition to any tentative subdivision map that a sufficient water supply will be available to serve the subdivision. The term “sufficient water supply” is defined as the total water supplies available during a normal year, single-dry year, and multiple dry years within a 20-year projection that would meet the proposed subdivision’s projected water demand, in addition to existing and planned future water uses, including agricultural and industrial uses, within the specified service area. SB 221 further requires any verification of “projected” water supplies to be based on entitlement contracts, capital outlay programs, and regulatory permits and approvals. Regional and Local Riverside County Integrated Waste Management Plan The Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) was prepared in accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. To attain the reduction goals, AB 939 established a planning hierarchy utilizing new integrated solid waste management practices.1 Riverside County revises the CIWMP every five years and publishes a Five-Year Review Report to assure that the County’s waste management practices remain consistent with the hierarchy of waste management practices. The City of Palm Desert works with Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services to provide waste management and recycling services to its residents to further waste diversion. Palm Desert General Plan The City of Palm Desert General Plan includes goals to reduce the generation of solid waste, to slow the filling of local and regional landfills and expand recycling programs that divert valuable resources from the waste stream and returning these materials to productive use. Additionally, the General Plan requires and encourages the recycling of mineral-based construction materials, including asphalt, concrete, gypsum and similar materials, as well as the facilities to assure their efficient recycling. 1 Riverside County Department of Waste Resources Website, http://www.rcwaste.org, Accessed 2019. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.16-4 Chapter 9: Public Utilities and Services • Policy 1.1 Stormwater infrastructure for new development. Require development projects to pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that development (regional shallow groundwater). • Policy 1.2 On-site stormwater retention and infiltration. Whenever possible, stormwater shall be infiltrated, evapotranspirated, reused or treated on-site in other ways that improve stormwater quality and reduce flows into the storm drain system. • Policy 2.2 Sewer infrastructure for new development. Require development projects to pay for their fair share of new sewer infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that development. • Policy 3.3 Water infrastructure. Maintain existing water infrastructure to protect the supply, quality, and delivery of potable water. • Policy 3.4 Water infrastructure for new development. Require development projects to pay for their share of new water infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that project. • Policy 3.5 Recycled Water. Expanded use of recycled water in existing and new development. • Policy 4.3 Waste reduction. Seek to continually reduce Palm Desert’s rate of waste disposal per capita, and to increase the diversion rate of recycling and green waste. • Policy 4.4 Recycled building material. Encourage the use of recycled building and infrastructure materials in new public and private development. 2.16.4 Environmental Setting Water and Wastewater Potable and non-potable water is provided to the City by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). Water demand in the City is supplied by several sources: groundwater, surface water from local streams, imported water from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River via the Coachella Canal, and recycled water. All drinking (domestic) water comes from groundwater, while water for irrigation comes primarily from recycled wastewater and the Colorado River. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.16-5 CVWD also provides wastewater and sewage collection and treatment services in the city. Wastewater is conveyed through sewer trunk lines generally ranging in size from 4 to 24 inches, relying primarily on gravity flow. Solid Waste Solid waste disposal services in Palm Desert are provided by the commercial vendor Burrtec. Solid waste collected from residents and businesses is hauled to the Edom Hill Transfer Station in Cathedral City and is then transported to regional landfills. Co-mingled recyclable materials (e.g., paper, plastic, glass, cardboard, aluminum) are transported to Burrtec’s material recovery facility in Escondido.2 2.16.5 Existing Conditions Water Service The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) serves the water-related needs of a population of about 300,000 throughout the Coachella Valley. The service area also includes portions of Imperial County and San Diego County. The following services are provided by CVWD: domestic (drinking) water supply, sanitation (wastewater), irrigation and drainage, non-potable water (recycled wastewater and/or Colorado River water), regional stormwater/flood protection, and groundwater management and replenishment. The Coachella Valley relies on a combination of local groundwater, Colorado River water, State Water Project (SWP) water, and recycled water to meet water demands. The Coachella Canal brings Colorado River water from the All-American Canal near the Mexico-U.S. border and traverses the southeastern margin of the Coachella Valley. SWP water is obtained via a Colorado River water exchange with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) and delivered at the northwest margin of the Coachella Valley via the Colorado River Aqueduct. Recycled water is produced at three of CVWD’s six wastewater reclamation plants and is blended with Colorado River water for service to its non-potable water customers, which are primarily golf courses and large landscaped areas. The main water source used by CVWD for urban potable water use is local groundwater. The CVWD operates more than 100 wells to obtain groundwater from both the Whitewater River and the Mission Creek subbasins of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin.3 The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin has been identified by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as being in a condition of overdraft since the 1940s. CVWD, through its water replenishment programs, estimates that overdraft in both the West and East Whitewater River subbasins has been curtailed, but must be maintained. Although Colorado River and SWP water are used to replenish the groundwater basin, the potable water distribution system does not currently receive water directly from either imported water source. 2 Palm Desert General Plan Draft EIR – 4.14-41. 3 Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment 2017-2018, CVWD. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.16-6 Wastewater Service CVWD provides wastewater collection and treatment services for the Project site. Currently, the CVWD treats and recycles wastewater at two wastewater treatment plants (WRP-9 and WRP-10) for the City of Palm Desert and surrounding areas. These two plants have a total capacity of 18.40 million gallons per day. Recycled water from these facilities has been used for golf course and greenbelt irrigation in the City for many years, including irrigation at the Desert Willow golf course, thereby reducing demand on the groundwater basin. CVWD continually increases the capacity of its wastewater reclamation facilities, as needed, by constructing new treatment ponds, aeration, and other structures throughout the Coachella Valley. CVWD implements all requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board pertaining to water quality and wastewater discharge. Stormwater Management and Protection Within CVWD's boundaries, there are 16 stormwater protection channels. The entire system includes approximately 135 miles of channels built along the natural alignment of dry creeks that naturally flow from the surrounding mountains into the Whitewater River. Along with the channels, a number of dikes and levees have been designed and built to collect rapidly flowing flood water as it drains from the adjacent mountains onto the floor of the Coachella Valley.4 The backbone of the stormwater protection system is a 50-mile stormwater channel that runs from the Whitewater area north of Palm Springs to the Salton Sea. The western half of the channel, known as the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel, runs along the natural alignment of the Whitewater River that cuts diagonally across the valley to Point Happy in La Quinta. Because the riverbed flattens out naturally downstream from La Quinta, a constructed stormwater channel funnels flood waters to the Salton Sea. East of Point Happy, the channel is known as the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. The channel was built to withstand a flow of 80,000 cubic feet per second, which is greater than flows generated by a 100-year flood event.5 Electricity Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical service to the City of Palm Desert and many areas of the Coachella Valley, serving approximately fifteen (15) million people within a service area of approximately 50,000 square miles, including the Coachella Valley. SCE generates power from a variety of energy sources, including coal, natural gas, large hydroelectric, nuclear, and renewable sources (which include small hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and waste sources). According to the Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory Update, city-wide electricity usage in Palm Desert in 2013 was 756,834,386 kWh.6 This includes all electricity 4 Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment 2017-2018, CVWD. 5 Ibid. 6 Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2013 Update. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.16-7 consumed by municipal buildings, residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, and resorts and golf courses, combined. Natural Gas Natural gas is provided to the City of Palm Desert by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). The service territory of SoCalGas encompasses approximately 20,000 square miles in diverse terrain throughout central and southern California, from the City of Visalia to the Mexican border. SoCalGas receives gas supplies from several sedimentary basins in the western United States and Canada, including the Rocky Mountains and western Canada, as well as local California supplies. Natural gas for SoCalGas is delivered to the region through interstate pipelines. Natural gas supplies are transported from Texas to the Coachella Valley through three east-west trending gas lines, which cross the Valley near and parallel to Interstate-10 and continue west to Los Angeles. According to the Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory Update, city-wide natural gas consumption totaled 17,532,930 therms in 2013.7 This includes natural gas consumed by residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, and resorts and golf courses. Telecommunications Landline phone services in the City are mainly provided by Frontier Communications Corporation. It is the fourth largest provider of digital subscriber lines (based on coverage area) in the County. Solid Waste The City has an exclusive franchise agreement with Burrtec for the collection and disposal of solid waste. All waste generated in the City is collected and transported to the transfer station located in Cathedral City. Once sorted, solid waste is transported to regional landfills which are owned and operated by Riverside County. The remaining capacities for these landfills are provided below: Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill Location: Beaumont Remaining Capacity = 19,242,950 Cubic Yards Ceased Op Date = 04/01/2029 Oasis Sanitary Landfill Location: Oasis Remaining Capacity = 433,779 Cubic Yards Ceased Op Date = 09/01/2055 Mecca Landfill II Location: Mecca Remaining Capacity = 6,371 Cubic Yards Ceased Op Date = 01/01/2098 Source: Solid Waste Information System database, CalRecycle. 7 Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2013 Update. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.16-8 Solid waste from the future development in the City would be disposed of in the Mecca II and Oasis landfills when the Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill has reached its capacity. All development is required to comply with the mandatory commercial and multi-family recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341. The City of Palm Desert has implemented many programs within the community as well as within its own organization to meet AB 341 goals. 2.16.6 Project Impacts a) Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) Would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? a-c) Less Than Significant Impacts Due to the cumulative nature of assessing utility supply and demand impact, the following discussion addresses the combined impacts associated with the Surf Lagoon Planning Area and the Hotels and Villas Planning Area. Impacts related to off-Site Improvements are discussed separately below. Domestic Water Supply CVWD is a public water agency which has approximately 108,000 domestic water connections and has a groundwater production capacity of over 300,000 AFY. Under the 1931 California Seven Party Agreement, CVWD has water rights to Colorado River water as part of the first 3.85 million AF allocated to California. CVWD is implementing several conservation programs to save its water resources. As discussed in Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and per the Project-specific Water Supply Assessment (WSA), the proposed Project would require approximately 165.21 AF of water annually. It is anticipated that the Project will use up to 8.54 AFY of recycled water for landscaping. In addition, the WSA mandates that the Project implement a Turf Reduction Plan which will reduce irrigation water consumption in the immediate Project area, serving as a water credit to offset the water demand of the proposed Project by approximately 106.75 AFY. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.16-9 Use of recycled water for landscaping and the Turf Reduction Plan would reduce the Project’s overall net water demand to 58.46 AFY. The Project’s net domestic water demand of 58.46 AFY represents approximately 0.05 percent of the total water supply (114,600 AFY) for 2020 and 0.03 percent of the total water supply (194,300 AFY) for 2040 estimated by the CVWD in its Urban Water Management Plan. Based on the WSA findings, CVWD has sufficient water supplies to meet the demands of the Project for the next 20 years. This result is derived based on the volume of water available in the aquifer, CVWD's Colorado River contract supply, SWP Table A amounts, water rights and water supply contracts, and CVWD’s commitment to eliminate overdraft and reduce per capita water use in its service area. The future water supplies available to CVWD, including the Project site, are assured and reliable under normal, single-dry years, and multiple-dry years by Colorado River water rights, the permanent surface water entitlement held by the CVWD, and based on historical conditions of the groundwater aquifer. The City can reliably expect water from surface and groundwater sources. Given the existing available water supply versus the water needs of the Project, CVWD has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project in future during normal, dry and multiple dry years. The Project’s incremental effect would not be cumulatively considerable with respect to water supply and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Domestic Water Infrastructure Existing CVWD domestic water lines in the Project area were laid out at the initial construction of the Desert Willow Golf Course. The nearest existing domestic water line (18”) is located under Willow Ridge Road, immediately northwest of the Project site. Another 18-inch line runs under the traffic circle at the clubhouse entrance, immediately northeast of the Project site. The proposed water system for the site would consist of an 8-inch water line running under the Project site’s perimeter road and extended to join two existing 18-inch water line under Willow Ridge Road and the traffic circle (Exhibit 2.16-1). Once the Project site is connected to the existing water lines, the Project’s domestic water demand would be accommodated by CVWD. The Project will provide water for the surf lagoon in one of three ways: installation of a new groundwater well at the southeastern corner of the site; connection to the existing Desert Willow groundwater well located south of the site near Country Club Drive; or utilization of potable water from CVWD. If the Project installs a new groundwater well on the site, the groundwater well will be metered in compliance with requirements of the Regional Water Resources Control Board (RWRCB). If the Project connects to the existing Desert Willow groundwater well located south of the site near Country Club Drive, then the Project would require the construction and extension of underground pipes to supply water to the Project site. Under both scenarios, the remaining Project components will be connected to, and served by, CVWD’s water distribution system. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.16-10 The third option is to have CVWD provide approximately 73.04 AFY per year of potable water for the lagoon in addition to supplying water for other Project components. Please see Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Resources for a detailed discussion of water demand and the Water Supply Assessment’s findings. In summary, the Project will require extension of water lines within the site to connect to the existing CVWD water lines under Willow Ridge Road and the traffic circle. In addition, the Project may construct a new onsite well to supply the lagoon water demands, which will be metered in compliance with requirements of the RWRCB. This would not significantly affect CVWD water facilities, and once connected to the CVWD water lines, CVWD will have sufficient water to accommodate the proposed Project. Extension of water lines will have less than significant impacts on expanded water services because the physical expansion will occur within already disturbed areas of the golf course and its roadways, and because the proposed Project’s mandate to implement a Turf Reduction Program will substantially reduce net water demand of the Project. Wastewater Services and Infrastructure The Project site is served by CVWD for wastewater collection and treatment services. The Project site does not currently contain any wastewater infrastructure. Upon implementation of the Project, wastewater would be collected and discharged into CVWD sewer mains at all components of the Project. Wastewater will periodically be generated by the surf lagoon and pools, which will be treated on-site and discharged into one of the Desert Willow golf course lakes for course irrigation. The proposed Project will require construction of on-site sewer infrastructure to connect to the existing sewer mains located in the Desert Willow Drive and Willow Ridge Road rights-of-way. Sewage will be conveyed south along Cook Street to the CVWD treatment plant (WRP-10) near the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel two miles to the south. The Project wastewater discharges will be typical of residential and commercial uses and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the CVWD or Regional Water Quality Control Board. CVWD is currently treating and recycling City-generated wastewater at two wastewater treatment plants (WRP-9 and WRP-10). These two plants have a total capacity of 18.40 mgd.8 WRP-10 has a current capacity of 18 mgd, and is currently treating about 13.4 mgd. It is estimated that the Project would generate a total of 161,500 gpd of wastewater per day9, which will constitute an increase of 1 percent of the treatment flows currently entering the CVWD’s WRP-10 daily. 8 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update 2012 (Final Report)-Page 4-23, CVWD. 9 Assumes hotel and residential uses uses 250 gallons per day per room/unit. Commercial uses assyme 100 gallons per day per 1,000 SF. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.16-11 According to the CVWD, the existing sewer lines under Willow Ridge Road and the traffic circle at the clubhouse entrance have the capacity to handle the additional sewage generated by the Project, based on the number of lateral tie-ins presently contributing to the sewer flow. The Proposed Project will require construction of on-site sewer infrastructure to connect to the existing sewer mains located in the Desert Willow Drive and Willow Ridge Road rights-of-way. Overall, CVWD has sufficient treatment capacity to treat wastewater generated by the proposed Project, and the Project is not anticipated to result in the construction or relocation of a wastewater treatment plant. The proposed Project’s impact on wastewater treatment systems would be less than significant. Stormwater Drainage The Project would introduce impervious surfaces in the project area through the construction of buildings, pedestrian pathways, parking lots, and internal roadways. As explained in Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, to fully capture the surface runoff at Project buildout, the Project site is divided into four drainage areas from which onsite runoff will be conveyed into three existing Desert Willow Golf Course drainage waste areas. These drainage waste areas do not have drain pipes to the Project site currently. Drain pipes will need to be constructed and extended from the Project site in these areas as part of the proposed Project. The drainage pipe extensions are considered off-site improvements, and their impacts discussed separately below. As discussed in Section 2.10, the design of the stormwater drainage system for the Project is consistent with, and integrates into, the master plan for drainage established with the development of the Desert Willow project as a whole. The preliminary hydrology study demonstrates that the existing waste areas have capacity to accommodate Project 100-year flows. Therefore, the proposed Project will not result in a need to construct additional drainage facilities beyond those envisioned for the Desert Willow project, and impacts will be less than significant. Electric Power The main SCE distribution lines were laid out at the initial construction of the Desert Willow Golf Course, which is connected to SCE substations.10 The nearest existing SCE substation is Concho Substation which is part of the Bandana Circuit and Mirage 220/115 system. This system is located approximately seventeen (17) miles southeast of Devers Substation. SCE’s Devers Substation (500/220/115 kV electrical substation) is located approximately four miles north of Palm Springs, where 220 kV transmission lines from Mirage Substation terminate.11 10 SCE’s Open Source GIS Map previded by Tracy Nonnemacher in November 2018. 11 Third Amended and Restated IID-Edison Mirage 220 Kv Interconnection Agreement between Imperial Irrigation District And Southern California Edison Company. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.16-12 Operation of the proposed Project would consume approximately 21,711,725 kWh per year of electricity in total12. This represents a 2.87 percent increase in annual City-wide electricity usage (City-wide usage is approximately 756,834,386 kWh per year, according to the Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2013 Update). To reduce electricity demand, the Project proposes the installation of solar panels on-site at the Surf Center, which could generate an estimated 1,700,000 kWh per year13. Operation of the solar panels will offset the Project’s electrical demand, thereby reducing it to approximately 20,011,725 kWh per year, which represents approximately 2.64 percent of the City’s total electricity demand. The Project will connect to the existing nearest SCE underground distribution lines located east of the site. Construction of the Project will comply with applicable SCE guidelines regarding installation, extensions, and connections to limit impacts to electricity infrastructure and avoid service interruptions. No new SCE electric power facilities will need to be constructed or relocated. Impacts will be less than significant. Natural Gas Underground natural gas lines exist at the perimeter of the Desert Willow traffic circle. The Project site will connect to the existing SoCalGas distribution lines. Construction impacts associated with the installation of natural gas connections are expected to be confined to trenching in order to extend them from Desert Willow Drive to the Project site. Prior to ground disturbance, Project contractors would notify and coordinate with SoCalGas to identify the locations and depths of all existing gas lines and avoid disruption of gas service. Operation of the proposed Project would consume approximately 331,811 therms per year14 of natural gas in total, which is equivalent to a 1.89 percent increase in annual City-wide natural gas usage (City-wide usage is approximately 17,532,930 therms per year, according to the Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2013 Update). No additional natural gas facilities will need to be constructed or relocated. Impacts will be less than significant. Telecommunication The City is located within Frontier Communications’ service area for telecommunication services. Since the 1973 incorporation of Palm Desert, the main telecommunication lines were laid out throughout the City. The project site will connect to the existing telecommunication lines located adjacent to the site in Desert Willow Drive. Lines currently in place are sufficient to supply the Project, and no new lines are expected to be required. No impact is anticipated. 12 See Section 2.6 Energy for detailed discussion. Annual kWh were estimated in CalEEMod using historical energy data for similar land use/building types, and Project-specific engineering estimates for the surf lagoon. 13 Per project specific solar design. 14 See Section 2.6 Energy for detailed discussion. Therms were estimated in CalEEMod using historical energy data for similar land use/building types. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.16-13 Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management: This component of the Project will extend storm drains from the proposed Project site at several locations (please see Section 2.10 for a comprehensive discussion of the drainage system) to existing waste areas within the golf course. The pipes will be installed within existing disturbed areas of the golf course, and extend to existing disturbed waste areas. Although extension will be necessary, it will not result in the need for expanded facilities, because the drainage system designed for the entire Desert Willow project included serving the Project site, and other development sites within the master planned project. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed Project will not result in a need for expanded drainage facilities, and will not have a significant environmental effect on the golf course waste areas. Impacts will be less than significant. Pool/Lagoon Discharge: This component of the Project will require the extension of underground pipes to an existing lake within the golf course, to the south of the Project site. The extension of these pipes will occur within existing disturbed areas of the golf course, and will require only trenching and the installation of pipes. As described in Section 2.10, Hydrology, the water will be treated prior to its discharge into the existing lake, and will be used for irrigation within the golf course. The pool and lagoon discharge will not require the expansion of water, wastewater, storm drain, electric, natural gas or telecommunication facilities, and will have less than significant impacts on existing facilities. Golf Course Turf Reduction and Landscaping Improvements: This component of the Project would replace existing turf areas within the existing golf course with desert landscaping, which would reduce irrigation water demand and have an overall net benefit to water supplies. This component of the Project will not require any wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications. No long-term impacts are expected. Overflow Parking: This component of the Project will require up to 0.5 AFY in irrigation water when developed, and will be required to retain the 100 year storm on-site by installing a self- contained drainage system meeting City standards. No expansion of water, wastewater, drainage, electrical, natural gas or telecommunication facilities will be required, and impacts are expected to be less than significant. Soil Removal/Storage: This component of the Project will require water during excavation to suppress wind erosion, which will be temporary and will end up once the excavation is completed. Impacts will be less than significant. This component will not require any wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications. No long-term impacts are expected. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.16-15 d) Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Due to the cumulative nature of assessing solid waste impacts, the following discussion provides the combined impacts associated with the Surf Lagoon Planning Area and the Hotels and Villas Planning Area. Impacts related to Off-Site Improvements are discussed separately. Construction Impacts Construction of the proposed Project would generate solid waste in the form of sediments, trash and debris, oil and grease, fuels, lubricants, asphalt and concrete waste, and similar materials. All construction debris would be placed in appropriate onsite containers and periodically disposed of in accordance with all applicable standards of waste disposal. Non- hazardous construction materials that cannot be reused or recycled would be accepted for disposal at municipal Riverside County landfills. As required by CalGreen, demolition of the existing parking lot and the waste created by construction activities will be required to be recycled, and demonstration of compliance will be required by the City as a requirement of the building permits for the Project. This standard requirement will assure that impacts associated with construction waste remain less than significant. Any hazardous materials (e.g. chemicals, oils fuels, lubricants, paints, and solvents) used during construction would be recycled, treated, and/or disposed of in accordance with federal, State, and local laws (See Section 2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Construction-related solid waste generation will be short-term and local and/or regional landfills would have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s construction-related solid waste disposal needs. Impacts will remain less than significant. Operational Impacts Based on the Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates established by CalRecycle, the Project would dispose of approximately 355 tons of solid waste per year15 at buildout. The Project would be required to achieve 50 percent waste diversion in accordance with Riverside County’s Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP); based on this requirement, the total solid waste generation for the Project will be approximately 212.66 tons per year. Solid waste collected from the site will be hauled to the Edom Hill Transfer Station in Cathedral City and then transported to Lamb Canyon landfill in Beaumont. The Project will contribute 0.02% to Lamb 15 Retail = 0.02 lb/SF/day; Office = 0.006 lb/SF/day; Hotel = 2 lb/room/day; Multi-family = 5.1 lb/unit/day. CalRecycle. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.16-16 Canyon’s remaining capacity.16 Commingled recyclable materials (e.g., paper, plastic, glass, cardboard, aluminum) will be transported to Burrtec’s material recovery facilities for recycling and reuse. Less than significant impacts would occur from the Project, and no mitigation will be required. Off-site Improvements Stormwater Management and Pool/Lagoon Discharge: These components of the Project would not generate any solid waste; no impact is anticipated. Landscaping Improvements and Golf Course Turf Reduction: The Turf Reduction program and landscaping activities may result in plant waste, and in some solid waste associated with plant containers, that Burrtec will sort and dispose of as green waste or recycle. Green waste will then be recycled as compost per Mandatory Organics Recycling requirements (AB 1826). Impacts will be less than significant. Overflow Parking: The proposed overflow parking site is currently vacant and will not result in construction or demolition waste. At buildout, the parking lot will not generate solid waste; no impact is expected. Soil Removal/Storage: The Project would include excavation, which could potentially remove 103,000 cubic yards of soil. Excavated soils would either be hauled to vacant sites located within Desert Willow Golf Course or hauled 2.5 miles north of the Project site to a soil storage site adjacent to the Classic Club. Other than excavated soil, this Project component is not anticipated to generate any other solid waste; no impact is anticipated. 2.16.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 2.16.8 Significance After Mitigation Impacts will be less than significant. 2.16.9 Cumulative Impacts The scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts on utilities and service systems is adherence to the City’s General Plan build out assumptions for 2035. 16 Assumes that 1 CY of commercial and residential recyclable solid waste is equivalant to 100 lbs (averaged). “Volume to Weight Conversion Factors,” US EPA Office of Resource Conversion and Recovery. April 2016. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #) Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2.16-17 CVWD maintains and operates water and wastewater services in the Project vicinity. CVWD has identified adequate capacity to serve the Project along with current and future projects. The proposed Project will result in an increase of less than 1 percent of CVWD total water demand. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of stormwater or wastewater facilities because their impacts on these facilities will be minimal and sufficient capacity exists. When considered in conjunction with other projects in the City’s General Plan boundaries, the proposed Project will have a marginal and fractional impact on services. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to these services would not be cumulatively considerable. SCE and SoCal Gas have adequate policies, programs, and projects in place to provide energy to their users, including the proposed Project, for the foreseeable future. As discussed above, the Project would only increase the City’s overall electricity demand by an estimated 2.87 percent and natural gas demand by 0.002 percent. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s incremental demand for energy would not be cumulatively considerable. Regarding solid waste, implementation of State and municipal requirements to reuse and recycle construction and operation waste would lessen the amount of solid waste generated by the Project. When considered in conjunction with other development projects in the Valley, the solid waste generated by the proposed Project will result in a fractional increase in waste to landfills, as discussed in this Section. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Overall, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to utilities and service systems; and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.1-1 DESERT WAVE SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS ANALYSIS 3.1. Introduction Public Resources Code Section 21002.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 provide specific guidance on the need for alternatives to a proposed project. CEQA does not require that every potential alternative to a project be analyzed. Rather, an EIR must consider potentially feasible alternatives that meet most or all of the objectives of the proposed project, and avoid or substantially reduce the impacts of the proposed project. CEQA further requires that the analysis of alternatives contain sufficient information to allow for “meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project.” Finally, a No Project alternative must be considered, in order to allow decision makers to assess the impacts of approving the proposed project, versus not approving it. The potential impacts associated with the same range of issues that are evaluated in Section 2 are discussed in this section for each of the three alternatives described below. The analysis in this Section also considers how each alternative meets, or does not meet, the following project objectives. • Continue the mission of the Desert Willow Golf resort by providing a world-class recreational opportunity unique to the Coachella Valley. • Expand the City’s tourism economy and expand transient occupancy tax revenues. • Implement water conservation and recycling measures to minimize the impacts to water supply from lagoon and golf course water use. • Energy efficient resort development to meet the City’s sustainability goals. The analysis in this section includes a summary of existing conditions, as described in Section 2, if they are different for the alternatives analyzed than they were for the proposed Project. Impacts are assessed on a categorical basis, for the same categories provided in Section 2. Impacts associated with each alternative are considered, and mitigation measures presented if DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.1-2 found necessary. The Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Framework described for each category is provided in Section 2, and has not been replicated below, as it is identical to that found in that Section. As described in Section 2.3, Air Quality, and 2.8, Greenhouse Gases, the proposed Project will result in operational emissions that exceed established thresholds or standards, and impacts will be significant and unavoidable. This Section concludes with a comparison of all the alternatives to the proposed Project, in the context of the level of impact, as well as how well each alternative meets the Project’s objectives. This analysis leads to a conclusion as to which of the alternatives, including the proposed Project, is the most environmentally superior. 3.1.1. Summary of Alternatives Three alternatives were selected for consideration, based on the potential of each alternative to reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project, and the ability to meet the stated project objectives. Each alternative is summarized below. Alternative A – No Project – Northern Sphere Specific Plan Alternative A, the No Project Alternative, assumes the site will build out according to land use designations and development standards of the North Sphere Specific Plan (NSSP), which is the current Specific Plan regulating development within the Project area. The Project site is located in Planning Area 10 (PA 10) of the NSSP. According to the Section 4 North Sphere EIR, PA 10 was planned for a “Luxury Hotel” with a maximum of 500 rooms. Buildout of Alternative A would result in the development of a 5-story hotel with a maximum of 500 rooms totaling 665,000 square feet (including 100,000 square feet of meeting/hall space), as well as 300,000 square feet of landscaping/pool/recreation facilities, and 660 parking spaces. Table 3.1-1 “No Project” Alternative A: Northern Sphere Specific Plan (Assumes conformance to Northern Sphere SP: PA 10 Luxury Hotel) Land Use (Total 17.69 AC) SF Max 500 Rooms, 5 stories (incld. 100,000SF meeting/hall space) 665,000 SF Landscaping/pool/recreation 300,000 SF Parking 660 The majority of the site (15 AC) is classified as Planning Area 10 (PA 10) within the NSSP. See Table 4.1 Statistical Summary Table, Section 4 North Sphere Screencheck EIR. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.1-3 Alternative B – Mixed Use Alternative Alternative B, the Mixed Use Alternative, assumes the entire Project site will be developed according to existing General Plan land use designations and standards. The site is currently designated as Resort and Entertainment on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, which allows bed and breakfast inns, recreational facilities, small retail, large retail, and lodging, support retail and commercial services along with specialized entertainment with a commercial floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 0.10, and multi-family residential land uses of up to 10 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). For analysis purposes, it is assumed site standards are applied to the entire site acreage (as opposed to dividing the acreage in half) for both commercial and residential land uses. At buildout, Alternative B would include approximately 77,100 square feet of commercial development, 177 dwelling units, and 817 parking spaces. This alternative would reduce significant air quality and greenhouse gas impacts because of reduced vehicle trips. Table 3.1-2 Mixed Use Alternative B (Assumes buildout under existing GP land use) Land Use SF/DU Commercial (17.69 AC) Commercial (0.10 FAR) 77,100 SF *Parking (6 per 1,000 SF) 463 Residential (17.69 AC) Residential (10 DU/AC) 177 units Parking (2 per unit) 354 The site is currently designated as Resort and Entertainment District on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, which allows bed and breakfast inns, recreational facilities, small retail, large retail, and lodging, support retail and commercial services along with specialized entertainment with a commercial floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 0.10, and multi-family residential land uses of up to 10 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). Assumes site standards are applied to entire site for both commercial and residential, with Council approval. *Parking Standards per PDMC. Commercial: Restaurants = 8 per 1,000SF; Shopping Centers 4 per 1,000 SF. Assumes 6 per 1,000 SF. Alternative C – Residential Alternative Alternative C, the Residential Alternative, assumes the entire site will build out as a residential development, allowing the maximum residential density under the existing Planned Residential District (PR-5) zoning standards. The purpose of this district is to provide for flexibility in residential development by encouraging creative and imaginative design, and the development DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.1-4 of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities (4.0 – 40.0 du/ac), mixed housing types, and community facilities. City staff has indicated that it will not allow multi-family, apartment style development on the Project site due to its location within the Desert Willow property. Therefore, the maximum density in the PR-5 zone allowed for the Project site is 5 dwelling units per acre. At buildout, Alternative C would include approximately 89 dwelling units and 178 parking spaces. This alternative would reduce significant air quality and greenhouse gas impacts because of reduced vehicle trips. Table 3.1-3 Residential Alternative C (Assumes buildout under max res. density allowed under PR-5 zoning) (Total 17.69 AC) DU Residential (5 DU/AC) 89 units Parking (2 per unit) 178 Planned Residential District (PR). The purpose of this district is to provide for flexibility in residential development, by encouraging creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities (4.0—40.0 du/ac), mixed housing types, and community facilities. The maximum project density shall be as expressed in dwelling units per gross acre of not more than the number following the zoning symbol PR (5 DU/AC). Alternatives Considered but Rejected In addition, two alternatives were identified and considered but not analyzed in detail. The reasons why these alternatives are not considered further are described below: Alternative Site The applicant considered other available sites within the Desert Willow Golf Course, prior to entering into negotiations with the City for the proposed Project site. Two vacant parcels located east of Desert Willow Drive were evaluated. The parcel furthest to the southeast, and adjacent to the existing commercial shopping center, was not of adequate size to accommodate the Project components, and was rejected for that reason. The site closest to the proposed Project was of a similar size, but was rejected because the access to the site is restricted and its expansion would require reconstruction of existing golf course holes. In addition, the site’s proximity to existing single family residential development to the northeast would have resulted in greater impacts to these residents, particularly as related to noise, traffic and air quality. All-Retail Alternative An alternative that would have resulted in an all-retail specialty shopping center was considered and rejected. This alternative would have resulted in up to 250,000 square feet of mixed retail development, including restaurants and shopping opportunities. This alternative, DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.1-5 however, would not meet the Project’s objectives for world-class recreational facilities and transient occupancy tax generation, considered key in the development of Desert Willow pad sites when the City conceived of the project. These goals have been critical in leading the City’s efforts toward development of the remaining pad sites for the long term economic viability of the Desert Willow project area. In addition, the intensity of development would result in greater impacts associated with traffic and air quality. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.2-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.2. Aesthetics This section of the EIR analyzes the potential aesthetic impacts of the alternatives to the proposed Project. The Project site is located on the valley floor at an elevation of about 250 feet above mean sea level. Foreground views to the north, south, and east include golf course greens, cart paths, and landscaping of the Desert Willow Golf Course, and the clubhouse and parking lot to the northeast. Views to the west include the two- and three-story residential villas and parking lots of the Westin Desert Willow villas; four-story units are located further south. Predominant distant views are of the Santa Rosa Mountains 3± miles to the south and southwest, and to a lesser extent, the San Jacinto Mountains 10± miles to the west. In some locations, the Indio Hills (5 miles to the north) and Little San Bernardino Mountains (8 miles to the north) are visible. 3.2.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.2.1.1. Alternative A Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The No Project Alternative assumes the Project site would build out according to the North Sphere Specific Plan. It would include a 5-story luxury hotel with a maximum of 500 rooms, landscaping, pool/recreation facilities, and parking. The hotel would be the tallest building in the immediate Project area. It would likely block views of the Santa Rosa Mountains from the golf course clubhouse, parking lot, and greens to the immediate north, although impacts could be reduced somewhat depending on site layout, massing of the building(s), and the use of open spaces and view corridors. The hotel would have no impact on scenic vistas from other golf course greens further north, east, and south, and would have no impact on views from the Westin Desert Willow villas to the immediate west. Impacts would be less than significant. Alternative A would result in more intense impacts to scenic vistas than the proposed Project because it would result in more square footage and mass than the proposed Project. Its height (5 stories) would be greater than the maximum height of the hotel component of the proposed DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.2-2 Project (maximum 50 feet); however, the proposed Project includes smaller 1- and 2-story villa and surf center buildings that provide visual relief and less mass than Alternative A. Neither Alternative A nor the proposed Project would impact scenic vistas from the Westin Desert Willows villas or most of the Desert Willow Golf Course. Both would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The Project site is not located within a State scenic highway and does not contain scenic resources. Like the proposed Project, no impact would occur. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The Project site is in an urbanized area. Alternative A is consistent with the North Sphere Specific Plan which designates it for “luxury hotel” development. Like the proposed Project, it would be consistent with the visual character of the surroundings, including existing resort residential development at the Westin Desert Willows villas. It would not be expected to conflict with regulations governing scenic quality, including City policies preserving signature view corridors, scenic roadways, or night skies. As with the proposed Project, impacts associated with visual character would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Alternative A would generate new sources of light and glare from vehicles accessing the site, interior lighting, and outdoor lighting for security, landscaping, and recreational facilities like swimming pools or tennis courts. Some glare can be expected from hotel windows; however, architectural styles in the Coachella Valley typically consist of non-reflective materials such as stucco, stone, and wood. Light and glare generated by Alternative A can be expected to be comparable to other development in Project area and would be subject to the requirements of Chapter 24.16.015, Outdoor Lighting Requirements, of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. With implementation of this standard requirement, impacts would be less than significant. Lighting impacts of Alternative A would be comparable to those generated by the hotel and villas component of the proposed Project. However, Alternative A would not include a surf lagoon and would not include the night-lighting proposed for that component of the proposed Project. Impacts associated with light and glare would be reduced under this alternative, and there would be no need for Mitigation Measure AES-1. In this regard, Alternative A would be less intense than the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.2-3 3.2.1.2. Alternative A Mitigation Measures No mitigation would be necessary. 3.2.1.3. Alternative A Significance After Mitigation Impacts under this alternative would be less than significant. 3.2.1.4. Alternative A Cumulative Impacts Like the proposed Project, cumulative aesthetic impacts associated with Alternative A would be less than significant. The Project site is on the central valley floor in an urban area and consistent with surrounding resort recreational uses. It is not within a scenic roadway or view corridor or on mountain slopes or foothills that are valued for their scenic quality. It would not adversely impact nighttime skies or scenic vistas of the City or broader Coachella Valley. 3.2.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.2.2.1. Alternative B Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Alternative B assumes the site would develop as a mixed-use project with 77,100 square feet of commercial development and 177 residential dwelling units, consistent with its current General Plan designation (Resort and Entertainment District). Mixed-use development in the Coachella Valley typically includes separate commercial and residential buildings on the same site, or multi-story buildings with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential uses on upper floors. For purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that Alternative B would consist of two- or three-story buildings, and that they would be equal or comparable to the heights of the Desert Willow Golf Course clubhouse and Westin Desert Willow villas in the immediate vicinity. Like the proposed Project, Alternative B would likely reduce views of the Santa Rosa Mountain foothills from the clubhouse, parking lot, and adjacent golf course greens; however, views from other portions of the golf course further north, east, and south would be unaffected, and views from the Westin Desert Willow villas would be unaffected. Because the buildings under this alternative would likely be less than 50 feet in height, the reduction in views which would occur would be expected to be somewhat less than under proposed Project conditions. As is the case with the proposed Project, impacts would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.2-4 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The Project site is not located within a State scenic highway and does not contain scenic resources. Like the proposed Project, no impact would occur. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Alternative B is in an urbanized area and surrounded by golf course and resort residential land uses. It is consistent with current General Plan land use designations and would not be expected to conflict with regulations governing scenic quality, including City policies protecting night skies, view corridors, or scenic roadways. A mixed use development on the site would be expected to consist of multiple buildings, which would break up the physical mass of structures on the site, and would provide for view corridors between these structures. This condition would likely be similar to the visual condition created by the villas and surf center structures on the south side of the Project site, and would likely be consistent with the visual character of those structures. As is the case with the proposed Project, Alternative B would result in less than significant impacts to the visual character or quality of public views in the vicinity of the Project site. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Alternative B would generate glare and light from vehicles accessing the site, interior lights, and exterior lights for security, landscaping, and parking lots. It is expected that lighting sources and levels would be consistent with those at other residential and commercial development in the Project area. Outdoor lighting would be required to conform to the requirements of Chapter 24.16.015, Outdoor Lighting Requirements, of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. With implementation of this standard requirement, impacts would be less than significant. Lighting impacts of Alternative B would be comparable to those generated by the hotel and villas component of the proposed Project. However, Alternative B would not include the night- lighting proposed for the surf lagoon component of the proposed Project. Impacts associated with light and glare would be reduced under this alternative, and Mitigation Measure AES-1 would not be required. In this regard, Alternative B would be less intense than the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.2-5 3.2.2.2. Alternative B Mitigation Measures No mitigation would be required. 3.2.2.3. Alternative B Significance After Mitigation Impacts under this alternative would be less than significant. 3.2.2.4. Alternative B Cumulative Impacts Like the proposed Project, the cumulative impacts of Alternative B would be less than significant. The Project site is in an urban area and designated for urban uses. It is not located on a hillside or mountainous slope that is valued for its scenic qualities, or within a view corridor or scenic roadway. Buildout of Alternative B would not conflict with zoning designations or policies that preserve scenic qualities, such as night skies or scenic corridors. 3.2.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.2.3.1. Alternative C Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Alternative C assumes the Project site would build out as residential development, consistent with the existing Planned Residential zoning designation currently applicable to the property, with a maximum density of 5 dwelling units per acre, for a total of 89 single-family units. Typical single-family residential development in the Coachella Valley is one- or two-story with maximum heights of approximately 20 to 25 feet. Building heights would be comparable to or less than those of the Desert Willow Golf Course clubhouse and Westin Desert Willow villas in the immediate vicinity. Dwelling units would block views of the lower elevations of the Santa Rosa Mountains from the golf course parking lot and adjacent golf course greens; however, views of the mountains’ upper elevations likely would be visible over the rooflines. Impacts would be less than significant given the limited height and mass of single-family dwelling units and potential open spaces and view corridors between them. Alternative C would have no impact on scenic views from the golf course further north, east, and south, or from the Westin Desert Willow villas to the west. Compared to the proposed Project, Alternative C would result in less intense impacts to scenic vistas due to lower building heights and reduced mass. Nonetheless, both would result in less than significant impacts to scenic vistas. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.2-6 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The Project site is not within a State scenic highway and does not contain scenic resources. Like the proposed Project, no impact would occur. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The Project site is in an urbanized area and surrounded by golf course and resort residential development. Alternative C would conform to the existing Planned Residential zoning district (PR-5) standards and would not be expected to conflict with regulations governing scenic quality, including those preserving view corridors, scenic roadways, or night skies. Its lower intensity would also reduce potential impacts to public views, when compared to the proposed Project. Alternative C could impact the visual character of the area, because it would develop single family homes in an area planned for resort and recreational uses in the General Plan. This alternative would be less intense and more conventional than the other two alternatives, and would not be as compatible with the resort environment established at Desert Willow. From this perspective, Alternative C could have more significant impacts on the visual character of Desert Willow, although those impacts would still be expected to be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Alternative C would result in less than significant impacts associated with light and glare. Building materials would be expected to be non-reflective, consistent with prevailing residential architectural styles in the region. Lighting would be largely limited to residential interior and exterior lights, lights from vehicles accessing the site, and street lights. Lighting levels under this alternative would be the lowest of all the alternatives, including the proposed Project, because no public parking areas or commercial uses would occur. Outdoor lighting would be required to conform to Chapter 24.16.015, Outdoor Lighting Requirements, of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. With implementation of this standard requirement, impacts would be less than significant. Lighting impacts of Alternative C would be less intense than those of the proposed Project because 89 residential units would require fewer lighting fixtures and less lighting usage than a surf lagoon and surf center, hotel, and villas. Alternative C would not include a surf lagoon or need to address the night-lighting proposed for that component of the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.2-7 Impacts associated with light and glare would be substantially reduced under this alternative, and Mitigation Measure AES-1 would not be required. In this regard, Alternative C would be less intense than the proposed Project and all other alternatives. 3.2.3.2. Alternative C Mitigation Measures No mitigation would be necessary. 3.2.3.3. Alternative C Significance After Mitigation Impacts under Alternative C would be less than significant. 3.2.3.4. Alternative C Cumulative Impacts Like the proposed Project, the cumulative impacts of Alternative C would be less than significant. The Project site is in an urban area and consistent with other types of development in the vicinity. It is not within a scenic corridor or viewshed that is preserved for its aesthetic value. It is consistent with existing zoning regulations and would not conflict with policies that protect scenic qualities. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.3 Air Quality The following section analyzes the potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed Project alternatives. A variety of local and regional data and information, ranging from research and analysis conducted for the Project site, to regional-scale planning and environmental documents, have been used in researching and analyzing the project and its potential effects on air quality. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report was prepared for the proposed Project and alternatives and is provided in Appendix B of this EIR. The Project area is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) and is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Air quality in the Salton Sea Air Basin has been impacted by emissions associated with increased development, population growth, and vehicle emissions. Although air pollution is emitted locally from various sources, some of the degradation of air quality within the Salton Sea Air Basin can be attributed to sources located outside of the basin. In the project area, air quality is regulated by the SCAQMD, which implements applicable state and federal policy and regulations. Please see Section 2.3 for a detailed description of the regulatory framework and existing air quality conditions relating to the Project site. 3.3.1 Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.3.1.1 Alternative A Impacts a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. All development within the SSAB, including Alternative A, is subject to the 2016 SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan and 2003 PM10 Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan (CVSIP). These comprehensive plans establish control strategies and guidance on regional emission reductions for air pollutants. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-2 Alternative A is consistent with the land use designations within the City’s existing Northern Sphere Specific Plan (NSSP) and would not impact population, as employees of the proposed NSSP hotel would be expected to be residents of the City and region. Therefore, Alternative A is consistent with the population forecasts considered within the AQMP and the SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. In addition, Alternative A would be implemented in accordance with all applicable air quality management plans to ensure impacts to air quality are reduced to the greatest extent possible. Actions include, but are not limited to, the preparation of a standard dust control management plan in compliance with the CVSIP, and the enforcement of mitigation measures in the event that criteria pollutant thresholds are exceeded during construction activities. In conclusion, Alternative A is consistent with the intent of the AQMP and will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impacts of the proposed Project and Alternative A are virtually the same as they relate to consistency with the AQMP. No impact is anticipated. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Buildout of Alterative A will result in the direct and indirect generation and emission of air pollutants during construction and operation. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2, was used to estimate potential air pollutant emissions associated with this Alternative. CalEEMod output tables are provided in Appendix B of this EIR. Alternative A-Related Construction Emissions Alternative A assumes the site will build out according to land use designations and development standards for Planning Area 10 (PA 10) of the NSSP, which was planned for a “Luxury Hotel” with a maximum of 500 rooms. Buildout of Alternative C would result in the development of a 5-story hotel with a maximum of 500 rooms totaling 665,000 square feet (including 100,000 square feet of meeting/hall space), as well as 300,000 square feet of landscaping/pool/recreation facilities, and 660 parking spaces. For analysis purposes, construction of Alternative A is assumed to occur over a two-year period starting in mid-2019 with buildout in mid-2021. Construction-related criteria pollutant emissions will be temporary and will end once construction is complete. It was assumed that construction would require the export of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of surplus earthen material to the Classic Club, approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the subject property1. Therefore, it is assumed that each haul round trip would be approximately 5 miles. This 1 CalEEMod assumes the average haul load is 20 tons (or 16 cy) per trip. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-3 represents a worse-case hauling distance, since the City may also allow the off-loading of Project-related soil export within vacant areas of the Desert Willow project, which are much closer than the 5 miles associated with the Classic Club location. The following table describes pollutant emissions during construction of Alternative A. Data represent maximum daily emissions expected over the 2-year buildout period. Table 3.3-1 Construction Emissions Summary: Alternative A (lbs./day) CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 Max. Daily Emissions 51.81 55.17 67.30 0.11 9.58 6.11 SCAQMD Threshold* 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this EIR for detailed tables. Value shown represents the average unmitigated emissions of summer and winter outputs. * Source: “SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds” prepared by SCAQMD. Note: PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are shown as “mitigated” in the CalEEMod output tables; however, the mitigation used is standard dust control requirements, such as watering exposed onsite soil 3 times per day. As shown in the table above, SCAQMD daily thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, SOx, PM10 and PM2.5 will not be exceeded during construction of Alternative A. Impacts will be less than significant, and somewhat lower than the proposed Project. Alternative A-Related Operational Emissions Operational emissions are those released over the long-term life of the project. They include emissions generated by area, energy, and mobile sources. Area sources include consumable products, such as building maintenance and cleaning supplies, kitchen and restroom supplies, pavement off-gassing, and periodic reapplication of architectural coatings. Energy sources include the direct and indirect use of fossil fuels for energy, including natural gas and electricity use in buildings, parking lot lighting, ventilation equipment, and elevators. Mobile emissions are generated by motor vehicle trips. The following table describes maximum daily pollutant emissions during operation of Alternative A. Per the Project-specific traffic impact analysis (Appendix H of this EIR), Alternative A would generate 4,180 weekday daily trips. As shown in the table, Alternative A operational emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutant. Therefore, impacts are expected to be less than significant. Under the proposed Project, operational emissions of NOx would exceed SCAQMD thresholds during both typical operations and special events and result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Therefore, Alternative A would have lower operational emission impacts and avoid the significant and unavoidable air quality impacts of the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-4 Health Impacts Unlike the proposed Project, Alternative A will not exceed any criteria pollutant and will not substantially increase health risks locally or in the region. Cumulative Contribution: Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants The Coachella Valley portion of the SSAB is classified as a “non-attainment” area for PM10 and ozone. The Alternative’s contribution to cumulative increases in PM10, ozone, and ozone precursors (CO, NOx, and ROG) is addressed here and in the “Cumulative Impacts” Section, below. Cumulative air quality analysis is evaluated on a regional scale (rather than a neighborhood scale or city scale, for example) given the dispersing nature of pollutant emissions and aggregate impacts from surrounding jurisdictions and air management districts. Any development project or activity resulting in emissions of PM10, ozone, or ozone precursors will unavoidably contribute, to some degree, to regional non-attainment designations of ozone and PM10. Alternative A will contribute to increased regional PM10 emissions; however, its contributions will not be cumulatively considerable. As shown in the tables above, Alternative A-related PM10 emissions are projected to be well below established SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, Alternative A will result in incremental, but not cumulatively considerable impact on regional PM10 levels, consistent with the impacts resulting from the proposed Project. CO, NOx, and ROG are precursors to ozone, for which the Coachella Valley is in non-attainment. Alternative A will not exceed thresholds for and of these pollutants as shown in Table 3.3-3. Therefore, Alternative A will result in incremental, but not cumulatively considerable impact on regional ozone levels, and since impacts of the proposed Project will be significant and unavoidable for the proposed Project, will represent a lower cumulative impact. Table 3.3-2 Operational Emissions Summary: Alternative A (lbs./day) CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 Area 0.05 0.00 18.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 9.82 11.70 1.28 0.07 0.89 0.89 Mobile 75.47 73.53 8.89 0.26 13.53 3.75 TOTAL: 85.34 85.23 28.53 0.33 14.42 4.64 SCAQMD Threshold* 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this EIR for detailed tables. Value shown represents the average emissions of summer and winter outputs. * Source: “SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds” prepared by SCAQMD. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-5 c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? As discussed in Section 2.3.6, the purpose of analyzing Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) is to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts to the nearest exposed individual or sensitive receptor. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are resort residences approximately 150 feet (45.72 meters) to the west, in the Westin Desert Willow villas project. Similar to the proposed Project, maximum area of disturbance associated with buildout of Alternative A is approximately 17.69 acres, and it is assumed that buildout would occur over the course of two years. Although the total project area is greater than five acres, the area of daily disturbance (for purposes of LST analysis only) is limited to five acres or less per day at any given location.2 As such, the five-acre look up table is appropriate under the SCAQMD’s methodology to screen for potential localized air quality impacts.3 The Mass Rate Look-Up tables for LSTs were used to determine if Alternative A would have the potential to generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts during construction. The LST for Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30 (Coachella Valley) was used to determine LST emission thresholds. The distance from the emission source and the maximum daily site disturbance also determine emission thresholds. For analysis purposes, the worst-case scenario of a sensitive receptor being within 25 meters was used. The following table shows that LST thresholds are not expected to be exceeded for any criteria pollutant during construction. Because the Alternative A land uses do not include major stationary polluters (such as a landfill, chemical plant, oil field, refineries etc.), LST analysis was not conducted or required for operation. Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors will be less than significant, consistent with the impacts resulting from the proposed Project. 2 The equipment specific grading rates are based on the SCAQMD’s Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds guidance document. Per SCAQMD’s guidance, the identified equipment is used to determine the maximum daily soil disturbance area for the purposes of evaluating localized construction impacts and is not an exhaustive list of all equipment that would be used during project construction. Additionally, the acreage identified in this table is used for the purposes of identifying a conservative Localized Significance Threshold (i.e., smaller disturbed areas have lower Localized Significance Thresholds) and does not represent a daily limit on the grading allowed on the site. In summary, the LST methodology focuses on the equipment that may be operated and acreage that may be disturbed in areas immediate proximate to potential sensitive receptors, even if other equipment may be operated or other acreage may be disturbed in areas that are farther away from the sensitive receptor. 3 South Coast AQMD, “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds.” DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-6 Table 3.3-3 Localized Significance Thresholds: Alternative A (lbs per day) CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 Construction 51.81 55.17 9.58 6.11 LST Threshold* 2,292.00 304.00 14.00 8.00 Exceed? No No No No Source of Emission Data: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2, see Appendix B of this DEIR. Source of LST Threshold: LST Mass Rate Look-up Table, 25 meters, 5 acres, SCAQMD. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Alternative A has the potential to result in short-term odors associated with operation of heavy equipment during grading, excavation, and other construction activities. However, construction-related odors would be temporary and quickly dispersed below detectable levels as distance from the construction area increases. During Project operation, odors may be emitted from onsite restaurants and food service facilities associated with the luxury hotel; however, all facilities would be equipped with proper ventilation systems to effectively remove grease, smoke, and other odors. Impacts associated with odors will be less than significant, as will impacts associated with the proposed Project. Alternative A is not expected to result in other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people. 3.3.1.2 Alternative A Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are not required for Alternative A. 3.3.1.3 Alternative A Significance After Mitigation Impacts will be less than significant. 3.3.1.4 Alternative A Cumulative Impacts Alternative-related cumulative impacts are addressed below and in Section 3.3.1.1.b, above. The SSAB is designated as nonattainment under both the CAAQS and the NAAQS for ozone and PM10. A project generating emissions of CO, NOx, and ROG that exceed the SCAQMD operational thresholds would contribute to the ozone nonattainment designation, while emissions of PM10 that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds would contribute to the PM10 nonattainment designation of the SSAB. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-7 Cumulative potential impacts to air quality are assessed on a regional scale given the dispersing nature of pollutant emissions and aggregate impacts from surrounding jurisdictions and air management districts. Any activity resulting in emissions of PM10, ozone, or ozone precursors will unavoidably contribute, to some degree, to regional non-attainment designations of ozone and PM10. However, the level of cumulative impact a single project may have on regional air quality is difficult to measure. The Coachella Valley is subject to the SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality Management Plan and the 2003 PM10 Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan (CVSIP) to ensure levels of criteria pollutants are regulated and minimized to the best of the region’s ability. The 2016 AQMP has set forth attainment deadlines and future emission level projections for criteria pollutants within the project area, which satisfy Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the CEQA guidelines for analyzing cumulative impacts. These regional plans provide guidelines and rules for achieving state and federal air quality standards, which aim to reduce cumulative impacts, particularly through the enforcement of SCAQMD daily thresholds and implementation of time-sensitive reduction strategies to achieve attainment status. Regulation of Ozone As previously discussed, SCAQMD studies indicate that most ozone is transported to the Salton Sea Air Basin from the upwind sources in the South Coast Air Basin. The amount of ozone contributed from other air basins is difficult to quantify; however, improved air quality in the project area depends upon reduced ozone emissions in the South Coast Air Basin. Therefore, cumulative impacts to ozone are better managed on a multi-regional scale as opposed to single projects. The SCAQMD 2016 AQMP provides current and future measures to reduce both stationary and mobile source ozone emissions. Proposed measures to reduce ozone include emission reductions from coatings and solvents, RECLAIM facilities, early transitions to cleaner mobile technologies, and incentives to adopt net zero and near zero technologies.4 CalEEMod does not calculate ozone emissions directly and therefore emissions of ozone precursors (CO, NOx, and ROG) were evaluated to determine Alternative A-related impacts to ozone. Ozone precursors are the primary pollutants involved in the chemical reaction process that forms ozone. Alternative A will not exceed thresholds for CO, NOx, or ROG during construction or operation. Therefore, Alternative A will result in incremental, but not cumulatively considerable impacts on regional ozone levels. Impacts will be less than significant, and less than those generated by the proposed Project. Regulation of PM10 Similar to ozone, PM10 is regulated through the SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality Management Plan and 2003 PM10 Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan (CVSIP). Additional PM10 reduction 4 Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2016. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-8 measures include applicable State code and AQMD Rules, such as Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which enforces fugitive dust compliance for all activities within the SSAB. As shown in Section 3.3.1.1.b, Alternative A will not exceed local daily thresholds for PM10 during construction or operation. Therefore, cumulative impacts to PM10 are considered less than significant, and consistent with the level of impact associated with the proposed Project. 3.3.2 Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.3.2.1 Alternative B Impacts a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. All development within the SSAB, including Alternative B, is subject to the 2016 SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan and 2003 PM10 Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan (CVSIP). These comprehensive plans establish control strategies and guidance on regional emission reductions for air pollutants. Alternative B is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designations for Resort and Entertainment districts, which allow for a combination of commercial and retail land uses. Therefore, Alternative B is consistent with the population forecasts considered within the AQMP and the SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. In addition, Alternative B would be implemented in accordance with all applicable air quality management plans to ensure impacts to air quality are reduced to the greatest extent possible. Actions include, but are not limited to, the preparation of a standard dust control management plan in compliance with the CVSIP, and the enforcement of mitigation measures in the event that criteria pollutant thresholds are exceeded during construction activities. In conclusion, Alternative B is consistent with the intent of the AQMP and will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impacts of the proposed Project and Alternative B are virtually the same as they relate to consistency with the AQMP. No impact is anticipated. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Buildout of Alterative B will result in the direct and indirect generation and emission of air pollutants during construction and operation. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2, was used to estimate potential air pollutant emissions associated with this Alternative. CalEEMod output tables are provided in Appendix B of this EIR. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-9 Alternative B-Related Construction Emissions Alternative B assumes buildout of approximately 77,100 square feet of commercial development, 177 residential dwelling units, and 817 parking spaces. For analysis purposes, construction of Alternative B is assumed to occur over a two-year period starting in mid-2019 with buildout in mid-2021. Construction-related criteria pollutant emissions will be temporary and will end once construction is complete. It was also assumed that construction would require the export of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of surplus earthen material to the Classic Club, approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the subject property5. Therefore, it is assumed that each haul round trip would be approximately 5 miles. This represents a worse-case hauling distance, since the City may also allow the off-loading of Project-related soil export within vacant areas of the Desert Willow project, which are much closer than the 5 miles associated with the Classic Club location. The following table describes pollutant emissions during construction of Alternative B. Data represent maximum daily emissions expected over the 2-year buildout period. Table 3.3-4 Construction Emissions Summary: Alternative B (lbs./day) CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 Max. Daily Emissions 44.88 55.17 33.25 0.08 9.58 6.11 SCAQMD Threshold* 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this EIR for detailed tables. Value shown represents the average unmitigated emissions of summer and winter outputs. * Source: “SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds” prepared by SCAQMD. Note: PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are shown as “mitigated” in the CalEEMod output tables; however, the mitigation used is standard dust control requirements, such as watering exposed onsite soil 3 times per day. As shown in the table above, SCAQMD daily thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, SOx, PM10 and PM2.5 will not be exceeded during construction of Alternative B. Impacts will be less than significant and somewhat lower than the level of emissions generated by the proposed Project, whose impacts will also be less than significant. Alternative B-Related Operational Emissions The following table describes maximum daily pollutant emissions during operation of Alternative B. Per the Project-specific traffic impact analysis (Appendix H of this EIR), Alternative B would generate 3,610 weekday daily trips. As shown in the table, Alternative B operational 5 CalEEMod assumes the average haul load is 20 tons (or 16 cy) per trip. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-10 emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutant. Therefore, impacts are expected to be less than significant, and will be lower than impacts associated with the proposed Project, which will be significant and unavoidable for NOx. Table 3.3-5 Operational Emissions Summary: Alternative B (lbs./day) CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 Area 15.28 1.67 7.05 0.01 0.20 0.20 Energy 0.33 0.74 0.09 0.00 0.06 0.06 Mobile 66.20 63.77 7.71 0.23 11.99 3.32 TOTAL: 81.81 66.28 14.85 0.24 12.25 3.58 SCAQMD Threshold* 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this EIR for detailed tables. Value shown represents the average emissions of summer and winter outputs. * Source: “SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds” prepared by SCAQMD. Health Impacts Unlike the proposed Project, Alternative B will not exceed any criteria pollutant and will not substantially increase health risks locally or in the region. Cumulative Contribution: Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants Alternative B will contribute to increased regional PM10 emissions; however, its contributions will not be cumulatively considerable. As shown in the tables above, Alternative B-related PM10 emissions are projected to be well below established SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, Alternative B will result in incremental, but not cumulatively considerable impact on regional PM10 levels, and will have lower PM10 emissions than the proposed Project, whose impacts on this issue will also be less than significant. CO, NOx, and ROG are precursors to ozone, for which the Coachella Valley is in non-attainment. Alternative B will not exceed thresholds for and of these pollutants as shown in Table 3.3-6. Therefore, Alternative B will result in incremental, but not cumulatively considerable impact on regional ozone levels, and lower impacts than the proposed Project, whose cumulative impacts for NOx will be significant and unavoidable. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? As previously discussed in Section 2.3.6, the purpose of analyzing Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) is to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts to the nearest exposed individual or sensitive receptor. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are resort residences approximately 150 feet (45.72 meters) to the west, in the Westin Desert Willow villas project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-11 Similar to the proposed Project, maximum area of disturbance associated with buildout of Alternative B is approximately 17.69 acres, and it is assumed that buildout would occur over the course of two years. Although the total project area is greater than five acres, the area of daily disturbance (for purposes of LST analysis only) is limited to five acres or less per day at any given location. As such, the five-acre look up table is appropriate under the SCAQMD’s methodology to screen for potential localized air quality impacts.6 The Mass Rate Look-Up tables for LSTs were used to determine if Alternative B would have the potential to generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts during construction. The LST for Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30 (Coachella Valley) was used to determine LST emission thresholds. The distance from the emission source and the maximum daily site disturbance also determines emission thresholds. For analysis purposes, the worst-case scenario of a sensitive receptor being within 25 meters was used. The following table shows that LST thresholds are not expected to be exceeded for any criteria pollutant during construction. Because the Alternative B land uses do not include major stationary polluters (such as a landfill, chemical plant, oil field, refineries etc.), LST analysis was not conducted or required for operation. Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors will be less than significant, as will those for the proposed Project. Table 3.3-6 Localized Significance Thresholds: Alternative B (lbs per day) CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 Construction 44.88 55.17 9.58 6.11 LST Threshold* 2,292.00 304.00 14.00 8.00 Exceed? No No No No Source of Emission Data: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2, see Appendix B of this EIR. Source of LST Threshold: LST Mass Rate Look-up Table, 25 meters, 5 acres, SCAQMD. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Alternative B has the potential to result in short-term odors associated with operation of heavy equipment during grading, excavation, and other construction activities. However, construction-related odors would be temporary and quickly dispersed below detectable levels as distance from the construction area increases. During Project operation, odors may be emitted from onsite restaurants associated with the commercial land uses if proposed; however, all facilities would be equipped with proper ventilation systems to effectively remove 6 South Coast AQMD, “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds.” DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-12 grease, smoke, and other odors. Impacts associated with odors will be less than significant, as will those associated with the proposed Project. Alternative B is not expected to result in other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people. 3.3.2.2 Alternative B Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are not required for Alternative B. 3.3.2.3 Alternative B Significance After Mitigation Impacts will be less than significant. 3.3.2.4 Alternative B Cumulative Impacts Project-related cumulative impacts are addressed below and in Section 3.3.2.1.b, above. Regulation of Ozone CalEEMod does not calculate ozone emissions directly and therefore emissions of ozone precursors (CO, NOx, and ROG) were evaluated to determine Alternative B-related impacts to ozone. Ozone precursors are the primary pollutants involved in the chemical reaction process that forms ozone. Alternative B will not exceed thresholds for CO, NOx, or ROG during construction or operation. Therefore, Alternative B will result in incremental, but not cumulatively considerable impact on regional ozone levels, and in lower impacts than the proposed Project, whose impacts associated with NOx will be significant and unavoidable. Regulation of PM10 Similar to ozone, PM10 is regulated through the SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality Management Plan and 2003 PM10 Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan (CVSIP). Additional PM10 reduction measures include applicable state code and AQMD Rules, such as Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which enforces fugitive dust compliance for all activities within the SSAB. As shown in Section 3.3.2.1.b, Alternative B will not exceed local daily thresholds for PM10 during construction or operation. Therefore, cumulative impacts to PM10 are considered less than significant, and consistent with the level of impact resulting from the proposed Project. 3.3.3 Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.3.3.1 Alternative C Impacts a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Alternative C is consistent with the City’s zoning designations for the PR-5 Planned Residential zone. Therefore, Alternative C is consistent with the population forecasts considered within the AQMP and the SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-13 In addition, Alternative C would be implemented in accordance with all applicable air quality management plans to ensure impacts to air quality are reduced to the greatest extent possible. Actions include, but are not limited to, the preparation of a standard dust control management plan in compliance with the CVSIP, and the enforcement of mitigation measures in the event that criteria pollutant thresholds are exceeded during construction activities. In conclusion, Alternative C is consistent with the intent of the AQMP and will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impacts of the proposed Project and Alternative C are virtually the same as they relate to consistency with the AQMP. No impact is anticipated. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Buildout of Alterative C will result in the direct and indirect generation and emission of air pollutants during construction and operation. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2, was used to estimate potential air pollutant emissions associated with this Alternative. CalEEMod output tables are provided in Appendix B of this EIR. Alternative C-Related Construction Emissions Alternative C assumes the maximum density in the PR-5 zone allowed for the Project site is 5 dwelling units per acre. At buildout, Alternative C would include approximately 89 dwelling units and 178 parking spaces. For analysis purposes, construction of Alternative C is assumed to occur over a two-year period starting in mid-2019 with buildout in mid-2021. Construction- related criteria pollutant emissions will be temporary and will end once construction is complete. It was also assumed that construction would require the export of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of surplus earthen material to the Classic Club, approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the subject property7. Therefore, it is assumed that each haul round trip would be approximately 5 miles. This represents a worse-case hauling distance, since the City may also allow the off-loading of Project-related soil export within vacant areas of the Desert Willow project, which are much closer than the 5 miles associated with the Classic Club location. The following table describes pollutant emissions during construction of Alternative C. Data represent maximum daily emissions expected over the 2-year buildout period. 7 CalEEMod assumes the average haul load is 20 tons (or 16 cy) per trip. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-14 Table 3.3-7 Construction Emissions Summary: Alternative C (lbs./day) CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 Max. Daily Emissions 44.88 55.17 22.68 0.08 9.58 6.11 SCAQMD Threshold* 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this EIR for detailed tables. Value shown represents the average unmitigated emissions of summer and winter outputs. * Source: “SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds” prepared by SCAQMD. Note: PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are shown as “mitigated” in the CalEEMod output tables; however, the mitigation used is standard dust control requirements, such as watering exposed onsite soil 3 times per day. As shown in the table above, SCAQMD daily thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, SOx, PM10 and PM2.5 will not be exceeded during construction of Alternative C. Impacts will be less than significant, and lower than those of the proposed Project, which are also less than significant. Alternative C-Related Operational Emissions Operational emissions are those released over the long-term life of the project. They include emissions generated by area, energy, and mobile sources. Area sources include consumable products, such as building maintenance and cleaning supplies, kitchen and restroom supplies, pavement off-gassing, and periodic reapplication of architectural coatings. Energy sources include the direct and indirect use of fossil fuels for energy, including natural gas and electricity use in buildings, parking lot lighting, ventilation equipment, and elevators. Mobile emissions are generated by motor vehicle trips. The following table describes maximum daily pollutant emissions during operation of Alternative C. Per the traffic impact analysis (Appendix H of this EIR), Alternative C would generate 840 weekday daily trips. As shown in the table, Alternative C operational emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutant. Therefore, impacts are expected to be less than significant, and substantially lower than those generated by the proposed Project, whose impacts for NOx will be significant and unavoidable. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-15 Health Impacts Unlike the proposed Project, Alternative C will not exceed any criteria pollutant and will not substantially increase health risks locally or in the region. Cumulative Contribution: Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants Alternative C will contribute to increased regional PM10 emissions; however, its contributions will not be cumulatively considerable. As shown in the tables above, Alternative C-related PM10 emissions are projected to be well below established SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, Alternative C will result in incremental, but not cumulatively considerable impact on regional PM10 levels, consistent with the less than significant cumulative impact resulting from the proposed Project. CO, NOx, and ROG are precursors to ozone, for which the Coachella Valley is in non-attainment. Alternative C will not exceed thresholds for and of these pollutants as shown in Table 3.3-9. Therefore, Alternative C will result in incremental, but not cumulatively considerable impact on regional ozone levels, which will be substantially less than those generated by the proposed Project, whose impacts resulting from NOx emissions will be substantial and unavoidable. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Similar to the proposed Project, maximum area of disturbance associated with buildout of Alternative C is approximately 17.69 acres, and it is assumed that buildout would occur over the course of two years. Although the total project area is greater than five acres, the area of daily disturbance (for purposes of LST analysis only) is limited to five acres or less per day at any given location. As such, the five-acre look up table is appropriate under the SCAQMD’s methodology to screen for potential localized air quality impacts.8 8 South Coast AQMD, “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds.” Table 3.3-8 Operational Emissions Summary: Alternative C (lbs./day) CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 Area 7.68 0.84 4.33 0.00 0.10 0.10 Energy 0.29 0.69 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.06 Mobile 19.83 16.49 1.96 0.07 4.09 1.13 TOTAL: 27.80 18.02 6.37 0.07 4.25 1.29 SCAQMD Threshold* 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this EIR for detailed tables. Value shown represents the average emissions of summer and winter outputs. * Source: “SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds” prepared by SCAQMD. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-16 The Mass Rate Look-Up tables for LSTs were used to determine if Alternative C would have the potential to generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts during construction. The LST for Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30 (Coachella Valley) was used to determine LST emission thresholds. The distance from the emission source and the maximum daily site disturbance also determines emission thresholds. For analysis purposes, the worst-case scenario of a sensitive receptor being within 25 meters was used. The following table shows that LST thresholds are not expected to be exceeded for any criteria pollutant during construction. Because the Alternative C land uses do not include major stationary polluters (such as a landfill, chemical plant, oil field, refineries etc.), LST analysis was not conducted or required for operation. Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors will be less than significant, as will those of the proposed Project. Table 3.3-9 Localized Significance Thresholds: Alternative C (lbs per day) CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 Construction 44.88 55.17 9.58 6.11 LST Threshold* 2,292.00 304.00 14.00 8.00 Exceed? No No No No Source of Emission Data: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2, see Appendix B of this EIR. Source of LST Threshold: LST Mass Rate Look-up Table, 25 meters, 5 acres, SCAQMD. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant. Alternative C has the potential to result in short-term odors associated with operation of heavy equipment during grading, excavation, and other construction activities. However, construction-related odors would be temporary and quickly dispersed below detectable levels as distance from the construction area increases. Residential land uses do no typically generate objectionable odors. Impacts associated with odors will be less than significant. Alternative C is not expected to result in other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people. 3.3.3.2 Alternative C Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are not required for Alternative C. 3.3.3.3 Alternative C Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.3-17 3.3.3.4 Alternative C Cumulative Impacts Project-related cumulative impacts are addressed below and in Section 3.3.3.1.b, above. Regulation of Ozone CalEEMod does not calculate ozone emissions directly and therefore emissions of ozone precursors (CO, NOx, and ROG) were evaluated to determine Alternative C-related impacts to ozone. Ozone precursors are the primary pollutants involved in the chemical reaction process that forms ozone. Alternative C will not exceed thresholds for CO, NOx, or ROG during construction or operation. Therefore, Alternative B will result in incremental, but not cumulatively considerable impact on regional ozone levels. Impacts will be less than significant, and lower than cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project. Regulation of PM10 Similar to ozone, PM10 is regulated through the SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality Management Plan and 2003 PM10 Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan (CVSIP). Additional PM10 reduction measures include applicable state code and AQMD Rules, such as Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which enforces fugitive dust compliance for all activities within the SSAB. As shown in Section 3.3.3.1.b, Alternative C will not exceed local daily thresholds for PM10 during construction or operation. Therefore, cumulative impacts to PM10 are considered less than significant, as they are for the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.4-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.4 Biological Resources This section of the EIR analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed alternatives to biological resources. The Project site is located in the Coachella Valley which is at the western edge of the Colorado Desert subdivision of the Sonoran Desert. A wide range of common plant and animal species are reported in this region. The project’s potential impacts to these resources are discussed and compared to the proposed Project. 3.4.1 Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.4.1.1 Alternative A Impacts a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? As described in Section 2.4, various special-status species have been reported in the project vicinity (Please see Table 2.4.1 through 2.4.3. in Section 2.4.). Since the site was previously graded, and daily disturbances of human activity on the adjacent Desert Willow Golf Resort occur, there is a low potential for Alternative A to adversely impact sensitive biological species. Although no sensitive plant species or sensitive wildlife species were observed or detected on the project site, Alternative A would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1, and pay the local development mitigation fee under the CVMSHCP. Alternative A would result in the disturbance of the entire site to allow the construction of a 500 room hotel and associated facilities. The site contains potential habitat for burrowing owl, and bushes and trees on and adjacent to the site have the potential to harbor migratory birds. Therefore, consistent with Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3, Alternative A would be required to perform pre-construction surveys to reduce impacts to birds to less than significant levels. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.4-2 Overall, as is the case for the proposed Project, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, potential impacts to sensitive species associated with the Alternative A would be less than significant, and consistent with the impacts of the proposed Project. 3.4.1.2 Alternative A Mitigation Measures Please see Section 2.4.7., Mitigation Measures for further reference. There will be no need for any change or addition of mitigation measures under this alternative. 3.4.1.3 Alternative A Significance After Mitigation Alternative A will be subject to the same mitigation measures provided in Section 2.4.7 as the proposed Project. With the application of those mitigation measures, impacts associated with biological resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level. 3.4.1.4 Alternative A Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impact to biological resources is analyzed using the summary of projections method for Alternative A. Based on the analysis, the site has been disturbed by paving, grading, and installation of irrigation systems, and it is completely surrounded by urban development. Therefore, the onsite habitat quality has been degraded, and the potential for it to harbor sensitive species is very low to low. Furthermore, the Project site is not within any CVMSCHP designated Conservation Area and does not contain any wildlife movement corridors or linkages. Also, it does not contain any riparian areas or jurisdictional water features. Mitigation measures are provided in Section 2.4.7, which would also apply to Alternative A, to reduce impacts to birds. All projects within the boundary of the CVMSHCP are required to contribute mitigation fees for the purchase of sensitive habitat, whose cumulative protection will serve to protect species in the long term. Overall, Alternative A’s contribution to cumulative biological impacts will not be cumulatively considerable. 3.4.2 Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.4.2.1 Alternative B Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.4-3 As is the case under all alternatives, the site has been previously graded. Also, it is located within an area which experiences human activity due to the adjacent Desert Willow Golf Course. Therefore, there is a low potential for Alternative B to adversely impact sensitive biological species. Although no sensitive plant species or sensitive wildlife species were observed or detected on the project site, Alternative B would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1, and pay the local development mitigation fee under the CVMSHCP. Alternative B would result in the disturbance of the entire site to allow the construction of commercial and residential development and associated parking. The site contains potential habitat for burrowing owl, and bushes and trees on and adjacent to the site have the potential to harbor migratory birds. Therefore, consistent with Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3, Alternative B would be required to perform pre-construction surveys to reduce impacts to birds to less than significant levels. Overall, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, potential impacts to sensitive species associated with the Alternative B would be less than significant, and consistent with the impacts of the proposed Project. 3.4.2.2 Alternative B Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, provided in Section 2.4. for the proposed Project will also be applicable to Alternative B. There will be no need for any change or addition of mitigation measures under this alternative. 3.4.2.3 Alternative B Significance After Mitigation Alternative B will be subject to the same mitigation measures as the proposed Project. With the application of those mitigation measures, impacts associated with the biological resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level. 3.4.2.4 Alternative B Cumulative Impacts All alternatives, including Alternative B, will disturb the same area, and would result in the same loss of native habitat. As is the case with the proposed Project, and as described in Section 3.4.1.4, cumulative impacts associated with Alternative B will be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.4-4 3.4.3 Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.4.3.1 Alternative C Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? There is a low potential for the proposed alternative C to adversely impact sensitive biological species. Although no sensitive plant species or sensitive wildlife species were observed or detected on the project site, Alternative C would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1, and would pay the local development mitigation fee under the CVMSHCP. Alternative C would result in the disturbance of the entire site to allow the construction of single family homes. The site contains potential habitat for burrowing owl, and bushes and trees on and adjacent to the site have the potential to harbor migratory birds. Therefore, consistent with Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3, Alternative C would be required to perform pre-construction surveys to reduce impacts to birds to less than significant levels. With the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, potential impacts to sensitive species associated with this alternative would be less than significant, and consistent with the proposed Project. 3.4.3.2 Alternative C Mitigation Measures Alternative C will be subject to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 provided in Section 2.4. for the proposed Project. There will be no need for any change or addition of mitigation measures under this alternative. 3.4.3.3 Alternative C Significance After Mitigation Impacts will be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. 3.4.3.4 Alternative C Cumulative Impacts All alternatives, including Alternative C, will disturb the same area, and would result in the same loss of native habitat. As is the case with the proposed Project, and as described in Section 3.4.1.4, cumulative impacts associated with Alternative C will be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.5-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.5 Cultural and Tribal Resources This section of the EIR analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed alternatives on cultural resources, including Native American tribal cultural resources, archaeological resources, historic resources, and human remains. The Project site is located on the Coachella Valley floor which has been home to Native Americans for millennia. Scattered cultural resources have been reported throughout the valley. The potential impacts to these resources are discussed and where needed, mitigation measures are set forth. Given that all alternatives occur on the same site as the proposed Project, the regulatory framework, environmental setting and existing condition analysis provided in Section 2.5 also applies to all alternatives analyzed below. 3.5.1 Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.5.1.1 Alternative A Impacts Cultural Resources a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? The project site is partially developed with an existing surface lot currently. Under Alternative A, the project site will be developed with a 5-story luxury hotel, landscaping, pool/recreation facilities, and parking. As discussed in Section 2.5.6., there are no historic resources on the Project site so Alternative A would not have any impact on historic resources as defined in § 15064, similar to the proposed Project. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.5-2 The project site is within the traditional use area of Native American tribes, and the potential exists for archaeological resources to be uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. Potential impacts are not expected to be significant because the site was previously graded and disturbed with installation of an irrigation system. However, features or artifacts of prehistoric origin may be uncovered during the project development under Alternative A. To reduce the potential impact to less than significant, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 were provided for the proposed Project, requiring worker education and monitoring if resources are identified, which will also be applicable to Alternative A. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts associated with archaeological resources would be less than significant, and consistent with the proposed Project. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Under Alternative A, the project will be developed with a hotel, landscaping, pool/recreation facilities, and parking on a site which does not contain a formal cemetery. However, the site is within the traditional use area of Native American tribes, and the potential exists for human remains to be unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, such as grading and excavation, under Alternative A. To reduce the impact to less than significant levels, Mitigation Measure CUL- 3, provided in Section 2.5.6., will be applicable to this alternative, which will reduce impacts to less than significant levels, as it will under the proposed Project. Tribal Cultural Resources a) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative A will not have any impact on a tribal historic resource that is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources because none occur onsite. No impact is anticipated. ii) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1h, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.5-3 The project site does not contain any tribal cultural resources. However, as discussed in Section 2.5, the site is within the Traditional Use Area of the ACBCI. Based on the tribe’s concerns, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 are provided in Section 2.5 to reduce the impact to less than significant levels. Those mitigation measures will also be applicable to this alternative. 3.5.1.2 Alternative A Mitigation Measures Please see Section 2.5.7., Mitigation Measures for further reference. There will be no need for any change or addition of mitigation measures under this alternative. 3.5.1.3 Alternative A Significance After Mitigation Alternative A will be subject to the same mitigation measures as the proposed Project. With the application of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 2.5.7, impacts associated with cultural and tribal cultural resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level, consistent with the proposed project. 3.5.1.4 Alternative A Cumulative Impacts The geographic scope of analysis of potential cumulative impacts on cultural, historical, and tribal resources includes the Project site, its immediate vicinity, and the traditional use areas of the Cahuilla people in the Coachella Valley. A Project would contribute considerably to cumulative impacts if it were to have a substantial or significant adverse effect on such resources in the Coachella Valley. As discussed above and Section 2.5., no cultural, historical, and archaeological resources are identified on the projects site. It is located within the traditional use area of the Cahuilla people, and mitigation measures are provided to reduce any potential impacts to buried resources, which will also reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. 3.5.2 Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.5.2.1 Alternative B Impacts Cultural Resources a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5? As discussed in Section 2.5., there are no historic resources on the project site so development under Alternative B would not have any impact on historic resources as defined in § 15064, similar to the proposed Project. No impact is anticipated. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.5-4 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? No archaeological resources were observed at the project site during field surveys in 2018, however, it is within the traditional use area of Native American tribes, so the potential exists for archaeological resources to be uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. To reduce the potential impact to less than significant levels, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 were provided for the proposed Project which will also be applicable to this alternative. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Under Alternative B, the project site will be developed with residential and commercial land uses. The project site is not known to contain any formal cemetery, however, the site is within the traditional use area of Native American tribes, and the potential exists for human remains to be unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, such as grading and excavation. To reduce the impact to less than significant levels, Mitigation Measures CUL-3, provided in Section 2.5., will be applicable to this alternative. Overall, with implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts associated with archaeological resources would be less than significant, and consistent with the impacts of the proposed Project. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES a) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Similar to the proposed Project, this alternative will not have any impact on a tribal historic resource that is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources because none occur onsite. No impact is anticipated. ii) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1h, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.5-5 Although, the project site does not contain any tribal cultural resources, it is located within the Traditional Use Area of the ACBCI. Based on the tribe’s concerns, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 are provided in Section 2.5 to reduce the impact to less than significant levels, consistent with the proposed Project. 3.5.2.2 Alternative B Mitigation Measures Please see Section 2.5.7., Mitigation Measures for further reference. There will be no need for any change or addition of mitigation measures under Alternative B. 3.5.2.3 Alternative B Significance After Mitigation Alternative B will be subject to the same mitigation measures as the proposed Project. With the application of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 2.5.7, impacts associated with cultural and tribal cultural resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level. 3.5.2.4 Alternative B Cumulative Impacts As discussed in Section 2.5., no cultural, historical, and archaeological resources are identified on the project site, however, it is located within the traditional use area of the Cahuilla. Mitigation measures are provided in Section 2.5 to reduce any potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources and thus reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant levels, consistent with the proposed Project. 3.5.3 Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.5.3.1 Alternative C Impacts Cultural Resources a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5? No historic resource was found on the site, so development of Alternative C would not have any impact on historic resources as defined in § 15064. No impact is anticipated. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? As is the case with the proposed Project and all alternatives, there is a low potential for archaeological resources to be uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. To reduce the potential impact to less than significant levels, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 were DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.5-6 provided for the proposed Project, and will also be applicable to this alternative. With mitigation, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels and would be the same as the proposed Project. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Under Alternative C, the project site will be developed with 89 single-family units. The project site is not known to contain any formal cemetery, however, the site is within the traditional use area of Native American tribes, and the potential exists for human remains to be unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, such as grading and excavation. To reduce the impact to less than significant levels, Mitigation Measure CUL-3, provided in Section 2.5, will be applicable to this alternative, consistent with the proposed Project. Tribal Resources a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Alternative C will not have any impact on a tribal historic resource that is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources because none occur onsite. No impact is anticipated. ii) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1h, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Although, the project site does not contain any tribal cultural resources, it is located within the Traditional Use Area of the ACBCI. Based on the tribe’s concerns, mitigation measure CUL-1 and CUL-2 are provided in Section 2.5 to reduce the impact to less than significant levels, consistent with the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.5-7 3.5.3.2 Alternative C Mitigation Measures Please see Section 2.5.7., Mitigation Measures for further reference. There will be no need for any change or addition of mitigation measures under Alternative C. 3.5.3.3 Alternative C Significance After Mitigation This alternative will be subject to the same mitigation measures as the proposed Project. With the application of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 2.5.7, impacts associated with cultural and tribal cultural resources will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. 3.5.3.4 Alternative C Cumulative Impacts A Project would contribute considerably to cumulative impacts if it were to have a substantial or significant adverse effect on such resources in the Coachella Valley. No cultural, historical, or archaeological resources are identified on the project site, however, it is located within the tribe’s traditional use area. Mitigation measures are provided in Section 2.5.7. to reduce any potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources, which also reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.6-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.6 Energy This section describes existing energy use and systems at the Project Site and vicinity, including electrical and natural gas use and infrastructure and fuel use. It also evaluates potential impacts on energy resources such as electricity, natural gas, and transportation energy and service systems that could occur as a result of implementing the project alternatives and analyzes the level of impact these alternatives would have on these resources. Given that all alternatives occur on the same site as the proposed Project, the regulatory framework, environmental setting and existing condition analysis provided in Section 2.6 also applies to all alternatives analyzed below. 3.6.1 Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.6.1.1 Alternative A Impacts a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Construction Energy Demand Electricity Construction of the hotel and parking lot(s) proposed under this alternative would require the use of energy, such as the use of fuels for vehicles and electricity to run equipment. Construction activities would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of electricity if construction equipment is old or not well maintained; if equipment is left to idle when not in use; or if excess lighting is used during construction activities. Temporary electrical lines will be extended to the site under this alternative, as they would for the proposed Project. Activities requiring electricity during construction would be consistent with those associated with the proposed Project, and could include powering outdoor security DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.6-2 or worksite lighting, operation and charging of electronic equipment, and powering a temporary worksite office or trailer. Such electricity demand would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Compared to the proposed Project, Alternative A will consume less electricity during construction due to fewer buildings and associated structures. Overall, less than significant impacts are anticipated, and impacts would be somewhat less than the proposed Project. Natural Gas: Similar to the proposed Project, construction of Alternative A would not involve any use of natural gas. No impact is anticipated. Transportation Energy Petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel would be consumed by construction equipment and workers throughout the construction phase of Alternative A. For analysis purposes, construction of Alternative A is assumed to occur over a two-year period starting in mid-2019 with buildout in mid-2021. It is assumed that each haul round trip would be approximately 5 miles for this alternative which represents a worse-case hauling distance, since the City may also allow the off-loading of Project-related soil export within vacant areas of the Desert Willow project, which are much closer than the 5 miles associated with the Classic Club location. Alternative A would require substantially less off-site hauling, because grading activities for the lagoon would not occur, and subsurface parking might not be required. Compared to the proposed Project, Alternative A will generate less VMTs during construction due to fewer trips being required for construction of buildings and associated structures. Overall, less than significant impacts are anticipated, and although less than significant impacts are also anticipated for the proposed Project, impacts associated with Alternative A would be lower than for the proposed Project. Operational Energy Demand Electricity The operation of the hotel building under Alternative A would consume approximately 13,169,600 kWh of electricity for various purposes, such as, ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC), refrigeration, lighting, electronics, office and security equipment, commercial machinery (including kitchen and laundry appliances), swimming pool lighting and maintenance etc. (Table 3.6-1 Energy Consumption Estimates for the proposed Project and Its Alternatives).1 Alternative A’s electricity demand would represent a 1.74 percent increase in annual City-wide kWh usage. Under Alternative A, electricity consumption would be approximately 34 percent less than for the proposed Project. 1 CalEEMod outputs for Alternative A. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.6-3 To reduce the electricity usage at the project site, Alternative A would comply with the current California Building Code and Energy Code standards. Alternative A will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electrical energy resources during project operation and therefore impacts would be less than significant, and less than those associated with the proposed Project. Natural Gas At buildout, Alternative A would consume approximately 435,673 therms of natural gas for heating, cooking, and powering industrial type equipment such as furnaces, which would be equivalent to a 2.48 percent increase in annual City-wide therm usage (Table 3.6-1 Energy Consumption Estimates for the proposed Project and Its Alternatives). This alternative’s natural gas demand would be approximately 31 percent greater than for the proposed Project due to the construction of the 5-story hotel with a maximum of 500 rooms. As would be the case with electricity, this alternative would comply with the current California Building Code and Energy Code standards to reduce the consumption. Alternative A will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of natural gas during project operation and impacts would be less than significant, but almost twice the natural gas usage of the proposed Project. Transportation Energy Alternative A is estimated to generate 4,180 daily vehicle trips under typical daily operations, which would include a mix of hotel guests, employees, and visitors. Based on this trip generation, Alternative A could potentially generate 6,207,474 VMTs, resulting 1.7 percent increase in City-wide VMTs (Table 3.6-1). It should be noted that VMTs are regional in nature, and that not all Project VMTs will occur solely within the City’s boundaries. By locating a hotel at an infill location in close proximity to existing golf courses, commercial, residential, and retail destinations and in close proximity to existing public transit stops, this alternative would minimize vehicle trips and VMT. This alternative would be consistent with and support the goals and benefits of the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, which seeks improved access and mobility by placing destinations closer together, thereby decreasing the time and cost of traveling between them.2 Alternative A would reduce the VMTs associated with the site by 6,005,743 from the proposed Project. Overall, although Alternative A will result in a direct decrease in VMTs, it will not interfere with increased fuel efficiency standards and will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy resources during operation. Impacts are expected to be less than significant, as they are under the proposed Project, and less than the proposed Project. 2 Southern California Association of Governments, The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, April 2016, page 16, http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf. Accessed January 2019. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.6-4 Table 3.6-1 Energy Consumption Estimates for the proposed Project and Its Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Electricity 20,011,725 kWh per year 13,169,600 kWh per year 1,834,039 kWh per year 775,767 kWh per year Natural Gas 331,811 therms per year 435,673 therms per year 29,279 therms per year 27,231 therms per year Vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) 12,213,217 VMT annually 6,207,474 VMT annually 5,500,133 VMT annually 1,879,372 VMT annually Sources: CalEEMod Modelling for the proposed Project and its alternatives in February 2019. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Alternative A would be designed, built and operated in accordance with all existing, applicable regulations that would serve to reduce the energy demand of the project and avoid conflict with any applicable energy standards, including energy conservation standards. Such regulations and standards include the 2016 Building Code, California Green Building Code, and 2019 Energy Code to ensure the most efficient construction/building technologies are used, which will benefit overall building operations. Alternative A is not anticipated to interfere with any state or local plan that promotes renewable energy or energy efficiency to result any conflict. Similar to the proposed Project, no impact is anticipated. 3.6.1.2 Alternative A Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures would be required under Alternative A. 3.6.1.3 Alternative A Significance After Mitigation Impacts associated with Alternative A would be less than significant, and somewhat less than the less than significant impacts associated with the proposed Project. 3.6.1.4 Alternative A Cumulative Impacts Alternative A would result in cumulative impacts on energy resources if it would result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. Growth in the Coachella Valley is anticipated to increase the demand for electricity, natural gas, and transportation energy which would result in the need for more infrastructure and energy resources. Projects that include development of large buildings or other structures that would have the potential to consume energy in an inefficient manner would have the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.6-5 Alternative A would result in a decrease in the consumption of electricity and transportation- related energy, and would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy due to design features, including design to accommodate a balanced mix of uses internal to the project, installation of energy-efficient appliances and efficient water fixtures. Similar to the proposed Project, the cumulative projects would be subject to CALGreen, which provides energy efficiency standards for commercial buildings. CALGreen would implement increasingly stringent energy efficiency standards that would require this alternative and the cumulative projects to minimize the wasteful and inefficient use of energy. In addition, cumulative projects would be required to meet or exceed the Title 24 building standards, further reducing the inefficient use of energy. Alternative A would also be required to meet even more stringent requirements, including the objectives set in the AB 32 Scoping Plan (CARB 2017), which would seek to make all new commercial buildings zero net energy (ZNE) consumers by 2030.3 Furthermore, various federal, state and local regulations would serve to reduce the transportation fuel demand of cumulative projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to energy resources are considered less than significant. 3.6.2 Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.6.2.1 Alternative B Impacts a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Construction Energy Demand Electricity Similar to the proposed Project, during the construction of the project under Alternative B, temporary electrical lines will be extended to the site for construction. The activities requiring electricity could include powering outdoor security or worksite lighting, operation and charging of electronic equipment, and powering a temporary worksite office or trailer, consistent with the proposed Project and all alternatives. Electricity demand would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Compared to the proposed Project, Alternative B will consume less electricity during construction due to the reduced intensity of the alternative, resulting in fewer and smaller structures. Overall, less than significant impacts somewhat lower than the proposed Project are anticipated. 3 Zero Net Energy - California Public Utilities Commission Energy Division; http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/ZNE/. Accessed December 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.6-6 Natural Gas Similar to the proposed Project, construction of the Alternative B would not involve any use of natural gas. No impact is anticipated. Transportation Energy For analysis purposes, construction of Alternative B is assumed also to occur over a two-year period starting in mid-2019 with buildout in mid-2021. This alternative is assumed to generate haul round trips of approximately 5 miles, but with far fewer trips than the proposed Project, because no lagoon or subsurface parking areas would likely be required. It should be noted that these trips would be temporary and once construction is completed, petroleum consumption will cease. Petroleum use during construction would be temporary and minimal and would not be consumed in wasteful manner. Compared to the proposed Project, Alternative B will generate fewer VMTs during construction due to lesser number of trips required for hauling and construction of buildings and associated structures. Overall, less than significant impacts, which would be somewhat lower than those generated by the proposed Project are anticipated. Operational Energy Demand Electricity The operation of the residential and commercial land uses under Alternative B would consume approximately 1,834,039 kWh of electricity for ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC), refrigeration, lighting, electronics, office and security equipment, commercial machinery (including kitchen and laundry appliances), swimming pool lighting and maintenance etc. (Table 3.6-1). Alternative B’s electricity demand would represent a 0.24 percent increase in annual City-wide kWh usage. Alternative B’s electricity consumption would be approximately 91 percent less than for the proposed Project. Alternative B would comply with the current California Building Code and Energy Code standards to reduce the electricity usage at the project site. Alternative B will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electrical energy resources during project operation and impacts would be less than significant, and considerably less than the proposed Project. Natural Gas Alternative B would consume approximately 29,279 therms of natural gas for heating, cooking, and powering industrial type equipment such as furnaces (Table 3.6-1). This alternative’s natural gas demand would be equivalent to 0.17 percent increase in annual City wide therm usage. This alternative’s natural gas demand would be approximately 87 percent less than for the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.6-7 As would be the case with electricity, this alternative would comply with the current California Building Code and Energy Code standards to reduce the natural gas consumption. Alternative B will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of natural gas during project operation and impacts would be less than significant, and considerably less than the proposed Project. Transportation Energy Alternative B is estimated to generate 3,610 daily vehicle trips under typical daily operations, which would include a mix of residence, employees, and visitors. The project under this alternative could potentially generate 5,500,133 VMTs, resulting in a 1.5 percent increase in City-wide VMTs (Table 3.6-1). It should be noted that VMTs are regional in nature, and that not all Project VMTs will occur solely within the City’s boundaries. By locating residential and commercial land uses at an infill location in close proximity to existing golf courses, commercial, residential, and retail destinations and in close proximity to existing public transit stops, this alternative would minimize vehicle trips and VMT. Alternative B would be consistent with and support the goals and benefits of the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, which seeks improved access and mobility by placing destinations closer together, thereby decreasing the time and cost of traveling between them.4 Alternative B would result in a reduction in total VMT by approximately 55 percent from the proposed Project. Alternative B is not anticipated to interfere with increased fuel efficiency standards and will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy resources during operation. Impacts would be less than significant. Overall energy usage would be less than the proposed Project. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Alternative B would also be designed, built and operated in accordance with all existing, applicable regulations that would serve to reduce the energy demand of the project and avoid conflict with any applicable energy standards, including energy conservation standards. Alternative B is not anticipated to interfere with any state or local plan that promotes renewable energy or energy efficiency to result any conflict. Similar to the proposed Project, no impact is anticipated. 3.6.2.2 Alternative B Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures would be required under Alternative B. 4 Ibid. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.6-8 3.6.2.3 Alternative B Significance After Mitigation Impacts associated with Alternative B would be less than significant, and considerably lower than those associated with the proposed Project, whose impacts are also less than significant. 3.6.2.4 Alternative B Cumulative Impacts Alternative B would reduce the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and transportation- related energy, and would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy due to better technology and design features. Similar to the proposed Project, all cumulative projects would be subject to CALGreen, which provides energy efficiency standards for commercial buildings. CALGreen would implement increasingly stringent energy efficiency standards that would require this alternative and the cumulative projects to minimize the wasteful and inefficient use of energy. In addition, cumulative projects would be required to meet or exceed the Title 24 building standards, further reducing the inefficient use of energy. This alternative would also be required to meet even more stringent requirements, including the objectives set in the AB 32 Scoping Plan (CARB 2017), which would seek to make all newly constructed residential homes ZNE consumers by 20205, and all new commercial buildings ZNE consumers by 2030.6 Furthermore, various federal, state and local regulations would serve to reduce the transportation fuel demand of cumulative projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to energy resources are considered less than significant. 3.6.3 Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.6.3.1 Alternative C Impacts a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Construction Energy Demand Electricity Similar to the proposed Project, temporary electrical lines would be extended for Alternative C. Activities requiring electricity could include powering outdoor security or worksite lighting, operation and charging of electronic equipment, and powering a temporary worksite office or 5 New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan 2015-2020 – Executive Summary by California Public Utilities Commission Energy Division and California Energy Commission Efficiency Division. 6 Zero Net Energy - California Public Utilities Commission Energy Division; http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/ZNE/. Accessed December 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.6-9 trailer. Such electricity demand would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Because of the reduced development potential associated with this alternative and resulting in 89 residential units, Alternative C would use less electricity than the proposed Project during construction. Overall, less than significant impacts are anticipated. Natural Gas Similar to the proposed Project, construction of this alternative would not involve any use of natural gas. No impact is anticipated. Transportation Energy Petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel would be consumed by construction equipment and workers throughout construction of the Alternative C. . As is the case with all alternatives, Alternative C would require considerably fewer haul trips than the proposed Project, because the construction of single family homes will not require excavation for subsurface parking or for a lagoon. It should be noted that these trips would be temporary and once the construction is completed, petroleum consumption will cease. Compared to the proposed Project, this alternative will generate fewer VMTs during construction due to the reduced number of trips required for construction of 89 single family homes. Overall, less than significant impacts are anticipated, which would be lower than those associated with the proposed Project. Operational Energy Demand Electricity At buildout, 89 dwelling would consume approximately 775,767 kWh of electricity for ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC), refrigeration, lighting, electronics, security equipment, kitchen and laundry appliances, swimming pool lighting and maintenance (Table 3.6-1), which would represent a 0.1 percent increase in annual City-wide kWh usage. This alternative’s electricity consumption would be approximately 96 percent less than for the proposed Project. Alternative C would comply with the current California Building Code and Energy Code standards. Alternative C will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electrical energy resources during project operation and impacts would be less than significant. Natural Gas Alternative C would consume approximately 27,231 therms of natural gas for heating, cooking, and pool equipment (Table 3.6-1). Alternative C’s natural gas demand would be equivalent to a 0.15 percent increase in annual City-wide therm usage. This alternative’s natural gas demand would be approximately 88 percent less than for the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.6-10 As would be the case with electricity, Alternative C would comply with the current California Building Code and Energy Code standards to reduce the consumption and will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of natural gas during project operation and impacts would be less than significant. Transportation Energy Alternative C would generate a total of 840 weekday daily trips during operation. This alternative could potentially generate 1,879,372 VMTs resulting in a 0.50 percent increase in City-wide VMTs (Table 3.6-1). This alternative will also benefit from close proximity to existing golf courses, commercial, residential, and retail destinations and existing public transit stops, reducing VMT. This alternative would be consistent with and support the goals and benefits of the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS.7 Alternative C would reduce total VMT by approximately 85 percent from the proposed Project. Alternative C will not interfere with increased fuel efficiency standards and will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy resources during operation. Impacts would be less than significant, and considerably less than those associated with the proposed Project. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Dwelling units proposed under Alternative C would also be designed, built and operated in accordance with all existing, applicable regulations that would serve to reduce the energy demand of the project and avoid conflict with any applicable energy standards, including energy conservation standards. Such regulations and standards include the 2016 Building Code, California Green Building Code, and 2019 Energy Code to ensure the most efficient construction/building technologies are used, which will benefit overall building operations. Alternative C is not anticipated to interfere with any state or local plan that promotes renewable energy or energy efficiency to result any conflict. Similar to the proposed Project, no impact is anticipated under this alternative. 3.6.3.2 Alternative C Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures would be required under Alternative C. 7 Southern California Association of Governments, The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, April 2016, page 16, http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf. Accessed January 2019. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.6-11 3.6.3.3 Alternative C Significance After Mitigation Impacts associated with Alternative C would be less than significant. 3.6.3.4 Alternative C Cumulative Impacts Alternative C involves 89 dwelling units which would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy due to conformance with every-more stringent building codes, and design features, including installation of energy-efficient appliances and efficient water fixtures. Similar to the proposed Project, all cumulative projects would be subject to CALGreen, which provides energy efficiency standards for commercial buildings. CALGreen would implement increasingly stringent energy efficiency standards that would require this alternative and the cumulative projects to minimize the wasteful and inefficient use of energy. In addition, cumulative projects would be required to meet or exceed the Title 24 building standards, further reducing the inefficient use of energy. Alternative C would also be required to meet even more stringent requirements, including the objectives set in the AB 32 Scoping Plan (CARB 2017), which would seek to make all newly constructed residential homes ZNE consumers by 20208. Furthermore, various federal, state and local regulations would serve to reduce the transportation fuel demand of cumulative projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to energy resources are considered less than significant. 8 New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan 2015-2020 – Executive Summary by California Public Utilities Commision Energy Division and california Energy Commision Efficiency Division. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.7-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.7. Geology and Soils This section of the EIR analyzes the potential impacts to the alternatives to the proposed Project based on regional and/or local geology and soils. The Project site is located within the Coachella Valley which is under the influence of two major geologic fault zones: the San Andreas Fault Zone and San Jacinto Fault Zone. The nearest earthquake fault is the Banning branch of the San Andreas Fault Zone, approximately six miles northeast of the site, which is capable of generating magnitude 5+ earthquakes. Regional soils range from rocky outcrops within the mountains bordering the valley to coarse gravels of mountain canyons and recently laid fine- and medium-grained alluvial (stream deposited) and aeolian (wind deposited) sediments on the central valley floor. The valley consists of a diverse range of rocks and sediments, which were formed or deposited over millions of years and provide important details about the geologic history of the region. 3.7.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.7.1.1. Alternative A Impacts a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? In the event of an earthquake along the faults near the project, Alternative A site could be subjected to the ground motion of up to 0.598g, which could cause cracking of underground foundations and utility pipes. The construction of a 5-story, 500 room hotel would likely result in a larger structure than any likely to occur under the proposed Project. As was the case for the proposed Project, the risk of damage to Alternative A structures due to seismic hazards cannot be completely eliminated, but structure-specific geotechnical investigation and advanced building practices would minimize potential impacts from a seismic event. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.7-2 Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative A will be subject to the City’s Municipal Code Section 15.24.010, CBC and all California seismic design requirements, which would ensure that it would not expose persons or property to significant injury or damage from strong seismic ground shaking hazards. Furthermore, Alternative A will be required to implement the same mitigation measures as the proposed Project, including Mitigation Measures GEO-6, GEO-7, GEO-10 and GEO-13 to minimize ground shaking and strengthen the building foundations. Overall, based upon the adherence of project structural design to applicable seismic and other codes, the effects of seismically induced groundshaking can be reduced to a level that will have a less than significant impact on Alternative A facilities, guests, and employees, and similar to the level of impact associated with the proposed Project. iii) Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? Risks for seismic related ground failure, liquefaction, slope instability, collapse, or slumping for Alternative A site are the same as those described for the proposed Project. However, compared to the proposed Project, Alternative A will result in a lesser number of habitable structures and, should the villas be occupied by residents rather than an extension of the hotel, permanent population. In terms of guests at the hotel, Alternative A would result in a higher number of overnight occupancy than the proposed Project. The potential impacts of collapse, instability or slumping for Alternative A project improvements can be effectively mitigated through the implementation of the same mitigation measures as for the proposed Project, including Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-5, as provided in Section 2.7. Overall, the potential impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of these mitigation measures, and consistent with the level of impact associated with the proposed Project. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Under Alternative A, construction will result in less ground disturbance when compared to the proposed Project due to the exclusion of deep excavation for the surf lagoon and extensive underground parking, which would reduce the potential to cause or accelerate soil erosion. The ground disturbance associated with Alternative A structures would not result in more substantial erosion than would occur with the proposed Project. Although Alternative A may have the potential to result in the short-term loss of topsoil during construction due to runoff and wind erosion, this will be minimized by complying with the Mitigation Measures provided on Section 2.7, including the implementation of BMPs and dust control plans. At buildout, substantial erosion is not anticipated during hotel operations, and impacts would be less than significant, and consistent with those of the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.7-3 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? The Project site is currently partially developed and does not contain unstable soils or geologic units. No fissure or other surficial evidence of subsidence was observed at the project site. Based on the Geotechnical Investigation Report, that portion of the site is not susceptible to on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; this is due to on-site conditions, distance from sloping terrain and foothills, and depth to groundwater. Alternative A will result in fewer structures, but potentially greater mass than the proposed Project. However, Alternative A would not, like the proposed Project, be subject to these hazards because they do not occur on the project site. Impacts will be less than significant and consistent with those associated with the proposed Project. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? The project site consists of silty sand, which have very low expansion potential and are not considered expensive. For that reason, Alternative A will not be located on expansive soil and will not create substantial risks to life or property. Alternative A will not result in the construction of any buildings, structures, or major utility improvements that could sustain significant damage or pose significant human risks associated with settlement, and project-related impacts are expected to be less than significant, and consistent with those associated with the proposed Project. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Alternative A is proposed for development in an area of the City of Palm Desert that have a very low potential to yield important paleontological or geological resources. Similar to the proposed Project, construction activities under Alternative A have the potential to reveal Quaternary-age alluvium which has an unknown paleontological resource sensitivity. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources with the implementation of Alternative A will be the same as those for the proposed Project, which will be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-15, requiring the monitoring of grading and excavation activities if resources are uncovered. There are no unique geological features (rivers, lakes, hills, faults, folds, etc.) on the site that could be directly or indirectly destroyed by Alternative A. Therefore, similar to the proposed Project, there would not be any impact. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.7-4 3.7.1.2. Alternative A Mitigation Measures Please see Section 2.7.6, Mitigation Measures for further reference. There will be no need for any change or addition of mitigation measures under this alternative. 3.7.1.3. Alternative A Significance After Mitigation Alternative A will be subject to the same mitigation measures as the proposed Project. With the application of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 2.7.6, impacts associated with geotechnical conditions will be mitigated to less than significant level, and will be consistent with those of the proposed Project. 3.7.1.4. Alternative A Cumulative Impacts Since most geology and soil hazards associated with development projects in the surrounding area would be site-specific, Alternative A will not significantly increase the community impacts associated with prevailing geotechnical conditions in the City, nor will it have a cumulatively considerable effect on geotechnical hazards or risk in the project area. 3.7.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.7.2.1. Alternative B Impacts a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Alternative B will be exposed to the same seismic ground shaking (0.598g PGA) risks as the proposed Project. Compared to the proposed Project, Alternative B will result in a greater number of habitable structures (177 units) and permanent residents (430) resulting in greater hazard to people. The geotechnical report for the project provides specific design recommendations to address ground shaking and potential hazards. Implementation of these mitigation measures would minimize the potential for damage to the commercial and residential areas in the event of a strong seismic event. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative B will be subject to the City’s Municipal Code Section 15.24.010, CBC, California seismic design requirements, and mitigation measures provided in Section 2.6, which would ensure that it would not expose persons or property to significant injury or damage from strong seismic ground shaking hazards. Impacts related to seismic groundshaking would be less than significant, and consistent with the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.7-5 iii) Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? Seismic hazards related to ground failure, liquefaction, slope instability, collapse, or slumping for Alternative B are the same as those described for the proposed Project. However, compared to the proposed Project, Alternative B will result in a higher number of habitable structures and permanent resident population subject to ground failure. The potential impacts of collapse, instability or slumping on Alternative B project improvements can be effectively mitigated through the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-5, as provided in the Section 2.7 of this EIR. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the potential impacts would be less than significant, and consistent with those of the proposed Project. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? This alternative would reduce the amount of ground disturbance associated with excavation when compared to the proposed Project, and consequently would reduce the potential to cause or accelerate soil erosion. The ground disturbance associated with the Alternative B structures would not result in more substantial erosion than would occur with the proposed Project lagoon and underground parking structures. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative B will involve some excavation and export of soil material to the offsite locations to level the site, but the amount of soil expected to be removed will be substantially less. Alternative B may have the potential to result in the short-term loss of topsoil during construction due to runoff and wind erosion. However, this will be minimized by complying with Mitigation Measures GEO-16, GEO-17, and GEO-18. With implementation of these mitigation measures, Alternative B would result in less than significant erosion impacts, consistent with the proposed Project. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? The Project site is currently partially developed and does not contain unstable soils or geologic units. No fissure or other surficial evidence of subsidence was observed at the project site. Based on the Geotechnical Investigation Report, that portion of the site is not susceptible to on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; this is due to on-site conditions, distance from sloping terrain and foothills, and depth to groundwater. Development under Alternative B will result in a greater number of structures, but likely at a smaller mass than the proposed Project. Impacts will be less than significant, and consistent with the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.7-6 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The Alternative B site consists of silty sand, which have very low expansion potential and is not considered expensive soil. For that reason, Alternative B will not be located on expansive soil and will not create substantial risks to life or property. Alternative B will not result in the construction of any buildings, structures, or major utility improvements that could sustain significant damage or pose significant human risks associated with settlement, and project-related impacts are expected to be less than significant, consistent with those of the proposed Project. The site is not known to contain any paleontological resources, however, construction activities under Alternative B have the potential to reveal Quaternary-age alluvium which has an unknown paleontological resource sensitivity. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources with the implementation of Alternative B will be the same as those for the proposed Project, which will be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-15, requiring the monitoring of grading and excavation activities if resources are uncovered. There are no unique geological features on the site that could be directly or indirectly destroyed by Alternative B. Therefore, similar to the proposed Project, there would not be any impact. 3.7.2.2. Alternative B Mitigation Measures Please see Section 2.7.6, Mitigation Measures for further reference. There will be no need for any change or addition of mitigation measures under this alternative. 3.7.2.3. Alternative B Significance After Mitigation Alternative B will be subject to the same mitigation measures as the proposed Project. With the application of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 2.7.6, impacts associated with geotechnical conditions will be mitigated to a less than significant level, and will be consistent with those associated with the proposed Project. 3.7.2.4. Alternative B Cumulative Impacts Generally, geology and soil hazards associated with development projects in the surrounding area are site-specific, therefore, Alternative B will not significantly increase the community impacts associated with prevailing geotechnical conditions in the City, nor will it have a cumulatively considerable effect on geotechnical hazards or risk in the project area. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.7-7 3.7.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.7.3.1. Alternative C Impacts a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Alternative C will be exposed to the same seismic ground shaking (0.598g PGA) risks as the proposed Project. Alternative C, however, will result in the lowest number of structures (89 single family homes) and the smallest number of people on the site. Mitigation measures associated with deep excavation and foundations to support multi-story buildings would not be necessary under this alternative, but Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-4, relating to site preparation, GEO-7 relating to slabs on grade, and others will remain applicable to this Alternative. Implementation of these mitigation measures would minimize the potential for damage to the residences in the event of a strong seismic event. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative C will be subject to the City’s Municipal Code Section 15.24.010, CBC, California seismic design requirements, and mitigation measures provided in Section 2.6, which would ensure that it would not expose persons or property to significant injury or damage from strong seismic ground shaking hazards. Impacts related to seismic groundshaking would be less than significant, and less than the proposed Project. iii) Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? Seismic hazards related to ground failure, liquefaction, slope instability, collapse, or slumping for Alternative C are the same as those described for the proposed Project. However, compared to the proposed Project, Alternative C will result in a higher number of habitable structures and permanent resident population subject to ground failure. The potential impacts of collapse, instability or slumping on Alternative C project improvements can be effectively mitigated through the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-5, as provided in the Section 2.7 of this EIR. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the potential impacts would be less than significant, and less than those of the proposed Project. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Alternative C would eliminate the ground disturbance associated with excavation when compared to the proposed Project, and consequently would reduce the potential to cause or accelerate soil erosion. The ground disturbance associated with the Alternative C homes would not result in more substantial erosion than would occur with the proposed Project lagoon and underground parking structures. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.7-8 Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative C will involve some excavation and export of soil material to the offsite locations to level the site, but the amount of soil expected to be removed will be substantially less. Alternative C may have the potential to result in the short-term loss of topsoil during construction due to runoff and wind erosion. However, this will be minimized by complying with Mitigation Measures GEO-16, GEO-17, and GEO-18. With implementation of these mitigation measures, Alternative C would result in less than significant erosion impacts, consistent with the proposed Project. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? The Project site is currently partially developed and does not contain unstable soils or geologic units. No fissure or other surficial evidence of subsidence was observed at the project site. Based on the Geotechnical Investigation Report, that portion of the site is not susceptible to on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; this is due to on-site conditions, distance from sloping terrain and foothills, and depth to groundwater. Development under Alternative C will result in 89 single family homes, with considerably lower mass than the proposed Project. Impacts will be less than significant, and less than the proposed Project. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The Alternative C site consists of silty sand, which have very low expansion potential and is not considered expensive soil. For that reason, Alternative C will not be located on expansive soil and will not create substantial risks to life or property. Impacts are expected to be less than significant, and lower than those of the proposed Project. The site is not known to contain any paleontological resources, however, construction activities under Alternative C would be less likely to reveal Quaternary-age alluvium because single family homes will not require deeper excavation. However, trenching for water, sewer and utility extensions could reach deeper soils. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources with the implementation of Alternative C will be reduced when compared with the proposed Project, but would still require the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-15, requiring the monitoring of grading and excavation activities if resources are uncovered. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.7-9 There are no unique geological features on the site that could be directly or indirectly destroyed by Alternative B. Therefore, similar to the proposed Project, there would not be any impact. 3.7.3.2. Alternative C Mitigation Measures Please see Section 2.7.6, Mitigation Measures for further reference. There will be no need for any change or addition of mitigation measures under this alternative. 3.7.3.3. Alternative C Significance After Mitigation Alternative C will be subject to the same mitigation measures as the proposed Project. With the application of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 2.7.6, impacts associated with geotechnical conditions will be mitigated to a less than significant level, and will be somewhat reduced from those associated with the proposed Project. 3.7.3.4. Alternative C Cumulative Impacts Alternative C will not significantly increase the community impacts associated with prevailing geotechnical conditions in the City, nor will it have a cumulatively considerable effect on geotechnical hazards or risk in the project area. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.8-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The following section analyzes the potential greenhouse gas emission impacts associated with the three proposed Project alternatives. A variety of local and regional data and information, ranging from research and analysis conducted for the project site, to regional-scale planning and environmental documents, have been used in researching and analyzing the project and its potential greenhouse gas impacts. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report was prepared for the Proposed Project and alternatives, and is provided in Appendix B of this EIR The project area is located in the Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SAAB or Air Basin). Some air polluting agents are also greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride), which are released into the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. These gases are termed greenhouse gases (GHG) due to their shared characteristic of trapping heat. Please see Section 2.8 for a detailed description of existing greenhouse gas emission conditions and regulatory requirements. 3.8.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.8.1.1. Alternative A Impacts a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Alternative A would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation, as described below. Construction GHG Emissions Construction of Alternative A is anticipated to occur over a two-year period starting in mid-2019 with build out in mid-2021. During construction, fossil fuel used by construction equipment, machinery, haul trucks, and employees’ commuter vehicles will generate short-term GHG emissions. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.8-2 The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2, was used to estimate Alternative A-related GHG emissions during construction (see Appendix B of this EIR). The results are summarized in the following table. GHG emissions will be temporary and will end once construction is complete. All components of construction, including equipment, fuels, and materials, will be subject to current regulations for GHGs and equipment efficiency standards, which are meant to reduce GHG emissions. Table 3.8-1 Construction GHG Emissions Summary: Alternative A (Metric Tons/Year) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e 2019 605.21 0.10 0.00 607.79 2020 1,025.48 0.12 0.00 1,028.55 2021 457.23 0.05 0.00 458.50 TOTAL 2,087.92 0.27 0.00 2,094.84 Source: CalEEMod Versions 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this EIR for detailed tables. CO2e includes the remaining GHG pollutants, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. There are currently no construction-related GHG emission thresholds for projects of this nature. To determine if construction emissions will result in a significant impact, construction GHG emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to annual operational emissions to be compared to applicable GHG thresholds.1 The results are shown in Table 3.8-2. Operational GHG Emissions Operational emissions will occur throughout the life of the project. At buildout, five emission source categories will contribute either directly or indirectly to operational GHG emissions: energy/electricity usage, water usage, solid waste disposal, area emissions (pavement and architectural coating off-gassing), and mobile sources. CalEEMod was used to estimate annual operational GHG emissions generated by Alternative A (see Appendix B of this EIR). The results are summarized in the following table. 1 “Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans,” SCAQMD, December 5, 2008. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.8-3 Table 3.8-2 Operational GHG Emission Summary: Alternative A (Metric Tons/Year) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Operation 10,993.31 4.31 0.09 11,127.48 Amortized Construction 69.60 0.01 0.00 69.83 Total Operational Emissions 11,197.31 Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this EIR for detailed tables. 1. Buildout construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years then added to buildout operational GHG emissions. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD formally adopted a greenhouse gas significance threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr that only applies to stationary sources (industrial uses) where SCAQMD is the lead agency (SCAQMD Resolution No. 08-35). This threshold was adopted based upon an October 2008 staff report and draft interim guidance document2 that also recommended a threshold for all projects using a tiered approach. It was recommended by SCAQMD staff that a project’s greenhouse gas emissions would be considered significant if it could not comply with at least one of the following “tiered” tests: Tier 1: Is there an applicable exemption? Tier 2: Is the project compliant with a greenhouse gas reduction plan that is, at a minimum, consistent with the goals of AB 32? Tier 3: Is the project below an absolute threshold (10,000 MTCO2e/yr for industrial projects; 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for residential and commercial projects)? Tier 4: Is the project below a (yet to be set) performance threshold? Tier 5: Would the project achieve a screening level with off-site mitigation? Alternative A would not comply with any of the tiered tests presented above, and will therefore have significant and unavoidable Impacts associated with GHG emissions. However, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 assures that the Alternative adheres to the Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan3, and its implementation would help reduce GHG emission impacts. Alternative A would result in lower GHG impacts than the proposed Project, however both projects would result in significant and unavoidable Impacts. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 2 Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, prepared by SCAQMD, October 2008. 3 It should be noted that adherence to the Environmental Sustainability Plan, which is consistent with AB 32, would not comply with Tier 2 because the Plan is not a CEQA certified document. SCAQMD requires that the “greenhouse gas reduction plan,” in this case the Sustainability Plan, have a certified Final CEQA document. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.8-4 All components of construction and operation, including equipment, fuels, materials, and management practices, would be subject to current SCAQMD rules and regulations related to greenhouse gases. Applicable SCAQMD rules include, but are not limited to, source-specific standards that reduce the greenhouse gas content in engines and limit equipment idling durations. Alternative A will also adhere to the required state Low Carbon Fuel Standard for construction equipment and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency standards. Construction-related GHG emissions will not exceed GHG thresholds for construction because no such thresholds have been established. However, because Alternative A would result in Significant and Unavoidable impacts, as discussed above, it can be argued that operational impacts would conflict with GHG reduction goals. Although implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 will assure Alternative A complies with the Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. 3.8.1.2. Alternative A Mitigation Measures Alternative A will be subject to Mitigation Measure GHG-1. No additional mitigation measures are required. 3.8.1.3. Alternative A Significance After Mitigation After mitigation, impacts will remain significant and unavoidable due to non-compliance with the SCAQMD tiered test for GHG impacts. 3.8.1.4. Alternative A Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts were analyzed on a regional scale due to the dispersing nature of pollutant emissions and aggregate impacts from surrounding jurisdictions and air management districts. Through analysis of the regional and statewide plans for GHG reductions, a summary of projects approach was used. The geographic scope for the analysis of potential cumulative greenhouse gas impacts is the overall Salton Sea Air Basin region in which the projects are being constructed and operated. However, some percentage of vehicular GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of Alternative A may also come from sources outside of the SSAB. Operation of Alternative A would exceed established SCAQMD thresholds and potential impacts would be reduced through adherence to the City’s Environmental Sustainability Plan. However, because Alternative A has significant and unavoidable Impacts related to GHG emissions, this Alternative will also make a cumulatively considerable contribution to GHG levels. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.8-5 3.8.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.8.2.1. Alternative B Impacts a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Alternative B would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation, as described below. Construction GHG Emissions Construction of Alternative B is anticipated to occur over a two-year period starting in mid-2019 with build out in mid-2021. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2, was used to estimate Alternative B-related GHG emissions during construction (see Appendix B of this EIR). The results are summarized in the following table. GHG emissions will be temporary and will end once construction is complete. All components of construction, including equipment, fuels, and materials, will be subject to current regulations of GHGs and equipment efficiency standards, which are meant to reduce GHG emissions. Table 3.8-3 Construction GHG Emissions Summary: Alternative B (Metric Tons/Year) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e 2019 470.31 0.01 0.00 472.63 2020 715.07 0.10 0.00 717.57 2021 322.72 0.04 0.00 323.77 TOTAL 1,508.10 0.15 0.00 1,513.97 Source: CalEEMod Versions 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this EIR for detailed tables. CO2e includes the remaining GHG pollutants, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. There are currently no construction-related GHG emission thresholds for projects of this nature. To determine if construction emissions will result in a significant impact, build out GHG emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to annual operational emissions to be compared to applicable GHG thresholds.4 The results are shown in Table 3.8-4. Operational GHG Emissions Operational emissions will occur throughout the life of the project. CalEEMod was used to estimate annual operational GHG emissions generated by Alternative B (see Appendix B of this EIR). The results are summarized in the following table. 4 “Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans,” SCAQMD, December 5, 2008. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.8-6 Table 3.8-4 Operational GHG Emission Summary: Alternative B (Metric Tons/Year) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Operation 4,721.06 2.88 0.02 4,799.76 Amortized Construction 50.27 0.00 0.00 50.57 Total Operational Emissions 4,850.33 Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this EIR for detailed tables. 1. Buildout construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years then added to buildout operational GHG emissions. Alternative B would not comply with any of the tiered tests presented above, and will therefore have Significant and Unavoidable Impacts associated with GHG emissions. However, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 assures that the Alternative adheres to the Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan, and its implementation would help reduce GHG emission impacts. Alternative B would result in lower GHG impacts than the proposed Project, however both projects would result in significant and unavoidable Impacts. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. All components of construction and operation, including equipment, fuels, materials, and management practices, would be subject to current SCAQMD rules and regulations related to greenhouse gases. Applicable SCAQMD rules include, but are not limited to, source-specific standards that reduce the greenhouse gas content in engines and limit equipment idling durations. Alternative B will also adhere to the required state Low Carbon Fuel Standard for construction equipment and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency standards. Construction-related GHG emissions will not exceed GHG thresholds for construction because no such thresholds have been established. However, because Alternative B would result in significant and unavoidable impacts, as discussed above, it can be argued that operational impacts would conflict with GHG reduction goals. Although implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 will assure Alternative B complies with the Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. 3.8.2.2. Alternative B Mitigation Measures Alternative B would be subject to Mitigation Measure GHG-1. No additional mitigation measures would be required. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.8-7 3.8.2.3. Alternative B Significance After Mitigation Adherence to the City’s Sustainability Plan will assure Alternative B effectively minimizes GHG emissions. After mitigation, however, impacts will remain significant and unavoidable due to non-compliance with the SCAQMD tiered test for GHG impacts. 3.8.2.4. Alternative B Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts were analyzed on a regional scale due to the dispersing nature of pollutant emissions and aggregate impacts from surrounding jurisdictions and air management districts. Through analysis of the regional and statewide plans for GHG reductions, a summary of projects approach was used. The geographic scope for the analysis of potential cumulative greenhouse gas impacts is the overall Salton Sea Air Basin region in which the projects are being constructed and operated. However, some percentage of vehicular GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of Alternative B may also come from sources outside of the SSAB. Operation of Alternative B would exceed established SCAQMD thresholds and potential impacts would be minimized through adherence to the City’s Environmental Sustainability Plan. However, because Alternative B has significant and unavoidable Impacts related to GHG emissions, this Alternative will also make a cumulatively considerable contribution to GHG levels. 3.8.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.8.3.1. Alternative C Impacts a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Alternative C would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation, as described below. Construction GHG Emissions Construction of Alternative C is anticipated to occur over a two-year period starting in mid-2019 with build out in mid-2021. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2, was used to estimate Alternative C-related GHG emissions during construction (see Appendix B of this EIR). The results are summarized in the following table. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.8-8 Table 3.8-5 Construction GHG Emissions Summary: Alternative C (Metric Tons/Year) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e 2019 470.31 0.01 0.00 472.63 2020 715.07 0.10 0.00 717.57 2021 322.72 0.04 0.00 323.77 TOTAL 1,508.10 0.15 0.00 1,513.97 Source: CalEEMod Versions 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this EIR for detailed tables. CO2e includes the remaining GHG pollutants, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. There are currently no construction-related GHG emission thresholds for projects of this nature. To determine if construction emissions will result in a significant impact, build out GHG emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to annual operational emissions to be compared to applicable GHG thresholds.5 The results are shown in Table 3.8-6. Operational GHG Emissions Operational emissions will occur throughout the life of the project. CalEEMod was used to estimate annual operational GHG emissions generated by Alternative C (see Appendix B of this EIR). The results are summarized in the following table. Table 3.8-6 Operational GHG Emission Summary: Alternative C (Metric Tons/Year) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Operation 1,631.55 1.70 0.00 1,677.02 Amortized Construction 50.27 0.00 0.00 50.57 Buildout plus Amortized Construction Emissions 1,727.59 Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B of this DEIR for detailed tables. 1. Buildout construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years then added to buildout operational GHG emissions. Alternative C would comply with SCAQMD Tier 3 because it would be a residential project with emissions below 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Therefore, Alternative B would have less than significant impacts associated with GHG emissions, and mitigation measure are not required. This alternative would have substantially lower GHG impacts than the proposed Project. 5 “Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans,” SCAQMD, December 5, 2008. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.8-9 b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Alternative C would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The project is also consistent with regional GHG reduction goals, as they pertain to Alternative C, by adhering to the required state Low Carbon Fuel Standard for construction equipment and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency standards. Construction-related GHG emissions will not exceed GHG thresholds for construction because no such thresholds have been established. Operational GHG emissions would also not exceed SCAQMD thresholds because Alternative C complies with Tier 3 tests and impacts would be less than significant. 3.8.3.2. Alternative C Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are not required. 3.8.3.3. Alternative C Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. 3.8.3.4. Alternative C Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts were analyzed on a regional scale due to the dispersing nature of pollutant emissions and aggregate impacts from surrounding jurisdictions and air management districts. Through analysis of the regional and statewide plans for GHG reductions, a summary of projects approach was used. The geographic scope for the analysis of potential cumulative greenhouse gas impacts is the overall Salton Sea Air Basin region in which the projects are being constructed and operated. Operation of Alternative C would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds and therefore will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to GHG levels. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.9-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials This section of the EIR analyzes the potential impacts associated with the use of hazardous materials by the proposed alternatives. The Project site is located in a region where hazardous materials transport, storage, and use is strictly regulated for large quantity users, such as industrial processing plants and commercial dry cleaners. None of the alternatives will involve large quantity users. The City of Palm Desert implements regular consultation with the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, the Fire Department and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to regulate use and transport of hazardous materials. The project’s potential impacts are discussed and where needed, mitigation measures are set forth. 3.9.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.9.1.1. Alternative A Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Short-Term Impacts (Construction) The construction of the proposed hotel and parking lot under Alternative A would involve the use, storage, transport, or disposal of some hazardous and flammable substances such as oil, diesel fuel, transmission fluid, or other materials. These materials would be in small quantities consistent in quantity to those of the proposed Project, since development would be of a substantial scope for a 500 room hotel and associated facilities. All potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with these standards and regulations. Under Alternative A, the existing surface parking lot will be demolished as part of the project, and waste removed to a licensed landfill. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.9-2 Overall, impacts associated with the construction of Alternative A would be equivalent to those of the proposed Project and would remain less than significant. Long-Term Operation Under this alternative, the proposed hotel and associated amenities would involve use of limited quantities of hazardous materials such as cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials. These chemicals will be transported and stored within the project site. These will occur in limited quantities and will not be required to obtain a special hazardous material handling/storage permit. The manner in which commercial chemicals are stored and handled is highly regulated by the local Fire Department, County and State. These standard requirements will assure that impacts associated with commercial quantities of chemicals will be less than significant. Overall, impacts would reduce under Alternative A due to the exclusion of the surf lagoon, but like the proposed Project, less than significant impacts are anticipated. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Under this alternative, the site would be developed with a hotel building on the same site as the proposed Project, which is not along a designated emergency evacuation route. Similar to the proposed Project, the site is located between Portola Avenue and Cook Street which are designated evacuation routes in the City's General Plan. Portola Avenue and Cook Street are located approximately 0.24 mile to the west and 0.54 mile east of the site, respectively. During construction, the majority of activities for the hotel and associated facilities would be confined to the Project site itself; however, limited off-site infrastructure improvements may require some work in adjacent street rights-of-way, including Desert Willow Drive, and Willow Ridge, which could result in some partial lane closures of these roadways. As was the case for the proposed Project, although construction activities under Alternative A may require temporary road closures, appropriate traffic management and control plans would be followed pursuant to Mitigation Measures TRANSP-3, -15 through -19 (see Section 2.15, Transportation). Therefore, Alternative A would not physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Impacts would be less than significant, and equal to those associated with the proposed Project. 3.9.1.2. Alternative A Mitigation Measures Under this alternative, the project will be subject to Mitigation Measures TRANSP-3, -15 through -19 to reduce impacts associated with construction traffic and emergency access. No additional mitigation measures would be required. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.9-3 3.9.1.3. Alternative A Significance After Mitigation With the application of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 2.15, impacts associated with hazardous material will be mitigated to a less than significant level. 3.9.1.4. Alternative A Cumulative Impacts Since most of the hazardous hazards associated with development projects in the surrounding area would be site-specific, and Alternative A would not use or store hazardous materials in large quantities. Alternative A will not significantly increase the community impacts associated with use, storage, transport or accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment in the City. Also, implementation of the regulatory compliance measures and recommended mitigation measures, which would be applicable to any development project in the City, would reduce the Alternative’s potential impacts to less than significant levels. Overall, Alternative A cumulative impacts would be less than the proposed Project. 3.9.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.9.2.1. Alternative B Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Short-Term Impacts (Construction) Similar to the proposed Project, the construction of the proposed residential units and commercial buildings on the site under Alternative B would involve the use, storage, transport, or disposal of some hazardous and flammable substances such as oil, diesel fuel, transmission fluid, or other materials. These materials would be in small quantities, and would likely be in similar quantities to those required for the proposed Project, given the scope of the alternative’s development. All potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with these standards and regulations. As is the case for all alternatives and the proposed Project, the existing parking lot would be demolished, and materials disposed of at a licensed facility. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.9-4 Overall, project impacts associated with the construction of Alternative B would be somewhat similar to the proposed Project and would remain less than significant. Long-Term Operation Under Alternative B, the proposed residential units and commercial buildings would involve use of limited quantities of cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials. As discussed above, the manner in which commercial chemicals are stored and handled is highly regulated by the local Fire Department, County and State. These standard requirements will assure that impacts associated with the use of cleaners and other chemicals in the commercial and residential buildings will be less than significant. Overall, impacts would be lower than those associated with the proposed Project because of the removal of the lagoon from the development, but would remain less than significant. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Under Alternative B, the site would be developed with a residential and commercial land uses. The project site is not located along a designated emergency evacuation route. As is the case with all development scenarios, during construction the majority of activities would be confined to the site itself; however, limited off-site infrastructure improvements may require some work in the adjacent Desert Willow Drive and Willow Ridge. Although construction activities under Alternative B may require temporary lane closures, appropriate traffic management and control plans would be followed pursuant to Mitigation Measures TRANSP-3, -15 through -19 (see Section 2.15, Transportation). Therefore, Alternative B would not physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Impacts would be less than significant, and consistent with those of the proposed Project. 3.9.2.2. Alternative B Mitigation Measures Under this alternative, the project will be subject to Mitigation Measures TRANSP-3, -15 through -19 provided in Section 2.15. No additional mitigation measures would be required. 3.9.2.3. Alternative B Significance After Mitigation With the application of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 2.15, impacts associated with project hazardous material will be mitigated to a less than significant level. 3.9.2.4. Alternative B Cumulative Impacts Hazardous materials use associated with development projects in the surrounding area would be site-specific. Alternative B will not significantly increase the community impacts associated with prevailing accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment in the City. Also, DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.9-5 implementation of the regulatory compliance measures, applicable to all development projects, and recommended mitigation measures would reduce the Alternative’s potential impacts to less than significant levels. Overall, cumulative impacts under this alternative would be less than the proposed Project. 3.9.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.9.3.1. Alternative C Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Short-Term Impacts (Construction) The construction of the proposed residential units on the site under Alternative C would involve the use, storage, transport, or disposal of some hazardous and flammable substances such as oil, diesel fuel, transmission fluid, or other materials. The quantities required would be somewhat reduced when compared to the proposed Project, because the scope and intensity of development under Alternative C would be considerably less than the proposed Project. However, as is the case with the proposed Project and all alternatives, requirements of law, and standards established by local, County and State agencies will restrict and control the use, storage and transport of these materials. As is the case with all development scenarios analyzed, the existing surface parking lot will be demolished and materials disposed of in a licensed facility. Overall, impacts associated with the construction of Alternative C would be reduced under this alternative and would remain less than significant, as they would with the proposed Project. Long-Term Operation At buildout, the proposed residential units would involve use of limited quantities of cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials. These chemicals will be transported and stored within individual homes, and will occur in limited quantities not requiring a hazardous material handling/storage permit. Overall, impacts associated with the operation of Alternative C would be less than the proposed Project and would remain less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.9-6 f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project site will be developed with residential units under Alternative C. Similar to the proposed Project, during construction, the majority of activities would be confined to the Project site itself; however, limited off-site infrastructure improvements may require some work in Desert Willow Drive and Willow Ridge, which could result in some partial lane closures of these roadways. Appropriate traffic management and control plans would be followed pursuant to Mitigation Measures TRANSP-3, -15 through -19 (see Section 2.15, Transportation). Therefore, Alternative B would not physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Impacts would be less than significant, and somewhat less than those associated with the proposed Project. 3.9.3.2. Alternative C Mitigation Measures Alternative C will be subject to Mitigation Measures TRANSP-3, -15 through -19 provided in Section 2.15. No additional mitigation measures would be required. 3.9.3.3. Alternative C Significance After Mitigation With the implementation of mitigation measures, impacts will be less than significant. 3.9.3.4. Alternative C Cumulative Impacts Environmental hazards associated with development projects in the surrounding area would be site-specific. Alternative C will not significantly increase the community impacts associated with prevailing accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment in the City because the use of these materials is regulated across all development proposals, and the residential use of cleaning and garden supplies will be limited. Also, implementation of the regulatory compliance measures and recommended mitigation measures would be applied consistently, and would not be cumulatively considerable. Overall, cumulative impacts under Alternative C would be less than the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.10-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.10. Hydrology and Water Quality This section analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed alternatives to hydrological conditions and water quality. The Project site is located in the Coachella Valley, where mean annual rainfall is very low on the valley floor, ranging from 2 to 4 inches per year and averaging about 5 to 6 inches along the foothills. This region is located within the Whitewater River Hydrologic Unit (HU) and falls under the jurisdiction of the Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 7). The alternatives’ potential impacts to these resources are discussed and where needed, mitigation measures are set forth. 3.10.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.10.1.1. Alternative A Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Construction Impact Similar to the proposed Project, the use of construction equipment and other vehicles could result in spills of oil, grease, gasoline, brake fluid, antifreeze, or other vehicle-related fluids and pollutants under this alternative. Improper handling, storage, or disposal of fuels and materials or improper cleaning of machinery could result in accidental spills or discharges that could degrade water quality. The scope of development involved in a 500 room hotel and its facilities would be similar to that of the proposed Project. As a result, the impacts to water quality associated with this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project, and the potential for pollution of receiving waters would be about the same. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.10-2 As with the proposed Project, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and construction BMPs would be implemented, consistent with Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-3, and would be expected to effectively reduce or avoid the discharge of any pollutants of concern that could occur as a result of implementation of this alternative. It is anticipated that implementation of mitigation measures will eliminate the potential of this alternative to substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Overall, impacts would be similar to those of the proposed Project, and like the proposed Project, would be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of mitigation measures. Operational Impact At Alternative A buildout, runoff from the hotel and parking lot areas could contain pollutants common in urban runoff. The operational impacts to water quality associated with this alternative would be marginally reduced, insofar as the project intensity would be less, and the potential for pollution of receiving waters would be marginally reduced at the site. As with the proposed Project, the alternative’s hydrology plan will be designed so that all stormwater is captured in four subareas and conveyed to three existing offsite drainage waste areas within the Desert Willow Golf Course. Alternative A would also subject to Whitewater River Region Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) which regulates activities and programs implemented by the Permittees to manage urban runoff, and to assure that runoff is managed in compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal separate storm sewer system permit (MS4 Permit) for the Whitewater River Region. The SWMP is designed to reduce stormwater pollution to the maximum extent practicable and eliminate prohibited non-stormwater discharges through a NPDES municipal stormwater discharge permit. Alternative A would also be subject to WQMP BMPs which would help the site to meet the requirements of the MS4 permit. This alternative is also within the jurisdiction of CVWD which is required to meet water quality requirements in the production and delivery of domestic water and sewage management. Under this alternative, the hotel will connect to existing CVWD water and sewer infrastructure in the project vicinity which will assure that, over the long-term, the project meets RWQCB standards and protects groundwater quality. Overall, impacts to water quality would be about the same as with the proposed Project, and would be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of mitigation measures and standard requirements. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The same water demand factors used to analyze the proposed Project were used to analyze impacts associated with Alternative A. This alternative would generate a total water demand of 71.43 AFY (Table 3.10-1), which is 93.78 AFY less than the proposed Project’s total water DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.10-3 demand. This alternative would not require a WSA due to reduced development intensity. In addition, this alternative would be unlikely to implement the proposed Project’s turf reduction plan included as a requirement of the WSA, and would therefore have a net water demand 14.97 AFY greater than that of the proposed Project. Table 3.10-1 Total Projected Water Demand for Alternative A Land Use/Building Size/Unit Number Factor Water Demand (gallons per day/AFY) Water Demand (AFY) Square Feet Rooms Quantity Source/Basis Planning Area 2 Hotels -- 500.00 115.00 gallons per room 20,987,500 64.41 Landscaping 200,000.00 -- -- Low Demand Desert Landscape - Estimated Water Use -- 7.02 Total Project Water Demand (AFY) 71.43 Similar to the proposed Project, future development under Alternative A will be subject to CVWD’s water conservation measures to control water usage and runoff. Alternative A has the same setting related to water resources/quality, including the same groundwater supplies, as that analyzed for the proposed Project. Alternative A would not, however, be likely to install a groundwater well, because potable water would be secured from existing service in Desert Willow Drive. As identified for the proposed Project, CVWD has sufficient water supplies to meet the demands of this alternative for the next 20 years. This result is based on the volume of water available in the aquifer, CVWD's Colorado River contract supply, SWP Table A amounts, water rights, and water supply contracts, and CVWD’s commitment to eliminate overdraft and reduce per capita water use in CVWD’s service area. Based on these findings, this alternative will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Similar to the proposed Project, impacts would be less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.10-4 i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative A will result in the demolition of the existing parking lot, onsite grading, removal of some soils to accommodate construction of the hotel, amenities and ancillary facilities, and landscaping areas. It will result in the construction of impermeable surfaces (buildings, pools, driveways, sidewalks, hardscapes, etc.) onsite, as well as new stormwater conveyance pipes to connect the site to existing drainages within the Desert Willow Golf Course. The drainage system will be required to meet all standards of rainstorm protection as adopted by the City of Palm Desert. Drainage waste areas are already available off-site for retaining the 100-year storm event, and there will be no adverse impact, because the Desert Willow drainage plan was designed to accommodate all 100 year storm flows throughout the development. The BMPs required for the proposed Project to control erosion and sedimentation entering the proposed drainage pipes under Mitigation Measure HYD-1 will be applicable to Alternative A, which will assure that impacts associated with erosion and siltation are reduced to less than significant levels, as they are for the proposed Project. ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows? Construction Impact Land-disturbing construction activities associated with implementation of Alternative A, such as grading and excavating of new building foundations for the hotel and ancillary facilities, and trenches for utilities, would result in the localized alteration of drainage patterns and potentially increase the rate of peak flow for any given precipitation event. Alterations may temporarily result in erosion and siltation if flows were substantially increased or routed to facilities or lakes without capacity to carry the flow. Construction impacts due to development of Alternative A would be minimized through compliance with the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, and the MS4 Permit. Generally, construction permit requires the discharger to perform a risk assessment for the proposed development with differing requirements based on the determined level. Also, the permit requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP that must include erosion and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the determined risk level of the Construction General Permit. A construction site monitoring program that identifies monitoring and sampling requirements during construction is a required component of the SWPPP. Similar to the proposed Project, pollutant control for Alternative A will be reduced to less significant levels through the implementation of mitigation DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.10-5 measures HYD-1 through HYD-3. Construction impacts would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project, and would be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of the same mitigation measures as those required for the proposed Project. Operational Impact Conversion of the project area from undeveloped land to hotel, ancillary facilities and landscaping areas would increase impervious surfaces, such as rooftops, roads and hardscapes, which in turn would increase runoff in a manner consistent with that analyzed for the proposed Project. This runoff could contain oil and grease, heavy metals, chemicals, and other pollutants. Alternative A is expected to have a similar amount of impervious surfaces as the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative A would be designed to direct stormwater into three off-site drainage waste areas. These drainage waste areas have enough capacity to accommodate water from Alternative A site and would not exceed its capacity or cause surface runoff and flooding. Impacts associated with storm water flows are expected to be less than significant, with the implementation of project design features and Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3, and similar to those associated with the proposed Project. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Under Alternative A, the project site would be built with a hotel, ancillary facilities and a parking lot. The Project site is not located in a flood zone as defined by FEMA. Alternative A would be expected to include large hotel pool(s), but would not include a surf lagoon. As with the proposed Project, the pools will be constructed to meet current building codes, which are designed to protect against failure during a seismic event, and would therefore reduce the potential for inundation. Alternative A would have somewhat lower impacts associated with inundation due to the elimination of the surf lagoon, and like the proposed Project, would result in less than significant impacts. 3.10.1.2. Alternative A Mitigation Measures Alternative A will be subject to all applicable mitigation measures set forth in Section 2.10 for the proposed Project to assure impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. No additional mitigation measures would be required. 3.10.1.3. Alternative A Significance After Mitigation Impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with construction of the Alternative A project would be less than significant with adherence to the mitigation measures set forth in Section 2.10. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.10-6 3.10.1.4. Alternative A Cumulative Impacts The Alternative A project would contribute considerably to cumulative impacts if it were to have a significant adverse effect on surface storm drainage patterns, groundwater resources and water quality in the Coachella Valley. Impacts to hydrological settings could also be cumulatively substantial if the project depleted groundwater supplies or violated water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The potential impacts of Alternative A on surface storm drainage patterns, groundwater resources and water quality would be lesser than those for the proposed Project, and will have a less than significantly impact on these resources. Because Alternative A would integrate into the Desert Willow Master Plan for stormwater management, and is consistent with the North Sphere Specific Plan land use on which that Master Plan was based, the development of Alternative A would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts associated with hydrology and drainage. As regards water resources, although Alternative A would result in modestly greater water demand than the proposed Project, the use proposed is consistent with the uses in the Specific Plan, on which CVWD’s water demand projections were based. On that basis, the development of Alternative A would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on water resources. 3.10.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.10.2.1. Alternative B Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Construction Impact During the construction of Alternative B, construction equipment and other vehicles could leak oil, grease, gasoline, brake fluid, antifreeze, or other vehicle-related fluids and pollutants. In addition, improper handling, storage, or disposal of fuels and materials or improper cleaning of machinery could result in accidental spills or discharges that could degrade water quality. Although Alternative B would result in less square footage than the proposed Project, the area of disturbance would be similar, insofar as the entire site would be disturbed. Similar to the proposed Project, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and construction BMPs would be implemented, and are expected to effectively reduce or avoid the discharge of any pollutants of concern that could occur as a result of implementation of this alternative. Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-3 will effectively reduce or avoid the discharge of any pollutants of concern by establishing BMPs to control surface waters and assure that polluted DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.10-7 drainage does not affect groundwater. Overall, impacts would be marginally reduced when compared to the proposed Project, and with the implementation of the same mitigation measures as the proposed Project, would result in less than significant impacts. Operational Impact At buildout of this alternative, runoff from the residential and commercial areas could contain pollutants common in urban runoff. The operational impacts to water quality associated with this alternative would be similar, and the potential for pollution of receiving waters would be about the same as with the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, the site will be designed so that all stormwater is captured and conveyed to three existing drainage waste areas within the Desert Willow Golf Course. Alternative B would be subject to the SWMP and NPDES permitting requirements, as would the proposed Project and all alternatives, as described above. This alternative would also be subject to WQMP requirements for BMPs which would help the site to meet the requirements of the MS4 permit. Under this alternative, buildings will also connect to existing CVWD water and sewer infrastructure in the project vicinity which will assure that, over the long-term, the project meets RWQCB standards and protects groundwater quality. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Using the same water demand factors used for the proposed Project, Alternative B would generate a total water demand of 83.17 AFY (Table 3.10-2), which is 82.04 AFY less than the proposed Project’s water demand, because of the reduced intensity of the development under this alternative. This alternative would not require a WSA due to reduced development intensity. Also, this alternative would be unlikely to implement the proposed Project’s turf reduction plan and groundwater well installation. The net water demand would be about 24.71 AFY greater than the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, future development under Alternative B will be subject to water usage restrictions and all applicable rules and regulations to control water usage. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.10-8 Table 3.10-2 Total Projected Water Demand for Alternative B Land Use/Building Size/Unit Number Factor Water Demand (gallons per day/AFY) Water Demand (AFY) Square Feet Rooms Quantity Source/Basis Planning Area 2 Commercial Space 77,100 -- 230.00 gallons per room 17,733,000 54.42 Residential Units -- 177 177.70 gpd/unit 7,604,009 23.34 Landscaping 154,115.28 -- -- Low Demand Desert Landscape - Estimated Water Use -- 5.41 Total Project Water Demand (AFY) 83.17 As identified for the proposed Project, CVWD has sufficient water supplies to meet the demands of this alternative for the next 20 years, given that it would result in a lesser water demand. This alternative will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, and impacts would be less than significant, and somewhat greater than those associated with the proposed Project. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Alternative B will also result in the demolition of the existing parking lot, onsite grading, removal of some soils to accommodate construction of the residential and commercial buildings, parking lots, and landscaping areas. It will result in the construction of impermeable surfaces as well as new stormwater conveyance pipes to connect the site to existing drainages within the Desert Willow Golf Course. Alternative B will be required to prepare hydrology analyses that meet all standards of rainstorm protection as adopted by the City of Palm Desert. Drainage waste areas are already available off-site for retaining the 100-year storm event, and there will be no adverse impact, because the Desert Willow drainage plan was designed to accommodate all 100 year storm flows throughout the master planned project, and the drainage anticipated under this alternative would be equivalent to, or slightly less than that of the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.10-9 The BMPs designed for the proposed Project to control erosion and sedimentation entering the proposed drainage pipes will be applicable to this alternative. These requirements, to be implemented by Mitigation Measure HYD-1, will assure that impacts associated with erosion and siltation are reduced to less than significant levels, consistent with the proposed Project. ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows? Construction Impact Construction activities associated with implementation of Alternative B would result in similar localized alteration of drainage patterns as for all development scenarios. Alterations may temporarily result in erosion and siltation if flows were substantially increased or routed to facilities or lakes without capacity to carry the flow. Construction impacts due to development of the proposed Alternative B area would be minimized through compliance with the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, including implementation of a SWPPP and the MS4 Permit, as is the case with the proposed Project, as described above. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3 will reduce pollutant related impacts to less significant levels for Alternative B. Construction impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels, and would be somewhat reduced, due to the scope of this alternative, when compared to the proposed Project. Operational Impact The increase in impervious surfaces as a result of Alternative B would be marginally lower to that of the proposed Project. The runoff from these surfaces could contain pollutants. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative B would be designed to direct stormwater into three off-site drainage waste areas. These drainage waste areas have enough capacity to accommodate water from Alternative B and would not exceed their capacity. Impacts associated with storm water flows are expected to be less than significant, with the implementation of project design features, and somewhat reduced from those analyzed, because of the reduction in the scope of the alternative. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the same mitigation measures as those required for the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.10-10 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Under this alternative, residential and commercial land uses would somewhat reduce the mass of structures at the site as designed under the proposed Project. Under this alternative, pools for residential units would be smaller, and the risk of inundation unlikely. As is the case with the proposed Project, the site is not located within a flood zone. Therefore, impacts associated with inundation would be less than significant, and reduced from the potential impacts associated with the proposed Project, because of the removal of the surf lagoon from this Alternative. 3.10.2.2. Alternative B Mitigation Measures Alternative B will be subject to all applicable mitigation measures set forth in the Section 2.10. for the proposed Project to assure impacts remain at less than significant levels. No additional mitigation measures would be required. 3.10.2.3. Alternative B Significance After Mitigation With implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant. 3.10.2.4. Alternative B Cumulative Impacts The potential impacts of Alternative B on surface storm drainage patterns, groundwater resources and water quality would be lesser than those for the proposed Project, and will have a less than significant cumulative impact on these resources, because drainage from the site can be accommodated within the Master Plan created for the entire Desert Willow project. As regards water resources, although Alternative B would result in a somewhat greater water demand than the proposed Project, the water demand is consistent with the demand from uses included in the North Sphere Specific Plan, on which CVWD’s water demand projections were based. On that basis, the development of Alternative B would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on water resources. 3.10.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.10.3.1. Alternative C Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.10-11 Construction Impact The use of construction equipment and other vehicles could result in release of pollutants under this alternative. However, the alternative’s footprints and density would be significantly reduced from that of the proposed Project. As a result, construction impacts to water quality associated with this alternative would be significantly reduced, insofar as the overall area of disturbance would be smaller, and the potential for pollution of receiving waters would be reduced at the site. As with the proposed Project, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and construction BMPs would be required, consistent with the mitigation measures for the proposed Project, and would be expected to effectively reduce or avoid the discharge of any pollutants of concern that could occur as a result of implementation of this alternative. Overall, impacts would be reduced, and the potential for pollution of receiving waters would be reduced at the site, but the same mitigation measures, and resulting less than significant impact would occur as with the proposed Project. Operational Impact Buildout of this alternative would result into 89 residential units whose runoff could contain pollutants common in urban runoff. The operational impacts to water quality associated with this alternative would be substantially reduced, insofar as the overall area of disturbance and project density would be less, and the potential for pollution of receiving waters would be reduced at the site. Similar to the proposed Project, the site will be designed so that all stormwater is conveyed to three existing drainage waste areas within the Desert Willow Golf Course. Alternative C would also be subject to the SWMP and NPDES MS4 Permit for the Whitewater River Region. Alternative C would also be subject to WQMP BMPs which would help the site to meet the requirements of the MS4 permit. Alternative C will also connect to existing CVWD water and sewer infrastructure in the project vicinity which will assure that, over the long-term, the project meets RWQCB standards and protects groundwater quality. Overall, impacts to water quality would be less than the proposed Project because of the significant reduction in intensity, but would still require the implementation of mitigation measures. Like the proposed Project, impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of these mitigation measures. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.10-12 Using the same water demand factors used for the proposed Project, this alternative would generate a total water demand of 18.30 AFY (Table 3.10-3), which is 146.91 AFY less than the proposed Project’s water demand. This alternative would result in a net reduction of 40.16 AFY over the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, future development under Alternative C will be subject to water usage restrictions and all applicable rules and regulations to control water usage and runoff. Table 3.10-3 Total Projected Water Demand for Alternative C Land Use/Building Size/Unit Number Factor Water Demand (gallons per day/AFY) Water Demand (AFY) Square Feet Rooms Quantity Source/Basis Planning Area 2 Residential Units -- 89 177.70 gpd/unit 3,823,485 11.73 Landscaping 192,644.10 -- -- Low Demand Desert Landscape - Estimated Water Use -- 6.76 Total Project Water Demand (AFY) 18.50 This alternative would not require a WSA due to reduced development intensity. Also, this alternative would be unlikely to implement the proposed Project’s turf reduction plan and groundwater well installation. As identified for the proposed Project, CVWD has sufficient water supplies to meet the demands of this alternative for the next 20 years, because the water demand associated with Alternative C is substantially less than that required for the proposed Project or any of the other alternatives. This alternative will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Impacts would be less than significant, and substantially less than the proposed Project, whose impacts are also less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Alternative C will also result in the demolition of the existing parking lot, onsite grading, removal of some soils to accommodate construction of 89 single family homes and landscaping areas. It will result in the construction of impermeable surfaces as well as new stormwater DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.10-13 conveyance pipes to connect the site to existing drainages within the Desert Willow Golf Course. Alternative C will be required to prepare hydrology analyses that meet all standards of rainstorm protection as adopted by the City of Palm Desert. Drainage waste areas are already available off-site for retaining the 100-year storm event, and there will be no adverse impact, because the Desert Willow drainage plan was designed to accommodate all 100 year storm flows throughout the master planned project, and the drainage anticipated under this alternative would be less than that of the proposed Project. The BMPs designed for the proposed Project to control erosion and sedimentation entering the proposed drainage pipes will be applicable to this alternative. These requirements, to be implemented by Mitigation Measure HYD-1, will assure that impacts associated with erosion and siltation are reduced to less than significant levels, consistent with the proposed Project. ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows? Construction Impact Construction activities associated with implementation of Alternative C would result in less localized alteration of drainage patterns than the proposed Project and other alternatives, but would still be required to some extent. Alterations may temporarily result in erosion and siltation if flows were substantially increased or routed to facilities or lakes without capacity to carry the flow. Construction impacts due to development of Alternative C would be minimized through compliance with the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, including implementation of a SWPPP and the MS4 Permit, as is the case with the proposed Project, as described above. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3 will reduce pollutant related impacts to less significant levels for Alternative C. Construction impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels, and would be reduced, due to the scope of this alternative, when compared to the proposed Project. Operational Impact The increase in impervious surfaces as a result of Alternative C would be lower to that of the proposed Project. The runoff from residential rooftops and roadways could contain pollutants. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative C would be designed to direct stormwater into three off-site drainage waste areas. These drainage waste areas have enough capacity to accommodate water from Alternative C and would not exceed their capacity. Impacts DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.10-14 associated with storm water flows are expected to be less than significant, with the implementation of project design features, and reduced from those analyzed, because of the reduction in the scope of the alternative. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the same mitigation measures as those required for the proposed Project. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Under this alternative, residential land uses would reduce the mass of structures at the site as designed under the proposed Project. Under this alternative, pools for residential units would be smaller, and the risk of inundation unlikely. As is the case with the proposed Project, the site is not located within a flood zone. Therefore, impacts associated with inundation would be less than significant, and reduced from the potential impacts associated with the proposed Project. 3.10.3.2. Alternative C Mitigation Measures Alternative C will be subject to all applicable mitigation measures set forth in the Section 2.10. for the proposed Project to assure impacts remain at less than significant levels. No additional mitigation measures would be required. 3.10.3.3. Alternative C Significance After Mitigation Impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with construction of this alternative would be less than significant with adherence to the mitigation measures set forth in Section 2.10. 3.10.3.4. Alternative C Cumulative Impacts The potential impacts of Alternative C on surface storm drainage patterns, groundwater resources and water quality would be less than those for the proposed Project, and will have a less than significant cumulative impact on these resources, because drainage from the site can be accommodated within the Master Plan created for the entire Desert Willow project. As regards water resources, Alternative C would result in less water demand than the proposed Project, and would be less than that considered for the North Sphere Specific Pan, on which CVWD’s water demand projections were based. On that basis, the development of Alternative C would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on water resources. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.11-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.11. Land Use and Planning This section of the EIR analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed alternatives to Land Use and Planning. The Project site is located in the City of Palm Desert, which guides development through municipal codes, development standards, and the General Plan’s programs and policies. The Project site is designated as Resort and Entertainment District on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, which allows theme parks, hotels, sports facilities, bed and breakfast inns, recreational facilities, small retail, large retail, and lodging, support retail, and commercial services along with specialized entertainment with a commercial floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 0.10, and multi-family residential land uses of up to 10 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). The City’s Zoning Map designates the site as Planned Residential (PR-5), allowing 5 DU/AC. 3.11.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.11.1.1. Alternative A Impacts b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Alternative A would result in a 5-story luxury hotel with a maximum of 500 rooms, landscaping, pool/recreation facilities, and parking lot(s). The project site is currently designated as Resort and Entertainment District on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, which allows Alternative A’s land use. The City’s Zoning Map currently designates the site as Planned Residential (PR-5), allowing 5 units per acre. The PR zone allows hotels with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The North Sphere Specific Plan, which acts as a localized zoning ordinance for the site, does allow the hotel use proposed under this alternative. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.11-2 Alternative A would conform and support similar goals and policies as the proposed Project, insofar as it would result in the development of a resort complex (Policy 4.1) and would allow for connectivity to the golf course (Policy 4.2). It would also assure long term economic development (Policy 8.1) by creating a substantial source of transient occupancy tax. Under Alternative A, the standards of the North Sphere Specific Plan would be applied to the hotel development, and no additional Specific Plan amendments would be proposed. However, Alternative A would not expand recreational opportunities (Policy 8.8), insofar as no lagoon or other significant or unique recreational facility would be developed. Based on the City’s current General Plan, this alternative would be consistent with the General Plan’s vision for the site relating to land use, but would not meet the City’s recreational goals. 3.11.1.2. Alternative A Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures would be required under Alternative A. 3.11.1.3. Alternative A Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. 3.11.1.4. Alternative A Cumulative Impacts Alternative A would result in the development of the site, which has been planned for resort development for a number of years. Development of a hotel on this site would therefore not cumulatively impact land use in the City, since the use is planned for at General Plan build out. It is expected that most future projects would be compatible with the zoning and land use designations on other vacant sites in the Desert Willow project and elsewhere in the City. Furthermore, the proposed alternative would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to land use and planning. Therefore, it would not contribute to a cumulative land use impact, and cumulative land use impacts would be considered to be less than significant. 3.11.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.11.2.1. Alternative B Impacts b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Under this alternative, the Project site will include a mix of residential and commercial land uses, including up to 77,100 square feet of retail commercial space, and 177 residential units, likely to be multi-family in nature. This alternative will also exclude other components of the DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.11-3 proposed Project, including the surf lagoon, surf center, and hotel(s). Alternative B represents a significant decrease in overall development intensity when compared to the Proposed Project. Build out of Alternative B will constitute a change in character compared to both the General Plan and the North Sphere Specific Plan, particularly as regards resort and recreational amenities. Under this alternative, the City would advance its economic development by receiving sales tax from the retail commercial component of the alternative, but would see no transient occupancy tax expansion, and no additional recreational opportunities. This alternative would also result in amendments to the North Sphere Specific Plan (NSSP) to allow the proposed commercial and residential developments. Alternative B would, however, expand the general character of the Desert Willow Golf Resort, and residential opportunities for current and future residents. Because of the lack of a resort or recreational component, this alternative would have greater impact on land use and planning than the proposed Project. However, this alternative would still be expected to have less than significant impacts in the overall. 3.11.2.2. Alternative B Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures would be required under Alternative B. 3.11.2.3. Alternative B Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. 3.11.2.4. Alternative B Cumulative Impacts Alternative B would result in the development of the site, but not for the resort development which has been envisioned for it. Development of Alternative B would result in a decrease in land use intensity, but would be somewhat consistent with the Resort and Entertainment District General Plan land use designation. Other sites are available within the Desert Willow project with this designation, allowing the future development of resort uses. However, this alternative would reduce the amount of land available for resort and recreational development to some degree. Overall, however, Alternative B would not contribute to a significant cumulative land use impact, and cumulative land use impacts would be considered to be less than significant. 3.11.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.11.3.1. Alternative C Impacts b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.11-4 Under Alternative C, development would result in a total of 89 residential units, which would be presumed to be single family homes. This alternative will exclude all other components of the proposed Project, including the surf lagoon, surf center, hotels, restaurants and bars, and other commercial land uses. Alternative C represents a significant decrease in overall development intensity when compared to the Proposed Project. Alternative C development would be allowed under the current General Plan designation and zoning. However, this alternative would result in amendments to the North Sphere Specific Plan to allow single family homes. This alternative will also not further the General Plan’s goals for the Resort and Entertainment district, and would provide no expansion of economic development. Alternative C would be consistent with the zoning designation for the site. There are, however, other sites within the Desert Willow project which could develop for resort land uses, and compensate for the loss of resort and recreational opportunities associated with this alternative. Overall, Alternative C would have the greatest impact on land use and planning, but since the residential uses allowed under this alternative are allowed in both the General Plan and zoning districts, these impacts would still be considered less than significant. 3.11.3.2. Alternative C Mitigation Measures This alternative would not require any mitigation measures. 3.11.3.3. Alternative C Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. 3.11.3.4. Alternative C Cumulative Impacts Alternative C would result in development of residential land uses only, which would not be consistent with the resort development which has been envisioned for the site. Development of Alternative C would result in a significant decrease in land use intensity, but would be consistent with the zoning designation on the property. Other sites are available within the Desert Willow project with this designation, allowing the future development of resort uses. However, this alternative would reduce the amount of land available for resort and recreational development to some degree. Overall, however, Alternative C would not contribute to a significant cumulative land use impact, and cumulative land use impacts would be considered to be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.12--1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.12. Noise This section of the EIR analyzes the potential noise impacts of the alternatives to the proposed Project. The Project site is located within the City of Palm Desert where the primary sources of noise include traffic, freeways, and major roadways. The alternatives’ potential impacts to the existing and future noise environment are discussed below. 3.12.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.12.1.1. Alternative A Impacts a) Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction Noise Impact Noise generating construction activities would include site preparation, excavation, grading, and the physical construction and finishing of the proposed hotel. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 63.6 dBA to in excess of 77.9 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels from construction equipment can be expected to lessen by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance. The City will require that construction activity comply with Section 9.24.030 of the Municipal Code, which limits construction activity to between 7 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturdays between October 1 and April 30. From May 1st to September 30th, the construction hours are from 5:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays. No activity is permitted on Sundays and holidays. The noise levels generated by construction of Alternative A would be expected to be similar to those associated with the proposed Project, insofar as the entire site would be graded, and heavy equipment used to construct a 5-story, 500 room hotel and ancillary facilities. Although the location of buildings is not known, the distance of construction equipment would likely be DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.12--2 similar to that under the proposed Project. Alternative A is located near sensitive receiver R2 (approximately 90 feet). As shown in Table 2.12.14, none of the noise levels anticipated during construction will exceed the noise threshold at any of the sensitive receivers, including location R2. Since Alternative A would result in similar noise levels, it is expected that construction noise levels for Alternative A would also be less than significant. Operational Noise Impact Operation of the hotel will include noise from public activity areas, vehicle traffic and stationary sources, such as HVAC units. Because Alternative A does not include the surf lagoon, surf center and associated facilities, it would be expected that noise levels for Alternative A would be somewhat reduced when compared to the noise levels for the proposed Project. As shown in Tables 2.12.10 and 2.12.11, noise levels from operation of the proposed Project are not expected to exceed noise thresholds during operation. Since Alternative A would be expected to have somewhat lower noise levels than the proposed Project, operational noise levels would also be expected to be less than those of the proposed Project, and would not be expected to exceed noise thresholds. Impacts of Alternative A operations would therefore be less than significant, and somewhat lower than those of the proposed Project. In addition, as described in the discussion of traffic for Alternative A (please see Section 3.15), this alternative is expected to result in a total of 4,180 vehicle trips, a reduction of 1,316 trips when compared to the proposed Project. The analysis of traffic noise for the proposed Project showed that noise levels would not be exceeded on City streets as a result of the proposed Project’s trip generation. Therefore, since Alternative A reduces trips by 23.9% when compared with the proposed Project, its traffic noise impacts are also expected to be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Ground-borne vibration and/or ground-borne noise would be generated during construction of Alternative A, which could be felt by adjacent land uses. The primary source of ground-borne vibration will be operation of heavy equipment, such as bulldozers; however, the impacts will be temporary and will end once construction is complete. As described above, the construction equipment to be used for Alternative A is expected to be similar to that used for the proposed Project. As described in Section 2.12, the threshold of significance for groundborne vibration is 0.01 in/sec RMS. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project are expected to generate vibration levels of 0.009 or less at the sensitive receivers adjacent to the proposed Project site, and will not exceed thresholds (please see Table 2.12.7). Therefore, since construction activities for Alternative A are expected to be similar to those for the proposed Project, vibration levels would be expected to be below thresholds, and less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.12--3 3.12.1.2. Alternative A Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures would be required under Alternative A. 3.12.1.3. Alternative A Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. 3.12.1.4. Alternative A Cumulative Impacts Noise levels tend to diminish quickly with distance from a source; therefore, the geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to noise would be limited to projects within approximately 0.25 mile of Alternative A. As described above, the traffic noise levels generated by Alternative A, when added to existing and future traffic, will be less than significant. Although additional projects will develop which will affect these traffic noise levels, long term, General Plan build out noise levels are not expected to exceed thresholds on surrounding streets, when mitigation is applied to individual project locations. Therefore, the development of Alternative A would not be expected to cumulatively impact noise levels in the City. 3.12.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.12.2.1. Alternative B Impacts a) Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Noise generating construction activities would include site preparation, excavation, grading, and the physical construction and finishing of the proposed hotel. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 63.6 dBA to in excess of 77.9 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels from construction equipment can be expected to lessen by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance. The City will require that construction activity comply with Section 9.24.030 of the Municipal Code, which limits construction activity to between 7 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturdays between October 1 and April 30. From May 1st to September 30th, the construction hours are from 5:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays. No activity is permitted on Sundays and holidays. The noise levels generated by construction of Alternative B would be expected to be somewhat less than those associated with the proposed Project, because the entire site would require grading, but all construction would be expected to be above ground, and no significant excavation for underground parking would occur. Although the location of buildings is not DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.12--4 known, the distance of construction equipment would likely be similar to that under the proposed Project. Alternative A is located near sensitive receiver R2 (approximately 90 feet). As shown in Table 2.12.14, none of the noise levels anticipated during construction will exceed the noise threshold at any of the sensitive receivers, including location R2. Since Alternative B would result in reduced construction noise levels, it is expected that construction noise levels for Alternative B would also be less than significant. Operational Noise Impact Operation of retail commercial and residential land uses in a mixed use environment will include noise from vehicle traffic and stationary sources, such as HVAC units. Because Alternative B does not include the surf lagoon, surf center and associated facilities, it would be expected that noise levels for Alternative B would be reduced when compared to the noise levels for the proposed Project. As shown in Tables 2.12.10 and 2.12.11, noise levels from operation of the proposed Project are not expected to exceed noise thresholds during operation. Since Alternative B would be expected to have lower noise levels than the proposed Project, operational noise levels would also be expected to be less than those of the proposed Project, and would not be expected to exceed noise thresholds. Impacts of Alternative B operations would therefore be less than significant, and lower than those of the proposed Project. In addition, as described in the discussion of traffic for Alternative B (please see Section 3.15), this alternative is expected to result in a total of 3,610 vehicle trips, a reduction of 1,886 trips when compared to the proposed Project. The analysis of traffic noise for the proposed Project showed that noise levels would not be exceeded on City streets as a result of the proposed Project’s trip generation. Therefore, since Alternative B reduces trips by 34.3% when compared with the proposed Project, its traffic noise impacts are also expected to be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Groundborne vibration and/or groundborne noise would be generated during construction of Alternative B, which could be felt by adjacent land uses. The primary source of groundborne vibration will be operation of heavy equipment, such as bulldozers; however, the impacts will be temporary and will end once construction is complete. As described above, the construction equipment to be used for Alternative B is expected to be similar to that used for the proposed Project, but is likely to operate less intensely than the proposed Project. As described above and in Section 2.12, the threshold of significance for groundborne vibration will not be exceeded for the proposed Project (please see Table 2.12.7). Therefore, since construction activities for Alternative B are expected to be less intense than those for the proposed Project, vibration levels would be expected to be below thresholds, and less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.12--5 3.12.2.2. Alternative B Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures would be required under Alternative B. 3.12.2.3. Alternative B Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant without any mitigation measures. 3.12.2.4. Alternative B Cumulative Impacts Noise levels tend to diminish quickly with distance from a source; therefore, the geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to noise would be limited to projects within approximately 0.25 mile of Alternative A. As described above, the traffic noise levels generated by Alternative B, when added to existing and future traffic, will be less than significant. Although additional projects will develop which will affect these traffic noise levels, long term, General Plan build out noise levels are not expected to exceed thresholds on surrounding streets, when mitigation is applied to individual project locations. Therefore, the development of Alternative B would not be expected to cumulatively impact noise levels in the City. 3.12.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.12.3.1. Alternative C Impacts a) Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction Noise Impact Noise generating construction activities would include site preparation, excavation, grading, and the physical construction and finishing of the proposed hotel. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 63.6 dBA to in excess of 77.9 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels from construction equipment can be expected to lessen by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance. The City will require that construction activity comply with Section 9.24.030 of the Municipal Code, which limits construction activity to between 7 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturdays between October 1 and April 30. From May 1st to September 30th, the construction hours are from 5:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays. No activity is permitted on Sundays and holidays. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.12--6 The noise levels generated by construction of Alternative C would be expected to be considerably lower to those associated with the proposed Project, because the development of 89 single family homes will require less grading and a substantially less intense construction process than the proposed Project. Although the location of individual homes is not known, the distance of construction equipment would likely be similar to that under the proposed Project because the entire site would be graded. As shown in Table 2.12.14, none of the noise levels anticipated during construction will exceed the noise threshold at any of the sensitive receivers. Since Alternative C would result in lower construction noise levels, it is expected that construction noise levels for Alternative C would be lower than the proposed Project, and also be less than significant. Operational Noise Impact Operation of the homes will include noise from vehicle traffic and stationary sources, such as HVAC units. Because Alternative C is comprised entirely of single family homes, it would be expected that noise levels would be substantially lower when compared to the noise levels for the proposed Project. As shown in Tables 2.12.10 and 2.12.11, noise levels from operation of the proposed Project are not expected to exceed noise thresholds during operation. Since Alternative C would be expected to have substantially lower noise levels than the proposed Project, operational noise levels would also be expected to be less than those of the proposed Project, and would not be expected to exceed noise thresholds. Impacts of Alternative C operations would therefore be less than significant, and lower than those of the proposed Project. In addition, as described in the discussion of traffic for Alternative C (please see Section 3.15), this alternative is expected to result in a total of 840 vehicle trips, a reduction of 4,656 trips when compared to the proposed Project. The analysis of traffic noise for the proposed Project showed that noise levels would not be exceeded on City streets as a result of the proposed Project’s trip generation. Therefore, since Alternative C reduces trips by 84.7% when compared with the proposed Project, its traffic noise impacts are also expected to be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Ground-borne vibration and/or ground-borne noise would be generated during construction of Alternative C, which could be felt by adjacent land uses. The primary source of ground-borne vibration will be operation of heavy equipment, such as bulldozers; however, the impacts will be temporary and will end once construction is complete. As described above, the construction equipment to be used for Alternative C is expected to be similar to or less intense than the proposed Project. As described in Section 2.12, the threshold of significance for groundborne vibration is 0.01 in/sec RMS. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project are expected to generate vibration levels of 0.009 or less at the sensitive receivers adjacent to the proposed Project site, and will not exceed thresholds (please see Table 2.12.7). Therefore, since construction activities for Alternative C are expected to be DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.12--7 substantially less intense than those for the proposed Project, vibration levels would be expected to be below thresholds, and less than significant. 3.12.3.2. Alternative C Mitigation Measures This alternative would not require any mitigation measures. 3.12.3.3. Alternative C Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. 3.12.3.4. Alternative C Cumulative Impacts Noise levels tend to diminish quickly with distance from a source; therefore, the geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to noise would be limited to projects within approximately 0.25 mile of Alternative C. As described above, the traffic noise levels generated by Alternative C, when added to existing and future traffic, will be less than significant. Although additional projects will develop which will affect these traffic noise levels, long term, General Plan build out noise levels are not expected to exceed thresholds on surrounding streets, when mitigation is applied to individual project locations. Therefore, the development of Alternative C would not be expected to cumulatively impact noise levels in the City. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.13-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.13. Population and Housing This section of the EIR analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed alternatives to population and housing of the region. The City of Palm Desert’s population was 52,769 in 2018. The City’s population in 2040 is expected to reach 61,700. The alternatives’ potential impacts to these population trends are discussed below. 3.13.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.13.1.1. Alternative A Impacts a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Alternative A will result in the development of a hotel which would generate a variety of new jobs for hotel and ancillary services, including restaurants, spa and similar activities. These on- site employment opportunities are expected to be filled by local residents; therefore, new employment opportunities associated with the proposed alternative are expected to be minor and less than significant. Alternative A would not generate any permanent population in the City. Furthermore, development of the hotel under Alternative A will not require the expansion, extension or construction of new public streets or utilities that would indirectly induce population growth, because like the proposed Project, infrastructure is in place directly adjacent and surrounding the site. Overall, Alternative A impacts will be less than significant. 3.13.1.2. Alternative A Mitigation Measures There will be less than significant impacts and therefore there would be no need for mitigation. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.13-2 3.13.1.3. Alternative A Significance After Mitigation Impacts will be less than significant. 3.13.1.4. Alternative A Cumulative Impacts It is expected that Project-related employment opportunities under Alternative A will be filled by current residents and therefore will not significantly increase the local population or increase demand for housing. Overall, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 3.13.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.13.2.1. Alternative B Impacts a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The development of retail commercial and residential development in a mixed use environment under this alternative would result in new jobs and additional residents. Using the City’s average household size of 2.17 persons, as used for the proposed Project, 177 new residential units could potentially increase the permanent population by approximately 384 persons. This represents 0.62% of the City’s anticipated 2040 population of 61,700, which would have a less than significant impact on the overall population of the area. The proposed commercial land use under this alternative would generate a variety of new jobs. These on-site employment opportunities are expected to be filled by local residents; therefore, new employment opportunities associated with the proposed development are expected to be minor and less than significant. Also, development under this alternative will not require the expansion, extension or construction of new public streets or utilities that would indirectly induce population growth. Overall, Alternative B impacts will be less than significant. 3.13.2.2. Alternative B Mitigation Measures There will be less than significant impacts and therefore there would be no need for mitigation. 3.13.2.3. Alternative B Significance After Mitigation Impacts will be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.13-3 3.13.2.4. Alternative B Cumulative Impacts The Project under this alternative will generate minimal permanent population as compared to City-wide population growth anticipated by SCAG. It is expected that Project-related employment opportunities under Alternative B will be filled by current residents and therefore will not cumulatively increase the local population or increase demand for housing. 3.13.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.13.3.1. Alternative C Impacts a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Using the average household size of 2.17 persons, as used for the proposed Project, development of 89 new residential units under this alternative could generate approximately 193 new residents. This represents 0.31% of the City’s anticipated 2040 population of 61,700, which would have a less than significant impact on the overall population of the area. Furthermore, development of the project site under Alternative C will not require the expansion, extension or construction of new public streets or utilities that would indirectly induce population growth. Overall, Alternative C impacts will be less than significant. 3.13.3.2. Alternative C Mitigation Measures There will be less than significant impacts and therefore there would be no need for mitigation. 3.13.3.3. Alternative C Significance After Mitigation Impacts will be less than significant. 3.13.3.4. Alternative C Cumulative Impacts Alternative C will generate minimal permanent population as compared to population growth anticipated in the City. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.14-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.14. Public Services This analysis evaluates the potential for the alternatives to directly affect public services during construction and operational phases. The analysis considers whether construction and/or operation of the alternatives would affect the ability of fire, police, school, or other public service providers to maintain acceptable service or other performance objectives, resulting in the need for new or expanded facilities. 3.14.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.14.1.1. Alternative A Impacts a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection ii) Police protection iii) Schools iv) Parks v) Other public facilities Fire Protection Services Alternative A is expected to generate 500 hotel rooms, which would result in similar impacts to the proposed Project’s operational impacts, insofar as resort activities would be expected to be similar to the hotel and villa component of the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.14-2 During construction of Alternative A, fire protection services would be needed in the unlikely event of worker injury or other accidental conditions. The potential need for these services will be about the same as that required for the proposed Project, since construction activities would be similar to those of the proposed Project. Operational impacts associated with Alternative A would be somewhat less than the proposed Project, because the lack of a surf lagoon and associated facilities will reduce the risk associated with injury from this recreational facility, and there would be no special events under this alternative. Because Alternative A is comprised of a hotel, however, the operational impacts to the Fire Department from that use would be similar to those of the proposed Project, and similar to calls for service already occurring at other City hotels and resorts. Impacts would be less than significant, and consistent with those associated with the proposed Project. As was the case for the proposed Project, Alternative A would be required to pay the Fire Facilities Impact Fee, which is charged for new development. Therefore, Alternative A would not significantly affect fire protection services. Police Protection Services Alternative A is expected to generate 500 hotel rooms and ancillary facilities, including restaurants and bars. Police services would be required in case of a crime within the project area. During construction, impacts to police services would be similar to those of the proposed project, and would be centered around equipment theft. As with the proposed Project, Alternative A would be subject to Mitigation Measure PS-4, which requires that all equipment be secured at the end of each work day. Impacts associated with the construction of Alternative A would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of this mitigation measure, and would be consistent with the impacts associated with the proposed Project. Under Alternative A, hotel guests would require police protection from the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD), which is responsible for police services in the City of Palm Desert. Operation of the hotel would be subject to Mitigation Measure PS-1, requiring on-site security service, but would be less likely to require special event permitting, since hotel activities will be less intense than those proposed at the surf lagoon and surf center. With implementation of mitigation measures, impacts associated with Alternative A would be less than significant, and likely would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project. Schools Alternative A could result in indirect impact to schools from employees’ families, and would be required to pay the mandated school fees for commercial development. These fees are designed to offset the impacts of new development on schools. Impacts associated with schools would be somewhat lower than those associated with the proposed Project, insofar as the latter’s villas could be occupied by permanent residents who would directly impact schools. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.14-3 However, since residential development is also required to pay school fees, impacts under both Alternative A and the proposed Project are expected to be less than significant. Parks and Other Public Facilities Alternative A may generate a marginal increase in activities at local parks, but given the likely amenities and facilities at a resort hotel, and the site’s location within the Desert Willow golf course, this increase is likely to be unnoticeable. Like the proposed Project, impacts associated with parks would be less than significant. Under this Alternative, hotel guests may attend the local library, museums, or other attractions, and some may require medical services at local hospitals. However, such visits are expected to be minimal, and lesser than the proposed Project because Alternative A would not bring as many people to the site. Buildout of Alternative A is not expected to require new or expanded facilities that could result in adverse environmental impacts. Impacts to other public facilities will be less than significant, consistent with the proposed Project. 3.14.1.2. Alternative A Mitigation Measures Alternative A will be subject to Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-4 to ensure the private security during the construction and operations of the proposed hotel. No additional mitigation measures are required. 3.14.1.3. Alternative A Significance After Mitigation With the implementation of mitigation measures, impacts associated with Alternative A will be less than significant. 3.14.1.4. Alternative A Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the cumulative analysis pertaining to fire and police protection services entail the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) and Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD) service areas. Alternative A, in combination with the construction and operation of related projects in the RCFD and RCSD service areas would increase the demand for fire and police protection services. There would be increased demands for additional RCFD and RCSD staffing, equipment, and facilities over time. This need would be funded via existing mechanisms, including property taxes, to which Alternative A and related projects would contribute. At buildout, Alternative A is expected to marginally increase the number of visitors to parks and public facilities in the project area but will not increase the permanent local population or the demand for schools. When compared to the population growth anticipated in the Coachella Valley, this alternative would marginally increase the number of visitors as compared to other residential projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts to parks and public facilities from Alternative A will not be cumulatively considerable. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.14-4 3.14.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.14.2.1. Alternative B Impacts a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection ii) Police protection iii) Schools iv) Parks v) Other public facilities Fire Protection Services Under this alternative, the site would be developed with 177 residential units and 77,100 square feet of commercial space. Alternative B would result an increase in permanent population over the proposed Project. However, the lagoon, surf center and other associated amenities would not be built under Alternative B, which would consequently reduce the fire protection services demand. During construction of Alternative B, fire protection services would be needed in the unlikely event of worker injury or other accidental conditions. The potential need for these services will be about the same as that required for the proposed Project, since construction activities would be similar to those of the proposed Project. Operational impacts associated with Alternative B would be somewhat less than the proposed Project, because the lack of a surf lagoon and associated facilities will reduce the risk associated with injury from this recreational facility, and there would be no special events under this alternative. Because Alternative B includes permanent residences and retail commercial uses, the operational impacts to the Fire Department would be reduced, insofar as less activity would occur on the site. Impacts would be less than significant, and likely less than those associated with the proposed Project. As was the case for the proposed Project, Alternative B would be required to pay the Fire Facilities Impact Fee, which is charged for new development. Therefore, Alternative B would not significantly affect fire protection services. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.14-5 Police Protection Services During construction, impacts to police services would be similar to those of the proposed project, and would be centered around equipment theft. As with the proposed Project, Alternative B would be subject to Mitigation Measure PS-4, which requires that all equipment be secured at the end of each work day. Impacts associated with the construction of Alternative B would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of this mitigation measure, and would be consistent with the impacts associated with the proposed Project. Alternative B is expected to generate a permanent population (382 persons) and commercial space and associated structures. These new residents would require police protection from the RCSD. Overall, the small increase in residents on a predominantly urban infill site would not affect police department service ratios or response times, nor would any new police protection facilities need to be provided. This impact would therefore be less than significant. Schools Build out of Alternative B has the potential to result in 177 residential units. Based on the same student generation rates used for the proposed Project, this would result in approximately 30 new enrollments in elementary schools, 16 new enrollments in middle schools, and 23 new enrollments in high schools in the area, for a total of 69 new students. Compared to proposed Project, this represents an increase in potential residential development and associated build out enrollments. Alternative B would be required to pay both commercial and residential development school fees, which is deemed to fully mitigate the impacts of new development on school services. Therefore, with payment of these required developer fees, Alternative B impacts to school services would be less than significant, and consistent with the proposed Project. Parks and Other Public Facilities Under this Alternative, the project is expected to generate a greater permanent population (i.e. 382 persons), which would use public parks and attend the local library, museums, or other attractions, more frequently as compared to the proposed Project. However, buildout of Alternative B is not expected to require new or expanded facilities that could result in adverse environmental impacts, because of the Alternative’s location within the golf course, which provides an on-site amenity. Project-related impacts to other public facilities will be less than significant, but would be somewhat greater than those associated with the proposed Project because of the increase in permanent population. 3.14.2.2. Alternative B Mitigation Measures Alternative B will be subject to Mitigation Measure PS-4 to ensure security during construction. No additional mitigation measures would be required. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.14-6 3.14.2.3. Alternative B Significance After Mitigation With the implementation of mitigation measures, impacts associated with Alternative B will be less than significant. 3.14.2.4. Alternative B Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the cumulative analysis pertaining to fire and police protection services entail the RCFD and RCSD service areas. Alternative B, in combination with the construction and operation of related projects in the RCFD and RCSD service areas would increase the demand for fire and police protection services. There would be increased demands for additional RCFD and RCSD staffing, equipment, and facilities over time. This need would be funded via existing mechanisms, including property taxes, to which Alternative B and related projects would contribute. At buildout, Alternative B is expected to increase the number of residents accessing parks and public facilities in the project area and the demand for schools. When compared to the population growth anticipated in the Coachella Valley, this alternative would marginally increase the number of users and school children as compared to other residential projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts to parks and public facilities from Alternative B will not be cumulatively considerable. 3.14.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.14.3.1. Alternative C Impacts a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection ii) Police protection iii) Schools iv) Parks v) Other public facilities Fire Protection Services During construction of Alternative C, fire protection services would be needed in the unlikely event of worker injury or other accidental conditions. The potential need for these services will be somewhat reduced from that required for the proposed Project, since construction activities would be less intense than the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.14-7 Alternative C is expected generate approximately 89 residential units generating a permanent population of 192 persons. No lagoon, hotel or commercial uses will be built under this alternative resulting in fewer structures and visitors. These new residents would require fire protection from the RCFD. The small increase in residents on a predominantly urban infill site would not affect fire department service ratios or response times, nor would any new fire protection facilities need to be provided. This impact would therefore be less than significant. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative C would be required to pay the Fire Facilities Impact Fee, which is charged on new residential development. Overall impacts associated with Alternative C would be less than significant, and less than those associated with the proposed Project. Police Protection Services During construction, impacts to police services would be similar to those of the proposed project, and would be centered around equipment theft. As with the proposed Project, Alternative C would be subject to Mitigation Measure PS-4, which requires that all equipment be secured at the end of each work day. Impacts associated with the construction of Alternative C would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of this mitigation measure, and would be consistent with the impacts associated with the proposed Project. Alternative C residents would require police protection from the RCSD. Overall, the small increase in residents on a predominantly urban infill site would not affect police department service ratios or response times, nor would any new police protection facilities need to be provided. This impact would therefore be less than significant, and lower than impacts associated with the proposed Project. Schools Build out of Alternative C has the potential to result in 89 single family residential units which would result in approximately 15 new enrollments in elementary schools, 8 new enrollments in middle schools, and 11 new enrollments in high schools in the area, for a total of 35 new students. Compared to proposed Project, this represents an increase in potential residential development and associated build out enrollments. Alternative C would be required to pay residential development impact fees which are deemed to fully mitigate the impacts of new development on school services. Therefore, with payment of these required developer fees, Alternative C impacts to school services would be less than significant. Parks and Other Public Facilities Under this Alternative, a greater permanent population would frequent parks and attend the local library, museums, or other attractions, as compared to the proposed Project. However, buildout of the Alternative C is not expected to require new or expanded facilities that could result in adverse environmental impacts, because the increase in population will be marginal. Project-related impacts to parks and other public facilities will be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.14-8 3.14.3.2. Alternative C Mitigation Measures Alternative C will be subject to the Mitigation Measures PS-4 to ensure security during the construction of the residences. No additional mitigation measures are required. 3.14.3.3. Alternative C Significance After Mitigation With the implementation of mitigation measures, impacts associated with Alternative C will be less than significant. 3.14.3.4. Alternative C Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the cumulative analysis pertaining to fire and police protection services entail the RCFD and RCSD service areas. Alternative C, in combination with the construction and operation of related projects in the RCFD and RCSD service areas would increase the demand for fire and police protection services. There would be increased demands for additional RCFD and RCSD staffing, equipment, and facilities over time. This need would be funded via existing mechanisms, including property taxes, to which Alternative C and related projects would contribute. At buildout, Alternative C is expected to increase the number of residents accessing parks and public facilities in the project area and the demand for schools. When compared to the population growth anticipated in the Coachella Valley, this alternative would marginally increase the number of users and school children as compared to other residential projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts to parks and public facilities from Alternative B will not be cumulatively considerable. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.15-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.15. Transportation This section of the EIR analyzes the potential transportation impacts of the alternatives to the proposed Project. The Project site is accessed via Desert Willow Drive, Market Place Drive, Country Club Drive, and Cook Street. It is 1½ miles southwest of the Interstate-10/Cook Street interchange and 3 miles southeast of the Interstate-10/Monterey Avenue interchange. Alternative transportation facilities in the immediate vicinity include Sunline Transit Agency bus routes and bus stops along Cook Street, bike lanes and sidewalks along Country Club Drive and Cook Street, and golf cart paths on the surrounding Desert Willow Golf Course. 3.15.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.15.1.1. Alternative A Impacts a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Like the proposed Project, Alternative A would not be expected to impact transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. The project site is within ½-mile of the nearest Sunline Transit Agency bus route and bus stops on Cook Street, and ⅓-mile from the sidewalk and bike lane on Country Club Drive. It would not be expected to conflict with a program, plan, or policy addressing such facilities. Alternative A would result in a 500 room hotel, similar in scope to that proposed for the Project, but would not include the surf lagoon and surf center components of the Project. Because of the increased size of the hotel, however, traffic impacts, described below, would be similar to the proposed Project. As discussed in Section 2.15, Transportation, LOS D is considered the minimum acceptable service level for the Palm Desert circulation system. The intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive is currently operating at LOS F during the PM peak hour and warrants a traffic signal. The intersection provides direct access to the Alternative A site, and additional traffic DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.15-2 generated by Alternative A would contribute to a continuation of unacceptable LOS. Like the proposed Project, Alternative A would be required to pay its fair share toward installation of a new traffic signal at this intersection (Mitigation Measure TRANSP-1). Alternative A would be required to extend the eastbound turn lane on Market Place Drive at Cook Street to provide a minimum of 165 feet of storage (TRANSP-2). It would also be required to comply with the City’s signing and striping requirements (TRANSP-3) and sight distance standards (TRANSP-4). With implementation of these measures, impacts would be less than significant. Alternative A is not expected to result in queuing issues on I-10 off ramps or unacceptable LOS on I-10 mainline segments. It would generate fewer vehicle trips than the proposed Project (see table below) and therefore, like the proposed Project, would not adversely impact I-10 operations. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? The Traffic Impact Analysis1 (TIA) estimates trip generation for Alternative A. As shown in the following table, Alternative A would generate a total of 4,180 weekday daily trips during operation. Table 3.15-1 Alternative A - Project Trip Generation Summary Trip Generation Rate1 Land Use ITE Code Units Weekday Weekend Peak Hour Weekday Daily PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Hotel 310 Rooms 0.31 0.29 0.60 0.40 0.32 0.72 8.36 Total Trip Generation Land Use Quantity Weekday Weekend Peak Hour Weekday Daily PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Hotel 500 Rooms 153 147 300 200 160 360 4,180 Proposed Project 147 157 304 242 206 448 5,496 Variance -6 -10 -4 -42 -46 -88 -1,316 1 Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017. Source: “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. Alternative A would be developed on the same site as the proposed Project. It is centrally located in the Coachella Valley and accessed by major arterials, as well as I-10. Hotel guests could originate from within the valley or outside the region. Those originating within the valley would travel ±15 miles or less to reach the hotel. Those originating outside the area could travel 1 “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.15-3 much farther; western Riverside County and Los Angeles, for example, are 60 miles and 100 miles from the Project site, respectively. Hotel employees would likely be Coachella Valley residents with commutes of ±15 miles or less. Like the proposed Project, Alternative A’s trip generation could be reduced somewhat by proximity to transit facilities. The site is ½-mile west of Sunline Transit Agency’s Bus Lines 20 and 21 along Cook Street which connect to other Sunline routes serving the valley. Impacts would be less than significant. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a product of the number of vehicle trips generated and distance traveled. Both Alternative A and the proposed Project are resort/hotel land uses that would attract guests from within the Coachella Valley and outside the region. However, Alternative A would generate an estimated 1,316 fewer weekday daily trips than the proposed Project (see table above). In addition, special events, which would occur for the proposed Project but not for Alternative A, would result in greater VMTs. Therefore, Alternative A would be expected to generate lower VMT than the proposed Project. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Like the proposed Project, Alternative A is easily accessed by the existing network of roads and intersections. Alternative A would not be expected to increase hazards due to a geometric design feature. Vehicles accessing the site would belong to hotel guests, employees, and delivery personnel and would be compatible with the existing vehicle mix in the project vicinity. No impact would occur. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Like the proposed Project, Alternative A would be required to work with the City Public Works, Fire, and Police Departments to assure that adequate emergency access is provided during all phases of development. Development plans would be reviewed by the Fire and Police Departments to address adequate fire lanes, vehicle turning radius, signage, and secondary emergency access. Potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures TRANSP-15 through TRANSP-19 that were set forth for the proposed Project in Section 2.15.7. Impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures, and consistent with those of the proposed Project 3.15.1.2. Alternative A Mitigation Measures Alternative A would be subject to TRANSP-1 through TRANSP-4 pertaining to site access improvements, and TRANSP-15 through TRANSP-19 pertaining to emergency access, as set forth in Section 2.15.7. Because there would be no special events associated with Alternative A, Mitigation Measures TRANS-5 through TRANS-14 would not apply to this alternative. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.15-4 3.15.1.3. Alternative A Significance After Mitigation With implementation of the above-described mitigation measures, transportation impacts would be less than significant. 3.15.1.4. Alternative A Cumulative Impacts Alternative A, other development projects in the area, and ambient growth would all contribute to continued unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive. Alternative A would be required to pay its fair share of installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive (TRANSP-1). Payment of TUMF fees (TRANSP-20) would also reduce Alternative A’s impacts on regional transportation facilities. In addition, as described in Section 2.15.9, the TIA studied not only Project impacts, but the cumulative impacts of other approved and planned projects in Palm Desert. This analysis showed that cumulative impacts would be less than significant, with the implementation of mitigation measures. Since Alternative A generates fewer trips than the proposed Project, cumulative trips will also be reduced when compared to the proposed Project. Implementation of mitigation measures also applicable to the Project would reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant levels, just as with the proposed Project. 3.15.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.15.2.1. Alternative B Impacts a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The Alternative B site is within ½-mile of Sunline Transit Agency’s nearest transit bus routes and bus stops on Cook Street and ⅓-mile from the nearest sidewalks and bike lanes on Country Club Drive. Like the proposed Project, Alternative B would not be expected to impact programs, plans, or policies affecting such facilities. The intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive is currently operating at LOS F during the PM peak hour and warrants a traffic signal. The intersection provides direct access to the Alternative B site, and additional traffic generated by Alternative B would contribute to a continuation of unacceptable LOS, although at a lesser amount than the proposed Project. Like the proposed Project, Alternative B would be required to pay its fair share toward installation of a new traffic signal at this intersection (Mitigation Measure TRANSP-1). The Project would be required to extend the eastbound turn lane on Market Place Drive at Cook Street to provide a minimum of 165 feet of storage (TRANSP-2). It would also be required to comply with the City’s signing and striping requirements (TRANSP-3) and sight distance standards (TRANSP-4). With implementation of these measures, impacts would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.15-5 Alternative B is not expected to result in queuing issues on I-10 off ramps or unacceptable LOS on I-10 mainline segments. It would generate fewer vehicle trips than the proposed Project (see table below) and therefore, like the proposed Project, would not adversely impact I-10 operations. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? The TIA estimates trip generation for Alternative B. As shown in the table below, Alternative B would generate a total of 3,610 weekday daily trips during operation. Table 3.15-2 Alternative B - Project Trip Generation Summary Trip Generation Rates1 Land Use ITE Code Units2 Weekday Weekend Peak Hour Weekday Daily PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Shopping Center3 820 TSF 2.79 3.02 5.81 3.40 3.14 6.54 65.34 Multifamily Housing(Low Rise) 220 DU 0.35 0.21 0.56 0.35 0.35 0.70 7.32 Total Trip Generation Land Use Quantity Weekday Weekend Peak Hour Weekday Daily PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Retail 77.100 TSF 215 233 448 262 242 504 5,038 Internal Capture4: -29 -16 -45 -29 -26 -55 -506 Pass-by Reduction (Weekday PM/Daily: 34%; Weekend: 26%): -63 -63 -126 -56 -56 -112 -1,712 Multifamily Housing(Low Rise) 177 DU 62 37 99 62 62 124 1,296 Internal Capture4: -16 -29 -45 -26 -29 -55 -506 Alternative B TOTAL: 169 162 331 213 193 406 3,610 Proposed Project 147 157 304 242 206 448 5,496 Variance -22 -5 -27 -29 -13 -42 -1,886 1 Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017. 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet DU = dwelling unit 3 Trips have been calculated based on a fitted curve equation per ITE Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017. 4 Internal capture is based on the NCHRP 684 Internal Capture Estimation Tool (ITE recommended methodology). Source: “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. Alternative B would be developed on the same site as the proposed Project. It is centrally located in the Coachella Valley and accessed by major arterials, as well as I-10. Shoppers and employees at the retail component would likely originate from local Coachella Valley communities and travel less than 15 miles to the site. Residents of the housing component would live onsite and travel locally for employment, school, and shopping; some residents may live and work onsite, resulting in zero commuter vehicle miles traveled. Like the proposed DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.15-6 Project, Alternative B’s trip generation could be reduced by proximity to transit facilities. The site is ½-mile west of Sunline Transit Agency’s Bus Lines 20 and 21 on Cook Street which connect to other Sunline routes serving the valley. Impacts would be less than significant. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a product of the number of vehicle trips generated and distance traveled. Vehicles accessing Alternative B are expected to originate in the Coachella Valley and travel shorter distances than those accessing the proposed Project. In addition, Alternative B is estimated to generate 1,886 fewer weekday daily trips than the proposed Project (see table above). Therefore, Alternative B would be expected to generate lower VMT than the proposed Project. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Like the proposed Project, the Alternative B site is easily accessed by existing roads and intersections and would not be expected to include a hazardous geometric design feature. Vehicles accessing the site would include those of residents, customers, employees, and delivery personnel and would be compatible with the vehicle mix already in the project area. No impact would occur. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Like the proposed Project, Alternative B would be required to coordinate with the City Public Works, Fire, and Police Departments to assure adequate emergency access is provided during all phases of development. Considerations would include adequate fire lanes, addressing and signage, turning radius for emergency vehicles, and secondary emergency access. Implementation of mitigation measures TRANSP-15 through TRANSP-19 (see Section 2.15.7) would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. 3.15.2.2. Alternative B Mitigation Measures Alternative B would be subject to TRANSP-1 through TRANSP-4 pertaining to site access improvements, and TRANSP-15 through TRANSP-19 pertaining to emergency access, as set forth in Section 2.15.7. Mitigation Measures TRANSP-5 through TRANSP-14, relating to special events, would not apply to Alternative B, as no special events would be expected. 3.15.2.3. Alternative B Significance After Mitigation With implementation of the above-described mitigation measures, transportation impacts would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.15-7 3.15.2.4. Alternative B Cumulative Impacts Alternative B, other development projects in the area, and ambient growth would all contribute to continued unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive. The Project would be required to pay its fair share of installation of a traffic signal at the intersection (TRANSP-1). Payment of TUMF fees (TRANSP-20) would also reduce Alternative B’s impacts on regional transportation facilities. In addition, as described in Section 2.15.9, the TIA studied not only Project impacts, but the cumulative impacts of other approved and planned projects in Palm Desert. This analysis showed that cumulative impacts would be less than significant, with the implementation of mitigation measures. Since Alternative B generates far fewer trips than the proposed Project, cumulative trips will also be reduced when compared to the proposed Project. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 3.15.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.15.3.1. Alternative C Impacts a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The Alternative C site is within ½-mile of Sunline Transit Agency’s nearest transit bus routes and bus stops on Cook Street and ⅓-mile of the nearest sidewalks and bike lanes on Country Club Drive. Like the proposed Project, it would not be expected to impact programs, plans, or policies affecting such facilities. Alternative C would result in the fewest trips of all the project alternatives. The intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive is currently operating at LOS F during the PM peak hour and warrants a traffic signal. The intersection provides direct access to Alternative C, and additional traffic generated by Alternative C would contribute to a continuation of unacceptable LOS. Like the proposed Project, Alternative C would be required to pay its fair share toward installation of a new traffic signal at this intersection (Mitigation Measure TRANSP-1). The Project would be required to extend the eastbound turn lane on Market Place Drive at Cook Street to provide a minimum of 165 feet of storage (TRANSP-2). It would also be required to comply with the City’s signing and striping requirements (TRANSP-3) and sight distance standards (TRANSP-4). With implementation of these measures, impacts would be less than significant. Alternative C is not expected to result in queuing issues on I-10 off ramps or unacceptable LOS on I-10 mainline segments. It would generate far fewer vehicle trips than the proposed Project (see table below) and therefore, like the proposed Project, would not adversely impact I-10 operations. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.15-8 b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? The TIA estimates trip generation for Alternative C. As shown in the following table, Alternative C would generate a total of 840 weekday daily trips during operation. Table 3.15-3 Alternative C - Project Trip Generation Summary Trip Generation Rate1 Land Use ITE Code Units2 Weekday Weekend Peak Hour Weekday Daily PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Single-Family Detached Housing 210 DU 0.62 0.37 0.99 0.50 0.43 0.93 9.44 Total Trip Generation Land Use Quantity Weekday Weekend Peak Hour Weekday Daily PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Single-Family Detached Housing 89 DU 56 33 89 45 38 83 840 Proposed Project 147 157 304 242 206 448 5,496 Variance -91 -124 -215 -197 -168 -365 -4,656 1 Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017. 2 DU = dwelling unit Source: “Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Palm Desert,” Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. Alternative C would be developed on the same site as the proposed Project. It is centrally located in the Coachella Valley and accessed by major arterials, as well as I-10. Residents would live onsite and commute locally to work, school, and shopping. Like the proposed Project, Alternative C’s trip generation could be reduced by proximity to transit facilities. The site is ½- mile west of Sunline Transit Agency’s Bus Lines 20 and 21 on Cook Street which connect to other Sunline routes serving the valley. Impacts would be less than significant. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a product of the number of vehicle trips generated and distance traveled. Vehicles accessing Alternative C are expected to travel primarily within the Coachella Valley, resulting in shorter distances than the proposed Project. Alternative C is also estimated to generate 4,656 fewer weekday daily trips than the proposed Project (see table above). Therefore, Alternative C would be expected to generate lower VMT than the proposed Project. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The Alternative C site is well served by existing roads and intersections. Alternative C would not be expected to increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Vehicles accessing the site generally would be passenger cars of residents and their guests and would be compatible with existing vehicles in the area. No impact would occur. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.15-9 d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Like the proposed Project, Alternative C would be required to coordinate with the City Public Works, Fire, and Police Departments to assure that adequate emergency access is provided during all phases of development. Considerations would include emergency vehicle access points and turning radius, visible address numbers and signage, among others. Implementation of mitigation measures TRANSP-15 through TRANSP-19 described in Section 2.15.7 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. 3.15.3.2. Alternative C Mitigation Measures Alternative C would be subject to TRANSP-1 through TRANSP-4 pertaining to site access improvements, and TRANSP-15 through TRANSP-19 pertaining to emergency access, as set forth in Section 2.15.7. Mitigation Measures TRANSP-5 through TRANSP-14, relating to special events, would not apply to Alternative B, as no special events would be expected. 3.15.3.3. Alternative C Significance After Mitigation With implementation of the above-described mitigation measures, transportation impacts would be less than significant. 3.15.3.4. Alternative C Cumulative Impacts Alternative C, other development projects in the area, and ambient growth would all contribute to continued unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Cook Street and Market Place Drive. The Project would be required to pay its fair share of installation of a traffic signal at the intersection (TRANSP-1). Payment of TUMF fees (TRANSP-20) would also reduce Alternative C’s impacts on regional transportation facilities. Implementation of these measures would reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. In addition, as described in Section 2.15.9, the TIA studied not only Project impacts, but the cumulative impacts of other approved and planned projects in Palm Desert. This analysis showed that cumulative impacts would be less than significant, with the implementation of mitigation measures. Since Alternative C generates far fewer trips than the proposed Project, cumulative trips will also be reduced when compared to the proposed Project. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.16-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems This section describes potential impacts on utilities and service systems that could occur as a result of implementing the project alternatives and analyzes the level of impact these alternatives would have on these resources. Utilities and service systems discussed in this section include water, wastewater service, solid waste facilities, electricity, and natural gas. 3.16.1. Alternative A: No Project / Northern Sphere Specific Plan 3.16.1.1. Alternative A Impacts a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Domestic Water As was the case for the proposed Project, existing CVWD domestic water lines were laid out at the initial construction of the Desert Willow Golf Course. The nearest existing domestic water line (18-inch) is located under Willow Ridge Road, immediately northwest of the project site. Another 18-inch sewer line runs under the traffic circle at the clubhouse entrance, immediately northeast of the project site. Under this alternative, water lines would need to be extended from the site to connect to the two existing 18-inch water lines. Alternative A’s domestic water demand would be accommodated by CVWD. No extension of service would be required, consistent with the proposed Project, and impacts would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.16-2 Wastewater This alternative would consist of 500 hotel rooms and ancillary facilities. Using the estimated domestic wastewater flows of 250 gallons per room per day, Alternative A would result in approximately 125,000 gallons per day, which is 36,500 gallons of wastewater per day less than projected for the proposed Project. This alternative will constitute less than 1 percent of the CVWD’s wastewater plant’s capacity. As discussed in Section 2.16.5, CVWD has sufficient treatment capacity to treat wastewater generated by Alternative A and its construction is not anticipated to result in the construction or relocation of the existing wastewater treatment plant. Furthermore, similar to the proposed Project, Alternative A will require construction of on-site sewer infrastructure to connect to the existing sewer mains located in the Desert Willow Drive and Willow Ridge Road rights-of-way, from which sewage will be conveyed to the CVWD wastewater treatment plant. The project wastewater discharges will be typical of commercial uses and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the CVWD and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Overall, impacts associated with wastewater generation would be less than the proposed Project, and no mitigation measure is required. Electricity Alternative A would consume approximately 13,169,600 kWh of electricity annually for various purposes, such as, heating/ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC), refrigeration, lighting, electronics, office and security equipment, commercial machinery (including kitchen and laundry appliances), swimming pool lighting and maintenance etc. This represents a 39.4 percent reduction from the proposed Project’s electricity use. Alternative A’s electricity demand would represent a 1.74 percent increase in annual City-wide kWh usage (756,834,386 kWh). Impacts associated with Alternative A will be less than significant, and lower than those of the proposed Project. To reduce the electricity usage, Alternative A would comply with the current California Building Code and Energy Code standards. Alternative A will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electrical energy resources during project operation and therefore impacts would be less than significant. Natural Gas Alternative A would consume approximately 435,673 therms of natural gas for heating, cooking, and powering equipment such as furnaces, which would be equivalent to a 2.48 percent increase in annual City wide therm usage (17,532,930 therms). Alternative A would comply with the current California Building Code and Energy Code standards to reduce the consumption. Alternative A will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of natural gas during project operation and impacts would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.16-3 b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Alternative A is anticipated to require approximately 71.43 AFY of domestic water at build out, which is 93.78 AFY less than water demand projected for the proposed Project. This alternative, however, would be unlikely to implement the proposed Project’s turf reduction plan, included as a requirement of the WSA, and would therefore have a net water demand 14.97 AFY greater than that of the proposed Project. However, since CVWD has analyzed water demand based on a hotel on the site in its Urban Water Management Plan, since the land use is consistent with the General Plan designation and NSSP use for the site, as described in Sections 2.10 and 3.10, sufficient water supplies exist to serve Alternative A. No additional water resources would be required. CVWD can reliably expect water from the surface and groundwater resources under all conditions. CVWD’s existing entitlements would allow for all diversions necessary to supply Alternative A during single-dry or multiple-dry years. Only in cases of catastrophic supply interruption or vastly reduced flows in the Colorado River would the water supply reduce. In such an event, the project would face the same reduced supply conditions as the rest of the region. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? At buildout, Alternative A is expected to generate approximately 183 tons of solid waste, which is less than the 355 tons of solid waste projected at build out of the proposed Project. This reduction is based on the reduced intensity in land use represented by the surf center and its related uses, which generate lower amounts of solid waste. Similar to the proposed Project, this alternative would be required to maintain 50 percent waste diversion in accordance with the Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). Solid waste collected from the site will be hauled to the Edom Hill Transfer Station in Cathedral City and then will be transported to Lambs Canyon landfill in Beaumont. Commingled recyclable materials (e.g., paper, plastic, glass, cardboard, aluminum) will be transported to Burrtec’s material recovery facilities. Less than significant impacts would occur from this alternative and no mitigation is required. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.16-4 3.16.1.2. Alternative A Mitigation Measures Alternative A will have less than significant impacts on utilities and service systems, and would not require mitigation measures. 3.16.1.3. Alternative A Significance After Mitigation Impacts to the utility service providers associated with construction of Alternative A would be less than significant. 3.16.1.4. Alternative A Cumulative Impacts The proposed alternative would contribute considerably to cumulative impacts if it were to have a significant adverse effect on utility service providers’ capacities and would result in the extension or construction of these facilities in the region. Quantitative analysis reflects that potential impacts of Alternative A on utility service providers would be less than those for the proposed Project, and that it will have a less than significantly impact on these resources. When considered in conjunction with other projects in the City’s General Plan boundaries, Alternative A will have a marginal and fractional impact on services. Therefore, Alternative A’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to these services would not be cumulatively considerable. 3.16.2. Alternative B: Mixed Use Alternative 3.16.2.1. Alternative B Impacts a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Domestic Water As described above, existing domestic water lines occur in Desert Willow Drive at the traffic circle, and in Willow Ridge Road. Alternative B would not require the extension of water lines, and impacts would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.16-5 Wastewater This alternative would consist of 177 residential units and 77,100 square feet of commercial space. Using the estimated domestic wastewater flows of 250 gallons per unit per day and 100 gallons per 1,000 square feet of commercial space, Alternative B would result in approximately 44,250 gallons per day, which is 117,250 gallons of wastewater per day less than projected for the proposed Project. As discussed in Section 2.16, CVWD has sufficient treatment capacity to treat wastewater generated by Alternative B and it is not anticipated to result in the construction or relocation of the existing wastewater treatment plant. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative B will require construction of on-site sewer infrastructure to connect to the existing sewer mains located in the Desert Willow Drive and Willow Ridge Road rights-of-way. The project wastewater discharges will be typical of residential and commercial uses and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the CVWD and Regional Water Quality Control Board. which could cause significant environmental effects. Overall, impacts associated with wastewater generation would be less than the proposed Project, and no mitigation measure is required. Electricity The operation of the residential and commercial land uses under Alternative B would consume approximately 1,834,039 kWh of electricity annually. This represents a reduction of 91.6 percent when compared to the proposed Project. Alternative B’s electricity demand would represent a 0.24 percent increase in annual City-wide kWh usage (756,834,386 kWh). Alternative B would comply with the current California Building Code and Energy Code standards to reduce the electricity usage at the project site. Alternative B will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electrical energy resources during project operation and impacts would be less than significant. Natural Gas Alternative B would consume approximately 29,279 therms of natural gas annually for heating, cooking, and powering furnaces. Alternative B’s natural gas demand would be equivalent to a 0.17 percent increase in annual City wide therm usage (17,532,930 therms). As would be the case with electricity, this alternative would comply with the current California Building Code and Energy Code standards to reduce the natural gas consumption. Alternative B will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of natural gas during project operation and impacts would be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.16-6 b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Alternative B is anticipated to require approximately 83.17 AFY of domestic water at the buildout, which is 82.04 AFY less than projected for the proposed Project. However, under this alternative, the turf reduction program required in the Project WSA would not be implemented, so the net water demand would be about 24.71 AFY greater than the proposed Project. CVWD can reliably expect water from the surface and groundwater resources under all conditions but catastrophic conditions. CVWD’s existing entitlements would allow for all diversions necessary to supply Alternative B during single-dry or multiple-dry years. Only in cases of catastrophic supply interruption or vastly reduced flows in the Colorado River would the water supply reduce. In such an event, the project would face the same reduced supply conditions as the rest of the region. Although sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project in future during normal, dry and multiple dry years, the development under this alternative will be subject to CVWD’s water conservation standards similar to the proposed Project. Overall, less than significant impacts would occur from Alternative B. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? This alternative is expected to generate approximately 446 tons of solid waste, which is more than the 355 tons of solid waste projected at build out of the proposed Project. This increase is due to the higher number of residential units, which have a higher generation factor. Similar to the proposed Project, this alternative would be required to maintain 50 percent waste diversion in accordance with the CIWMP. Solid waste collected from the site will be hauled to the Edom Hill Transfer Station in Cathedral City and then will be transported to Lambs Canyon landfill in Beaumont. Commingled recyclable materials (e.g., paper, plastic, glass, cardboard, aluminum) will be transported to Burrtec’s material recovery facilities. Less than significant impacts would occur from this alternative and no mitigation is required. 3.16.2.2. Alternative B Mitigation Measures Impacts associated with this alternative would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required, as is the case for the proposed Project. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.16-7 3.16.2.3. Alternative B Significance After Mitigation Impacts to the utility service providers associated with construction of this alternative would be less than significant. 3.16.2.4. Alternative B Cumulative Impacts Alternative B would contribute considerably to cumulative impacts if it were to have a significant adverse effect on utility service provider’s capacities and would result into the extension or construction of these facilities in the region. Quantitative analysis reflects that potential impacts of this alternative on utility service providers would be less than those for the proposed Project, and it will have a less than significant impact on these resources. When considered in conjunction with other projects in the City’s General Plan boundaries, Alternative B will have a marginal impact on services. Therefore, Alternative A’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to these services would not be cumulatively considerable. 3.16.3. Alternative C: Residential Alternative 3.16.3.1. Alternative C Impacts a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Domestic Water Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative C will connect to the existing CVWD domestic water line under Desert Willow Drive and Willow Ridge Road to get domestic water. No extension of service will be required. Wastewater This alternative would consist of 89 residential units, which would generate approximately 22,250 gallons per day, which is 139,250 gallons of wastewater per day less than projected for the proposed Project. This alternative will constitute less than 1 percent of the CVWD’s wastewater plant capacity. As discussed in Section 2.16, CVWD has sufficient treatment capacity to treat wastewater generated by Alternative C and it is not anticipated to result in the construction or relocation of the existing wastewater treatment plant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.16-8 Furthermore, similar to the proposed Project, Alternative C site will require construction of on- site sewer infrastructure to connect to the existing sewer mains located in the Desert Willow Drive and Willow Ridge Road rights-of-way. The wastewater discharges will be typical of residential uses and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the CVWD and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Overall, impacts associated with wastewater generation would be less than the proposed Project, and no mitigation measures are required. Electricity At buildout, 89 residential units would consume approximately 775,767 kWh of electricity annually, which would represent a 0.1 percent increase in annual City-wide kWh usage (756,834,386 kWh), and a substantial reduction when compared to the proposed Project. To reduce the electricity usage, Alternative C would comply with the current California Building Code and Energy Code standards. Alternative C will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electrical energy resources during project operation and impacts would be less than significant. Natural Gas Alternative C would consume approximately 27,231 therms of natural gas for heating, cooking, and powering furnaces. The Alternative’s natural gas demand would be equivalent to a 0.15 percent increase in annual City wide therm usage (17,532,930 therms). Alternative C would comply with the current California Building Code and Energy Code standards to reduce the consumption and will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of natural gas during project operation and impacts would be less than significant. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? This alternative would generate a total water demand of 18.30 AFY, which is 146.91 AFY less than the Project’s water demand. This alternative would result in a net reduction of 40.16 AFY over the proposed Project. Alternative C’s water demand is assured and reliable under normal, single-dry years, and multiple-dry years by CVWD’s Colorado River water rights. CVWD can reliably expect water from the surface and groundwater resources under all conditions but catastrophic conditions. Only in cases of catastrophic supply interruption or vastly reduced flows in the Colorado River would the water supply reduce. In such an event, the project would face the same reduced supply conditions as the rest of the region. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.16-9 d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? This alternative is expected to generate approximately 83 tons of solid waste, which is less than the 355 tons of solid waste projected at build out of the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, this alternative would be required to maintain 50 percent waste diversion in accordance with the CIWMP. Solid waste collected from the site will be hauled to the Edom Hill Transfer Station in Cathedral City and then will be transported to Lambs Canyon landfill in Beaumont. Commingled recyclable materials (e.g., paper, plastic, glass, cardboard, aluminum) will be transported to Burrtec’s material recovery facilities. Less than significant impacts would occur from this alternative and no mitigation is required. 3.16.3.2. Alternative C Mitigation Measures Alternative C would have less than significant impacts on utilities and service systems. No mitigation measures are required. 3.16.3.3. Alternative C Significance After Mitigation Impacts to the utility and service providers associated with construction of Alternative C would be less than significant. 3.16.3.4. Alternative C Cumulative Impacts Alternative C would contribute considerably to cumulative impacts if it were to have a significant adverse effect on utility service providers’ capacities and would result into the extension or construction of these facilities in the region. Quantitative analysis reflects that potential impacts of Alternative C on utility service providers would be significantly reduced as compare to the proposed Project, and will have a less than significantly impact on these resources. When considered in conjunction with other projects in the City’s General Plan boundaries, Alternative C will have a marginal impact on services. Therefore, Alternative C’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to these services would not be cumulatively considerable. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.17-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.17. Conclusion and Overall Environmentally Superior Alternative Each sub-section of this alternatives analysis has considered the potential impacts of each alternative, and compared them to the proposed Project on a categorical basis. The following tables provide summaries of these findings, and results in a conclusion regarding the overall environmentally superior alternative. Table 3.17-1 shows the level of impact associated with each alternative and the proposed Project. As can be seen in that table, the level of significance associated with the alternatives is consistent with the proposed Project’s impacts, with the exception of Air Quality. Under the proposed Project, vehicular emissions of NOx would be significant and unavoidable, due to the higher number of trips generated by the hotels, villas and surf center. Under all alternatives, air quality impacts would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, and impacts would be less than significant. Table 3.17-1 Environmentally Superior Development Alternative Comparison Level of Significance* Environmental Issue Proposed Project Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Aesthetics LSM LS LS LS Air Quality SU LS LS LS Biological Resources LSM LSM LSM LSM Cultural & Tribal Resources LSM LSM LSM LSM Energy LS LS LS LS Geology and Soils LSM LSM LSM LSM Greenhouse Gas Emissions LS LS LS LS Hazards and Hazardous Materials LSM LSM LSM LSM Hydrology and Water Quality LSM LSM LSM LSM DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.17-2 Table 3.17-1 Environmentally Superior Development Alternative Comparison Level of Significance* Environmental Issue Proposed Project Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Land Use and Planning LS LS LS LS Noise LS LS LS LS Population and Housing LS LS LS LS Public Services LS LS LS LS Transportation and Traffic LSM LSM LSM LSM Utilities and Service Systems LS LS LS LS SU= Significant and Unavoidable LSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation LS= Less than Significant The same categorical comparison was conducted to determine the environmentally superior alternative. The result of that analysis is depicted in Table 3.17.2. As shown in that table, Alternative C, which would result in 89 single family homes, would be the environmentally superior alternative, insofar as its impacts on the environment would be the least of all the alternatives and the proposed Project. Alternative 3, however, would not meet the Project’s objectives, as described below. Table 3.17-2 Environmentally Superior Development Alternative Comparison Environmentally Superior Alternative Environmental Issue Proposed Project Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Aesthetics X Air Quality X Biological Resources Equivalent for all scenarios – full site disturbance Cultural Resources Equivalent for all scenarios – full site disturbance Geology and Soils X Greenhouse Gas Emissions X Energy X Hazards and Hazardous Materials X Hydrology and Water Quality X Land Use and Planning X DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.17-3 Table 3.17-2 Environmentally Superior Development Alternative Comparison Environmentally Superior Alternative Environmental Issue Proposed Project Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Noise X Population and Housing X Public Services X Transportation and Traffic X Utilities and Service Systems X Discussion of Project Objectives and Alternatives Table 3.17-3 below summarizes whether the proposed Project or any of the Project Alternatives meet project objectives. Alternative C, which would result in 89 single family homes, meets none of the project objectives because it does not result in a resort development which would bring recreational opportunities and long term revenues associated with transient occupancy tax. Alternative B, the mixed-use alternative, also does not meet Project objectives, insofar as it would not consist of a resort development, and would not expand tourism opportunities in the City. Alternative A, which would implement the North Sphere Specific Plan and result in a 500 room hotel, could meet most of the Project objectives, because it is consistent with the resort atmosphere planned for the Desert Willow project area. It would not, however, include the recreational feature of a surf lagoon, or enable the water conservation created by the turf reduction project included in the proposed Project. Alternative A would, however, reduce the air quality impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Project to less than significant levels, as would all the alternatives. Table 3.17-3 Comparison of Project Objectives and Alternatives Proposed Objectives Proposed Project Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Continue the mission of the Desert Willow Golf Resort by providing a world-class recreational opportunity unique to the Coachella Valley. Yes No No No Expand the City’s tourism economy and expand transient occupancy tax revenues. Yes Yes No No DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Project Alternatives 3.17-4 Table 3.17-3 Comparison of Project Objectives and Alternatives Proposed Objectives Proposed Project Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Implement water conservation and recycling measures to minimize the impacts to water supply from lagoon and golf course water use. Yes No No No Energy efficient resort development to meet the City’s sustainability goals. Yes Yes No No DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Unavoidable Significant Impacts 4-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Introduction Unavoidable significant impacts are those that cannot be reduced to acceptable or insignificant levels by the implementation mitigation measures. Impacts associated with development of the DSRT SURF Specific Plan are addressed in detail in Section 2 of this EIR. Comprehensive mitigation measures, as well as monitoring and reporting programs, have been developed to address potential impacts. In most cases, the mitigation measures set forth in this Draft EIR will demonstrably and effectively reduce all potentially significant impacts to levels of insignificance. However, air quality impacts associated with NOx emissions during the life of the project, could not be mitigated to less than significant levels and are considered an unavoidable significant impact. Air Quality Operational emissions are those released over the long-term life of the proposed Project. They include emissions generated by area, energy, and mobile sources. Area sources include consumable products, such as building maintenance and cleaning supplies, kitchen and restroom supplies, pavement off-gassing, and periodic reapplication of architectural coatings. Energy sources include the direct and indirect use of fossil fuels for energy, including natural gas and electricity use in buildings, parking lot lighting, ventilation equipment, and elevators. Mobile emissions are generated by motor vehicle trips. The air quality analysis quantified air emissions for the life of the project for two scenarios: daily operations, and special event operations. Assumptions included daily trips totaling 5,496 weekday daily trips during typical operations, and 7,288 weekend daily trips during special events, an average trip length is 25 miles, and full operation of all the potential components of the Project, including the surf center and lagoon, hotel(s) and villas. Maximum build out as allowed in the Specific Plan was assumed for all land uses, to provide the most conservative analysis. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Unavoidable Significant Impacts 4-2 As shown in Section 2.3, Table 2.3-7, Project-generated operational emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for CO, ROG, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 during typical operations or special events. However, Project-generated NOx emissions will exceed SCAQMD thresholds during both types of operations. Emissions projections represent worst-case conditions, and actual emissions may be lower than projected. Projected NOx exceedances are largely associated with the number of vehicle trips expected to be generated at Project buildout. Feasible mitigation measures have been provided in Section 2.3.7, including but not limited to delivery vehicle idling time limitations, employee commute reduction programs for large employers, and use of Energy Star appliances. However, although these mitigation measures may provide reductions in emissions, they will not reduce NOx emissions to levels below SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts associated with operational air emissions will remain significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Contribution: Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants The Coachella Valley portion of the SSAB is classified as a “non-attainment” area for PM10 and ozone. CO, NOx, and ROG are precursors to ozone, for which the Coachella Valley is in non- attainment. The Project will contribute to increased regional NOx emissions. Motor vehicle trips are the primary source of NOx emissions during operation and cannot be mitigated through traditional means. Even with the implementation of mitigation measures, cumulative impacts associated with operations of the proposed Project at build out will remain significant and unavoidable. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Environmental Resources 5-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES As required by CEQA Section 15126.2(c), this section of the EIR addresses the potentially significant irreversible environmental changes to, or loss of non-renewable resources that could occur from implementation of the proposed Project. In general, non-renewable resources imply fossil-based energy resources, but may also pertain to the permanent loss of agricultural, biological, mineral and other natural resources. The use of non-renewable resources during short-term construction and long-term operation of the proposed Project may be irreversible and irretrievable. The development of the Project will result in the irretrievable and irreversible commitment of non-renewable natural resources, including energy resources such as petroleum and natural gas, water resources, and mineral resources used for construction materials, such as concrete and steel. Construction of the proposed Project will result in the permanent loss of fossil fuels through the consumption of coal, petroleum or natural gas for the manufacture of steel, Portland Cement and concrete, and to fuel construction and maintenance vehicles. As detailed in Section 2.6, the construction of proposed Project could result in electricity demand associated with power tools and security lighting, but will not be the primary source of power during the construction of components of the proposed Project. The use of diesel fuel and gasoline for operation of equipment and for worker vehicle trips will be the primary source of energy during construction. Because construction equipment and workers are expected to come from local sources, it is expected that the use of fuel is already occurring for other projects and worker trips in the Coachella Valley, and this use will therefore not be excessive or wasteful. On-going operation of the proposed Project will generate demand for approximately 21,711,725 kWh of electricity annually. This demand will be reduced by approximately 1.7 million kWh at the surf center and lagoon via the construction of solar panels. This reduction is known for the surf center because it is included in the Precise Plan application for the Project. Plans for the hotels and villas have not yet been submitted, and their use of solar panels or other technology is not known. Future development would be required to meet even more DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Environmental Resources 5-2 stringent requirements, than the current CalGreen building code, including the objectives set in the AB 32 Scoping Plan (CARB 2017), which would seek to make all newly constructed residential homes zero net energy (ZNE) consumers by 20201, and all new commercial buildings zero net energy (ZNE) consumers by 2030.2 Electricity demand generated by the proposed Project would increase electricity consumption by 2.9% over current City -wide demand. Natural gas will be used during operation of the proposed Project. It is estimated that at build out, natural gas consumption is expected to total 331,811 therms per year, and to increase City - wide use of natural gas by 1.9%. As is the case with electricity, adherence to existing and future building codes will assure the efficient use of natural gas, and continued improvements in technology, particularly related to appliances and HVAC equipment, will reduce long term demand. During operation, the Project would result in the consumption of petroleum-based fuels related to vehicular travel to and from the Project site. According to the Project -specific traffic analysis, the Project is estimated to generate 5,496 daily vehicle trips under typical daily operations, and 7,288 daily vehicle trips during a special event. Daily visitors will include a mix of local residents and out of town visitors. The Project could potentially generate 12,213,217 VMTs. This represents a 2.4% increase in City-wide VMTs. Although the Project will result in a direct increase in VMTs, the Project will not interfere with increased fuel efficiency standards and will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy resources during operation. The construction of the proposed Project will change the physical environment of the Project site. As discussed in Section 2.4, the proposed Project will not result in significant loss of biological resources. The site is surrounded by development, and has previously been graded and irrigated. Further, approximately 2 acres of the site is currently developed as a parking lot. No special status species were identified on the Project site. The Project will be required to pay mitigation fees to assure the off-site conservation of habitat lands for sensitive species covered by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, although the proposed Project will result in the permanent loss of approximately 15 acres of vacant land, that loss will not be significant. As discussed in Section 2.10, construction of the proposed Project will generate demand for water resources. The total Project water demand is projected to be 162.1 AFY, of which 10.87 AFY will be accommodated through the use of recycled water for landscaping irrigation. In addition, the Water Supply Assessment for the proposed Project includes a requirement for the implementation of a turf reduction program on the adjacent Desert Willow golf course. This 1 New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan 2015-2020 – Executive Summary by California Public Utilities Commission Energy Division and California Energy Commission Efficiency Division. 2 Zero Net Energy - California Public Utilities Commission Energy Division; http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/ZNE/. Accessed December 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Environmental Resources 5-3 turf reduction program will result in a reduction of 106.74 AFY in water use on the golf course , and a net water demand for the Project as a whole of 44.49 AFY. Given the size and scope of the Project, the net annual demand for domestic water will be low, and impacts to the reg ion’s water supply will be less than significant. In summary, although the proposed Project will result in the irreversible loss of finite resources, the loss will not be significant, and is consistent with or less than that expected for a project of similar scope consistent with the City’s General Plan. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Growth Inducing Impacts 6-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 6. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Section 15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR consider and analyze a project’s potential to induce growth. Growth inducement can be directly generated by a project, such as the extension of a roadway into a previously undeveloped area, or may indirectly impact growth and cause changes in the environment that could lead to growth. This section is based on the project description provided in Section 1 of this EIR, and the analysis of the various impact areas conducted in Section 2. Construction of the proposed Project is projected to occur over a two year period. Given the scope of the project, construction personnel are available in the region who are qualified in the trades required to build low rise buildings, concrete structures such as the lagoon, and landscaping for a resort project. The Project does, however, have the potential to attract workers and crew members to the area for a temporary construction opportunity . Because of the availability of local workers, and the relatively short-term opportunity created by the Project, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project would result in an increase in permanent population in the City beyond anticipated growth over time. Operation of the various components of the Project will result in new jobs in the service, retail and management sectors, which are likely to be filled by a combination of existing and new residents. As described in Section 2.13, population growth in 2018 in the City was 1.4%, or about 700 people. The Southern California Association of Governments predicts that by 2040, the City’s population will increase to 61,700, an increase of 8,900 people. The natural growth in population experienced in the City will result in a demand for jobs, a portion of which will be supplied by the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to induce population growth. The proposed Project occurs on a site which has long been planned for resort development. As part of the original North Sphere Specific Plan, the City envisioned a master planned community centered around the Desert Willow golf course. In order to facilita te the vision, the City planned for and installed master infrastructure to serve the build out of the site, not just the golf course and clubhouse. As a result, all infrastructure is in place adjacent to the Project site, and no additional or larger infrastructure is required to implement the Project, and projects on adjacent remaining sites. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Growth Inducing Impacts 6-2 In conclusion, as described throughout this document, the Project will not result in growth inducing impacts that could cumulatively impact the environment. No new infrastructure, services or utilities, will be required for the proposed Project, and its impacts on the local population will be less than significant. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Organizations, Persons and Documents Consulted 7-1 DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 7. ORGANIZATIONS, PERSONS AND DOCUMENTS CONSULTED A. City of Palm Desert Martin Alvarez, Director of Economic Development Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Tom Garcia, Director of Public Works Eric Ceja, Principal Planner 73-750 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 B. Project Proponent Desert Wave Ventures, LLC P.O. Box 147 Solano Beach, CA 92075 C. Environmental/Planning Consultant Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. Attn: Nicole Sauviat Criste 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 D. Air Quality Consultant Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Organizations, Persons and Documents Consulted 7-2 E. Architecture Consultant BAR Architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 delawie 1515 Morena Blvd. San Diego, CA 92110 F. Biological Consultant Wood Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 3120 Chicago Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507 G. Civil Engineering Consultant The Altum Group 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219 Palm Desert, CA 92260 H. Cultural Consultant CRM TECH 1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324 I. Geotechnical Engineering Consultant Sladden Engineering 45090 Golf Center Parkway, Suite F Indio, CA 92201 J. Hydrology Consultant The Altum Group 73710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219 Palm Desert, CA 92260 DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Organizations, Persons and Documents Consulted 7-3 K. Landscape Architects Consultant RGA Landscape Architects 73-061 El Paseo, Suite 210 Palm Desert, CA 92260 L. Noise Consultant Urban Crossroads 260 E. Baker St. Suite 200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 M. Pool and Lagoon Design Consultant CLOWARD H20 Allen Clauson, Principal 2696 North University Ave., Suite 290 Provo, Utah 84604 N. Traffic Consultant Urban Crossroads 260 E. Baker St. Suite 200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 O. Water Resources Consultant – WSA and WSV Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 P. Utilities Burrtec Waste & Recycling Services Coachella Valley Water District Frontier Communications Corporation Southern California Edison Spectrum Southern California Gas Company DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Organizations, Persons and Documents Consulted 7-4 Q. Public Agencies California Office of Planning and Research California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Coachella Valley Association of Governments Coachella Valley Water District Desert Sands Unified School District Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Riverside County Transportation Department South Coast Air Quality Management District Southern California Association of Governments Medical R. Documents • 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan, August 1, 2003. • 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program. • 2013 Integrated Energy Policy Report, California Energy Commission. • 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. • 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, CVWD. • 2016-2040 Demographics and Growth Forecast, Southern California Association of Governments. • 2017-2018 Water Quality Report Annual Review Report, Coachella Valley Water District. • A Guide for Small Businesses – Managing your Hazardous Waste, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2001. • CalEEMod User Guide version 2016.3.1 • California Energy Demand 2012-2022 Final Forecast, California Energy Commission. • California Fuel Facts, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), April 2017 . • California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory: 2000 -2015, California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board, June 6, 2017. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Organizations, Persons and Documents Consulted 7-5 • Chemical contaminants in swimming pools: Occurrence, implicat ions and control, Tiffany L.L. Teo, Heather M. Coleman, Stuart J. Khan, Environment International, Volume 76, 2015. • City of Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan, Terra Nova Planning & Research, 2016. • City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Michael Baker International, August 2016. • Coachella Valley Association of Governments Active Transportation Plan, Michael Baker International, 2016. • Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update 2012 (Final Report), CVWD. • CV Link Draft EIR, Terra Nova Planning & Research, 2017. • Desert Wave Noise Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, March 2019. • Desert Wave Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, March 4, 2019. • Desert Willow South Golf Course Runoff Management Plan, Maniero, Smith and Associates, Inc., February 12, 1997. • Draft Guidance Document - Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, SCAQMD, October 2008. • DSRT Surf Precise Plan Package, March 25, 2019. • Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment 2017-2018, CVWD. • Errata, Southern California Edison Company Amended Energy Efficiency Rolling Portfolio Business Plan For 2018-2025, SCE, May 15, 2017. • Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds, South Coast Air Quality Management District. • Fee Justification Study For New Residential And Commercial/Industrial Development, Desert Sands Unified School District, May 2018. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Organizations, Persons and Documents Consulted 7-6 • Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2016. • Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared, Sladden Engineering, 2018. • Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Gas, 1990-2010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 2014. • Habitat Assessment and Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Report, Desert Willow Golf Resort Project Site, Wood Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., September 24, 2018. • Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, Desert Willow Golf Resort Development Project, CRM Tech, August 30, 2018. • Integrated Energy Policy Report 2013 IEPR, California Energy Commission. • Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans , SCAQMD, December 5, 2008. • Land Subsidence, Groundwater Levels, and Geology in the Coachella Valley, California, 1993–2010, Michelle Sneed, Justin T. Brandt, and Mike Solt. • National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. • New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan 2015-2020, California Public Utilities Commission Energy Division and California Energy Commission Efficiency Division. • Noise and its Measurements, EPA, 1961. • Palm Desert General Plan, The City of Palm Desert, 2016. • Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2013 Update, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. • Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory, EcoMotion, 2008. • Palm Desert Municipal Code. • Potential Collapse for Sandy Compacted Soil During Inundation, Shalaby, S. Ibrahim, International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4 Issue 5, May 2017. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Organizations, Persons and Documents Consulted 7-7 • Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Tentative Map 37639 – DSRT SURF, The Altum Group, December 31, 2018. • Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2011-2018, with a 2010 Benchmark, California Department of Finance, May 1, 2018. • Revised Transportation Energy Demand Forecast, 2018-2030, California Energy Commission, February 2018. • Riverside County Fire Department Annual Report 2016. • San Andreas, Garlock, and Big Pine faults, California a study of the character, history, and tectonic significance of their displacements, Geological Society of America Bulletin, Hill, M. L., & Dibblee, T. W. 1953. • South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules and Regulations, Adopted February 4, 1977. • State of Knowledge 2017, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. • The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy , Southern California Association of Governments, 2016. • The City of Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan, The City of Palm Desert, 2010. • Transportation Concept Report – State Route 62 (District 8), Caltrans. • Transportation Concept Report – State Route 74 (District 8), Caltrans. • Truck Networks on California State Highways (map) for District 8, Caltrans , last revised June 6, 2018. • Volume to Weight Conversion Factors, US EPA Office of Resource Conversion and Recovery, April 2016. • Working Group III Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change , Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, May 2007. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Organizations, Persons and Documents Consulted 7-8 S. Correspondence: • Lieutenant Robert Castro at Riverside County Sheriff’s Department , August 2018. T. Websites: • 2016 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission, https://archive.org/details/gov.ca.bsc.title24.2016.02.1. • A Guide to Bikeway Classification, Caltrans in July 2017; http://www.dot.ca.gov/d4/bikeplan/docs/caltrans-d4-bike-plan_bikeway-classification- brochure_072517.pdf. • Basic Ground-Borne Vibration Concepts (Chapter 7), https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dc7a/51aa1841a144497fa81cf3267fa425ce1604.pdf . • California Department of Toxic Substances Control Website, https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/LawsRegsPolicies/Title22/. • California Energy Commission - California Energy Consumption Database for Riverside County, total electricity consumption for 2017, http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. • California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2014 California Gas Report, https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2014-cgr.pdf. • California Scenic Highway Mapping System, http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic-highways/. • California State Auditor Report 2007-119 (January 2008), https://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CSA-1000-2008-015/CSA-1000-2008- 015.PDF. • Desert Sands Unified School District - Fee Justification Study For New Residential And Commercial/Industrial Development (May 2018), https://www.dsusd.us/sites/default/files/Fee%20Justification%20Study%206-12-18.pdf. • Desert Sands Unified School District Boundary Map; https://www.dsusd.us/sites/default/files/DSUSD_SchoolFacilities.pdf. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Organizations, Persons and Documents Consulted 7-9 • Desert Sands Unified School District; https://www.dsusd.us. • GroTracker Online Database List, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=palm+deser t+. • Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance , U.S. Department of Transportation, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/pol guide02.cfm. • History and Tour of Palm Desert Historical Sites, Palm Desert Historic Preservation Committee, April 27, 2007; “Landmarks of the City of Palm Desert,” www.cityofpalmdesert.org/departments/building-and-safety/cultural-resources; • Palm Desert Historical Sites map, www.cityofpalmdesert.org/departments/ building- and-safety/cultural-resources, 2018. • Palm Springs Unified School District; https://www.psusd.us/. • Riverside County Department of Waste Resources Website, http://www.rcwaste.org. • Riverside County Land Information System Online Ma pping, http://data- countyofriverside.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets?q=natural+hazards&sort_by=relevance. • SoCalGas, Company Profile, https://www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-profile. • State Water Resources Control Board Website - Emergency Conservation Regulation, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal /emerge ncy_regulation.html. • SunLine Transit Agency Website, https://www.sunline.org. • United States Environmental Protection Agency Website - Categories of Hazardous Waste Generators, https://www.epa.gov/hwgenerators/categories-hazardous-waste- generators. • United States Environmental Protection Agency Website - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Federal Facilities, https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/resource-conservation-and-recovery-act-rcra-and- federal-facilities. DSRT SURF Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2019011044) Organizations, Persons and Documents Consulted 7-10 • Zero Net Energy - California Public Utilities Commission Energy Division; http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/ZNE/. DSRT SURF PRECISE PLAN PACKAGE REVISED 3/25/19 B A R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 2/13/2019 9:50:36 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 PROJECT INFORMATION 2018 A0.02.13.19 SP6.2 LIGHT FIXTURE CUTSHEETS SP6.1 LIGHT FIXTURE CUTSHEETS SP5.1 EQUIPMENT LAYOUT SP4.3 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY - SPILL AT BUILDING LINE SP4.2 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY - SPILL AT BUILDING LINE SP4.1 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY - SPILL AT BUILDING LINE SP3.3 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY - SPILL AT PERIMETER SP3.2 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY - SPILL AT PERIMETER SP3.1 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY - SPILL AT PERIMETER SP2.2 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY - BLANKET GRID SP2.1 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY - LAGOON SP1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY E3 S SITE PHOTOMETRICS E2 NE SITE PHOTOMETRICS E1 NW SITE PHOTOMETRICS LT2.2 SITE LIGHTING FIXTURE CUTSHEETS LT2.1 SITE LIGHTING FIXTURE CUTSHEETS LT1.0 SITE LIGHTING PLAN L4.4 PLANTING PLAN & WATER CALCULATION L4.3 PLANTING PLAN L4.2 PLANTING PLAN L4.1 PLANTING PLAN L4.0 PHASE ONE PLANTING PLAN L2.2 ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN - SOUTH BAR ENLARGEMENT L2.1 ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN - SURF CENTER ENLARGEMENT L2.0 ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN - ENTRY ENLARGEMENT L1.0 PHASE ONE ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN F1.0 SITE-WIDE FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS A10.3 EXITING DIAGRAM - VIEWING PLATFORM A10.2 EXITING DIAGRAM - SURF CENTER - ALL LEVELS A10.1 EXITING DIAGRAM - SITE A9.1 MATERIALS BOARD A8.6 RENDERING - SURF CENTER ENTRY A8.5 RENDERING - SOUTH BAR A8.4 RENDERING - SURF CENTER POOL A8.3 RENDERING - AERIAL VIEW A8.2 RENDERING - AERIAL VIEW A8.1 RENDERING - AERIAL VIEW A7.1 TRASH ENCLOSURE A6.1 CONTROL TOWER - PLANS, ELEVATIONS, SECTION A5.4 WAVE MACHINE - ELEVATIONS & SECTION A5.3 WAVE MACHINE - ELEVATIONS A5.2 WAVE MACHINE - SECOND FLOOR A5.1 WAVE MACHINE - FIRST FLOOR A4.2 SOUTH BAR - ELEVATIONS & SECTION A4.1 SOUTH BAR - PLANS A3.3 BEACH PAVILION - ELEVATIONS & SECTION A3.2 BEACH PAVILION - ROOF PLAN A3.1 BEACH PAVILION - FLOOR PLAN A2.6 SURF CENTER - BUILDING SECTIONS A2.5 SURF CENTER - ELEVATIONS A2.4 SURF CENTER - ELEVATIONS A2.3 SURF CENTER - ROOF PLAN A2.2 SURF CENTER - SECOND FLOOR A2.1 SURF CENTER - FIRST FLOOR A2.0 SURF CENTER - BASEMENT PARKING A1.3 SITE SECTIONS A1.2 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN A1.1 ANNOTATED SITE PLAN C3 PRELIMINARY GRADING & UTILITY PLAN C2 PRELIMINARY GRADING & UTILITY PLAN C1 PRELIMINARY GRADING & UTILITY PLAN A0.0 PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET INDEX VICINITY MAP FRANK SINATRA DRIVE COUNTRY CLUB DRIVEPORTOLA AVENUECOOK STREETPROJECT TEAM Owner Desert Wave Ventures, LLC PO Box 147 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Contacts: Doug Sheres – Managing Member Doug@desertwaveventures.com John Luff – Managing Member John@desertwaveventures.com Environmental Planner Terra Nova Planning and Research, INC. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Contact: Nicole Sauviat Criste P: 760.341.4800 E: ncriste@terranovaplanning.com Architectural Lighting Designer The Ruzika Company, INC. 2 Executive Circle, Suite 290 Irvine, CA 92614 Contact: Tom Ruzika P: 949.253.3479 E: truzika@ruzika.com Sports Lighting Designer Musco Lighting 3002 Dow Avenue, Suite 504 Tustin, CA 92780 Contact: Mike Higgins P: 800.659.0117 x6121 E: mike.higgins@musco.com Project Manager Douglas Wilson Companies 1620 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92101 Contact: Michele Vives P: 619.906.4376 E: mvives@douglaswilson.com Project Architect BAR Architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Contact: William P. Duncanson P: 415.293.2700 E: wduncanson@bararch.com Electrical Engineer Emerald City Engineers 21706 Highway 99 Lynwood, WA 98036 Contact: Adam French P: 425.741.1200 E: afrench@emeraldcityeng.com Aquatics Engineering Consultant Cloward H2O 2696 North University Avenue, Suite 290 Provo Utah, 84604 Contact: Allen Clawson P: 801.375.1223 E: aclawson@clowardh20.com Project Architect Delawie Architects 1515 Morena Boulevard San Diego, CA 92110 Contact: Dave Irelan P: 619.299.6690 E: direlan@delawie.com Landscape Architect RGA Landscape Architects, INC. 73061 El Paseo, Suite 210 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Contact: Jarvis Payne P: 760.568.3624 E: jpayne@rgapd.com Civil Engineer The Altum Group 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Contact: James Bazua P: 760.346.4750 E: james.bazua@thealtumgroup.com BUILDING TABULATIONS BASEMENT 63,740 SF LEVEL 01 12,640 SF LEVEL 02 11,140 SF 87,520 SF SURF CENTER GROSS BUILDING AREA EXTERIOR COVERED AREA BEACH PAVILIONS GROSS BUILDING AREA EXTERIOR COVERED AREA LAGOON BAR GROSS BUILDING AREA EXTERIOR COVERED AREA CONTROL TOWER GROSS BUILDING AREA EXTERIOR COVERED AREA WAVE MACHINE GROSS BUILDING AREA EXTERIOR COVERED AREA LEVEL 01 650 SF LEVEL 01 1,970 SF LEVEL 01 160 SF LEVEL 02 220 SF 380 SF LEVEL 01 10,180 SF LEVEL 02 2,820 SF 13,000 SF N/A LEVEL 01 740 SF LEVEL 01 3,390 SF LEVEL 01 4,670 SF LEVEL 02 3,210 SF 7,880 SF ALL BUILDING TOTALS TOTAL GROSS BUILDING TOTAL EXTERIOR COVERED 90,520 SF 25,250 SF PARKING COUNT PHASE 1 - PARKING PROVIDED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES BASEMENT 5 LEVEL 01 2 7 GENERAL PARKING SPACES BASEMENT 155 LEVEL 01 84 239 TOTAL PARKING SPACES (ACCESSIBLE + GENERAL) =246 SITE CALCULATIONS PROJECT SITE LOT COVERAGE BUILDING AREA (PHASE 1): LAND AREA (PHASE 1):517,928 SF (11.89 ac) LOT COVERAGE = = = 17.5% PHASE 1 BUILDING AREA PHASE 1 PARCEL AREA 517,928 SF LANDSCAPE PERCENTAGE LANDSCAPE AREA: AT-GRADE PARKING AREA: 2,700 SF 30,690 SF LANDSCAPE % = = = 8.8%LANDSCAPE AREA PARKING AREA 2,700 SF 30,690 SF LOT AREA ENTIRE PARCEL GROSS ACREAGE: ENTIRE PARCEL NET ACREAGE: 17.80 ac 15.36 ac 90,520 SF 90,520 SF Wave Technology Partner Wavegarden San Sebastian, Spain P: +34 943 322 538 E: marketing@wavegarden.com LEVEL 01 240 SF Consulting Architect Prest Vuksic Architects 44530 San Pablo Ave Palm Desert, CA 92260 Contact: John Vuksic P: 760.779.5393 E: johnv@prestvuksicarchitects.com CODE INFORMATION AND AN EMERGENCY VOICE/ALARM COMMUNICATION SYSTEM. SIZING OF STAIRWAY AND OTHER EGRESS COMPONENTS BASED ON BUILDING(S) HAVING NFPA 13 SPRINKLERS 9 MEANS OF EGRESS SIZING (SECTION 1005) CORRIDOR WALLS, AND WALLS 1 HR 1 HR SHAFT ENCLOSURES 1 HR (CONNECTING <4 STORIES) 1 HR (CONNECTING <4 STORIES) WALL TYPE TYPE IA TYPE VA FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING BASED ON WALL TYPES: 30' > = X NONE 10' TO 30'1 HR 5' TO 10'1 HR X < 5'1 HR FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE (FT)TYPE VA FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS (CBC TABLE 602) ROOF 1 1/2 HR 1 HR FLOOR 2 HR 1 HR INTERIOR NON-BEARING WALL 0 HR 0 HR EXTERIOR NON-BEARING WALL SEE BELOW SEE BELOW INTERIOR BEARING WALL 3 HR 1 HR EXTERIOR BEARING WALL 3 HR 1 HR STRUCTURAL FRAME 3 HR 1 HR BUILDING ELEMENT TYPE IA TYPE VA 8 FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS (CBC TABLE 601) OCCUPANCIES, SIMILAR TO WHAT IS ALLOWED UNDER 510.2 HORIZONTAL BUILDING SEPARATION ALLOWANCE. PROVIDE A 3-HR HORIZONTAL SEPARATION BETWEEN THE BASEMENT GARAGE & THE ABOVE GRADE A A TYPE VA, WE ARE UPGRADING THE BASEMENT AREA TO TYPE 1A CONSTRUCTION & FURTHERMORE, WILL TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL BUILDING FLOOR AREA. ALTHOUGH WE ARE ALLOWED TO BUILD BASEMENT AREA AS OCCUPANCY BASEMENT AREA IS ALLOWED TO BE 63,000 GSF PER 506.1.3. BASEMENT AREA IS NOT REQUIRED BUILDING AREA ABOVE GRADE IS BASED ON OCCUPANCY GROUP A, THE MOST RESTRICTIVE AREA & HEIGHT TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH DECTION 503.1 ON THE MOST RESTRICTIVE ALLOWANCES FOR THE OCCUPANCY GROUPS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE 508.3.2 THE ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA AND HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING OR PORTION THEREOF SHALL BE BASED 7 MIXED-USE AND OCCUPANCY (SECTION 508): Aa = 69,000 SF BUILDING AREA ALLOWED; PROPOSED BUILDING AREA IS < 36,000SF Aa = 34,500 + [11,500 x 0] x 2 Aa = [At + [NS X If] X Sa *NOTE: WITH AREA INCREASE AND WITHOUT HEIGHT INCREASE (MAX BLDG ALLOWABLE AREA) S-2 70 FT 5 63,000 SF B, M 70 FT 4 54,000 SF A-2, A-3 50 FT 2 34,500 SF USE GROUP ALLOWABLE HEIGHT ALLOWABLE STORIES* ALLOWABLE AREA FACTOR (Af)* TYPE VA CONSTRUCTION 6 BASIC ALLOWABLE HEIGHTS, STORIES AND BUILDING AREAS PER TABLE 504.4 & 506.2 & 506.4.3: HIGHEST ROOF EDGE <50' ABOVE GRADE PLANE TYPE VA FOR TWO-STORY ASSEMBLY OCCUPANCIES ABOVE BASEMENT GARAGE TYPE IA- BASEMENT GARAGE 5 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS A GROUP B OCCUPANCY OR AS PART OF THAT OCCUPANCY". ASSEMBLY PURPOSES THAT IS LESS THAN 750 SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND ACCESSORY TO ANOTHER NOTE: PER 2016 CBC SECTION 303.1.2.2 - SMALL ASSEMBLY SPACES: "A ROOM OR SPACE USED FOR GROUP H-3 POOL CHEMICAL STORAGE GROUP S-2 LOW-HAZARD STORAGE (PARKING GARAGE) GROUP S-1 STORAGE GROUP (MISC) GROUP M MERCANTILE GROUP (RETAIL SHOP) GROUP B BUSINESS GROUP (BACK OF HOUSE, OFFICES, TICKETING) GROUP A-3 ASSEMBLY USES FOR RECREATION, AMUSEMENT (LEXTURE HALLS, EXHIBITIONS HALLS) INCLUDING ASSOCIATED COMMERCIAL KITCHENS) GROUP A-2 ASSEMBLY GROUP INTENDED FOR FOOD/ DRINK CONSUMPTION (RESTAURANT, CAFÉ, 4 BUILDING OCCUPANCY GROUPS: RATING AT CORRIDOR TO BE 1-HR. PROJECT TO BE FULLY SPRINKLERED, NFPA 13 SYSTEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903 FIRE-RESISTANCE 3 AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM (SECTION 903) ABOVE GRADE PLANE BUILDING. THAT THE TOTAL AREA OF SUCH BASMENTS DOES NOT EXCEED THE AREA PERMITTED FOR A ONE-STORY 506.1.3 BASEMENTS NEED NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA OF A BUILDING PROVIDED 2 BUILDING AREA BASEMENT GARAGE NEW 2 STORY TYPE VA NON-SEPARATED RETAIL & ASSEMBLY SPACES OVER SEPARATED TYPE IA 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PHASE 1 - REQUIRED NUMBERED OF PARKING SPACES PER DSRT SURF SPECIFIC PLAN: LAGOON: REQUIREMENT: 1.5 PER SURFER, MAX OF 95 SURFERS CALCULATION: 95 SURFERS x 1.5 SPACES = 143 SPACES REQUIRED RESTAURANT/BAR: REQUIREMENT: 8 per 1,000 SF CALCULATION: 7,450 SF x 8/1000 = 60 SPACES REQUIRED TOTAL: 203 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED THE LANDSCAPE AREA IS CALCULATED AS THE PERIMETER OF THE PARKING LOT, EXTENDING 5' OUTWARDS. PHASE 1 PARCEL GROSS ACREAGE: PHASE 1 PARCEL NET ACREAGE: 11.89 ac 9.75 ac A2.1 1 A3.1 1 A4.1 1 A6.1 1 A5.1 1 BEACH PAVILIONS SURF CENTER SOUTH BAR WAVE MACHINE CONTROL TOWER A7.1 1 TRASH ENCLOSURE PHASE 2 PHASE 2 PHASE 2 PHASE 2 B A1.3 B A1.3 F A1.3 F A1.3 E A1.3 E A1.3 D A1.3 D A1.3 C A1.3 C A1.3 A A1.3A A1.3 30' 60'120'0 1"=60' at 22x34 1"=120' at 11x17 BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com N c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 2/13/2019 9:50:37 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 ANNOTATED SITE PLAN 2018 A1.12.13.19 PHASE 2 PHASE 2 PHASE 2 PHASE 2 8 8 11 13 7 6 10 14 17 9 4 3 14 5 14 13 14 13 12 15 1 17 7 6 2 16 17 1 SURF CENTER 2 SURF ACADEMY 3 EQUIPMENT RENTAL4 CONTROL TOWER5 6 SPA7 SURF LAGOON8 CHANGING AREA SITE PLAN LEGEND EVENT LAWN9 SOUTH BAR10 WAVE MACHINE11 PARKING12 PROMENADE/PERIMETER ROAD13 BOARDWALK14 TRASH ENCLOSURE15 LAGOON PIER16 ADA RAMP17 SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR: • EXISTING & PROPOSED EASEMENTS • DIMENSIONED SUBJECT PARCEL BOUNDARIES • ABUTTING STREETS AND RIGHTS OF WAY • ACCESS DRIVEWAY DIMENSIONS • UTILITY INFORMATION • PARKING LAYOUT, DIMENSIONS, AND SURFACE TYPE, ETC SEE BUILDING PLANS FOR: • INDIVIDUAL BUILDING DIMENSIONS SHEET NOTES POOL BUILDING HEIGHT LEGEND 13'-10" thru 15'-7" 21'-4" 31'-4" 41'-9" 30' 60' 120'0 1"=60' at 22x34 1"=120' at 11x17 BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com N c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:05 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN 2018 A1.212.14.18 BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com 5' 10' 20'0 1"=10' at 22x34 1"=20' at 11x17 c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 2/13/2019 9:50:39 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 SITE SECTIONS 2018 A1.32.13.19 UP U P UPPOOL EQUIPMENT 21'x30' TRASH 36'x17' WATER 14'x21' RESTAURANT PREP ROOM 33'x27' STORAGE 12'x35' ELECTRICAL 25'x16' LOADING DOCK 57'x48' STAIR 1 12'x17' SERVICE CORRIDOR ELEV 3 10'x8' 1 A2.6 1 A2.6 2 A2.6 2 A2.6 FOOTPRINT OF SURF CENTER ABOVE A2.4 242' - 11"82' - 1"11' - 5"171' - 0"7' - 7" 10' - 6" 201' - 3" 9' - 0" 220' - 9" 42' - 2"86' - 7"228' - 1"80' - 6"356' - 11" 5 7' - 8"26' - 0"26' - 0"19' - 0"5' - 6"76' - 6"190' - 0"125' - 0"ELEV 1 10'x8' ELEV 2 10'x8' PARKING GARAGE LIGHTWELL INTO GARAGE, TYPICAL 13' - 2"22' - 0"5' - 8"19' - 0"8' 16' 32'0 1/16"=1'-0" at 22x34 1/32"=1'-0" at 11x17 BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com N c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:09 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 SURF CENTER - BASEMENT PARKING 2018 A2.012.14.18 KEY PLAN DNUPUP DN UP OFFICES 67'x28' SURF SHOP 35'x27' CAFE KITCHEN 37'x31' LIFEGUARD 23'x27' FLEX SMALL 15'x14' FLEX SMALL 15'x13' FLEX STORAGE 13'x12' FLEX LARGE 52'x28' STAIR 1 12'x21' DN TO GARAGE BASEMENT OUTLINE BELOW SECOND FLOOR OUTLINE ABOVE ELEV 3 10'x8' 1 A2.6 1 A2.6 2 A2.6 2 A2.6 QUEUEING 27'x21' RESTROOM 20'x13' RESTROOM 24'x15' 77' - 1" 31' - 4"43' - 4"38' - 4"81' - 8"12' - 0"23' - 0"19' - 6"137' - 7" 192' - 1"8' - 3"2' - 0"8' - 6"5' - 1"61' - 4"8' - 0"A2.4 1 A2.5 2 A2.4 2 A2.5 1 CAFE 36'x43' ELEV 1 10'x8' ELEV 2 10'x8' TICKETS 14'x21'85' - 2"25' - 0" 8' - 0" 12' - 0" 24' - 0" 12' - 0" GALLERY 34'x29' 14' - 2"31' - 3"13' - 7"ORIENTATION 27'x16' RAMMED EARTH WALL BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com 5' 10' 20'0 1"=10' at 22x34 1"=20' at 11x17 N c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:11 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 SURF CENTER - FIRST FLOOR 2018 A2.112.14.18 KEY PLAN DN DN DN  RESTAURANT DINING ROOM 35'x60' RESTAURANT KITCHEN 41'x31' LOUNGE/EVENT 70'x50' LOUNGE STORAGE 21'x15' RESTROOM 27'X17' LOUNGE BAR 30'x18' KITCHEN STORAGE 21'x9' STAIR 1 12'x15' ELEV 3 10'x8' 1 A2.6 1 A2.6 2 A2.6 2 A2.6 36' - 2"12' - 10"15' - 10"38' - 2"89' - 3"64' - 6"20' - 0"64' - 10" 100' - 0" 18' - 1" 13' - 3"38' - 4"36' - 5"20' - 9"15' - 7"RESTROOM 26'x15' A2.4 1 A2.4 2 A2.5 1 VEGETATED ROOF A2.5 2 ELEV 2 10'x8' ELEV 1 10'x8' 192' - 3"74' - 9"BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com 5' 10' 20'0 1"=10' at 22x34 1"=20' at 11x17 N c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:13 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 SURF CENTER - SECOND FLOOR 2018 A2.212.14.18 KEY PLAN 1 A2.6 1 A2.6 ROOF HATCH 2 A2.6 2 A2.6 3/4" / 12" 3/4" / 12" SOLAR PANELS RD-1 RD-2 NOTE: MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT HEIGHTS INCLUDE 12" TALL CURB AND ARE MEASURED FROM TOP OF MECHANICAL WELL ROOF 308' - 0" 306' - 5" 304' - 4" 300' - 10" 297' - 10" TO MECH = 304' - 3" 304' - 3" 304' - 3" 304' - 3" 303' - 4" TO MECH = 303' - 0" TO MECH = 302' - 10" TO MECH = 302' - 10" TO MECH = 300' - 10" TO MECH = 302' - 10" TO MECH = 300' - 10" TO MECH = 301' - 10" VFR UNITS OUTSIDE AIR UNIT EXHAUST FAN CAFE MAU RESTAURANT MAU GALLERY MAU EXHAUST FAN TO MECH = 300' - 10" EXHAUST FAN TO MECH = 300' - 10" EXHAUST FAN EXHAUST FAN BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com 5' 10' 20'0 1"=10' at 22x34 1"=20' at 11x17 N c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:13 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 SURF CENTER - ROOF PLAN 2018 A2.312.14.18 KEY PLAN FIRST FLOOR 0'-0" (273'-0") SECOND FLOOR 14'-0" (287'-0") TO ROOF 33'-5" (306'-5")  TO MECH SCREEN 31'-4" (304'-4") FIRST FLOOR 0'-0" (273'-0") SECOND FLOOR 14'-0" (287'-0") TO ROOF 33'-5" (306'-5")  BASEMENT -11'-6" (261'-6") 13 3 1 16 6 8 10 3 SKEWED 1 WOOD SIDING 2 WOOD SOFFIT 3 BOARD FORMED CONCRETE4 CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS5 6 RUSTING STEEL7 TIMBER COLUMN, FRAME8 OCOTILLO TRELLIS9 PAINTED STEEL10 RAMMED EARTH 11 DESERT VEGETATED ROOF12 WINDOW SYSTEM13 PHOTOVOLTAIC SHADE14 GUARD RAIL15 ADJUSTABLE SHADE MATERIAL LEGEND EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH SYSTEM PERFORATED STAINLESS STEEL16 17 18 19 20 21 SEASONAL SUNSHADE STONE WALL LOUVER SCUPPER & DOWNSPOUT METAL ROOF 22 FIREPLACE SKEWED 68498 13 2 B A R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com 5'10' 20'0 1"=10' at 22x34 1"=20' at 11x17 c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/19/2018 9:03:35 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 SURF CENTER - ELEVATIONS 2018 A2.412.14.18 1 NORTH ELEVATION 2 EAST ELEVATION FIRST FLOOR 0'-0" (273'-0") SECOND FLOOR 14'-0" (287'-0") TO ROOF 33'-5" (306'-5")  TO MECH SCREEN 31'-4" (303'-10") FIRST FLOOR 0'-0" (273'-0") SECOND FLOOR 14'-0" (287'-0") TO ROOF 33'-5" (306'-5") 8 10 3 13 6 13 16 8 13 9 SKEWED 8 3 1 13 6 2 10 1 WOOD SIDING 2 WOOD SOFFIT 3 BOARD FORMED CONCRETE4 CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS5 6 RUSTING STEEL7 TIMBER COLUMN, FRAME8 OCOTILLO TRELLIS9 PAINTED STEEL10 RAMMED EARTH 11 DESERT VEGETATED ROOF12 WINDOW SYSTEM13 PHOTOVOLTAIC SHADE14 GUARD RAIL15 ADJUSTABLE SHADE MATERIAL LEGEND EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH SYSTEM PERFORATED STAINLESS STEEL16 17 18 19 20 21 SEASONAL SUNSHADE STONE WALL LOUVER SCUPPER & DOWNSPOUT METAL ROOF 22 FIREPLACE BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com 5' 10' 20'0 1"=10' at 22x34 1"=20' at 11x17 c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:14 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 SURF CENTER - ELEVATIONS 2018 A2.512.14.18 1 SOUTH ELEVATION 2 WEST ELEVATION RESTAURANT KITCHEN CORRIDOR LOADING DOCK SERVICE CORRIDOR ELEV 3 CORRIDORLOUNGE STORAGE RESTROOM GALLERY CAFE ORIENTATION RESTAURANT DINING ROOM PARKING GARAGEPARKING GARAGE PARKING GARAGE OFFICES ELEV 1 CAFE KITCHEN RESTROOM STAIR 1 RESTROOM TRASHPARKING GARAGE STORAGE PARKING GARAGE ELEV 3 LIGHTWELL INTO GARAGE GUARDRAIL, TYP BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com 5' 10' 20'0 1"=10' at 22x34 1"=20' at 11x17 c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:16 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 SURF CENTER - BUILDING SECTIONS 2018 A2.612.14.18 1 LONGITUDINAL SECTION 2 TRANSVERSE SECTION EQUIPMENT RENTAL 29'x9' BOARD STORAGE 17'x9' BOARD STORAGE 17'x9' WETSUIT STORAGE 17'x9' WET MAINTENANCE GARAGE 32'x15'ADA RESTROOM 9'x6' TOILET 4'x6' TOILET 4'x6' TOILET 4'x6' TOILET 4'x6' TOILET 4'x6' 2 A3.3 3 A3.3 4 A3.3 4 A3.3 34' - 6"19' - 9"10' - 2"30' - 0"34' - 0"23' - 0" 9' - 6" 26' - 5" 35' - 11" 1' - 5" 35' - 11" VEHICLE STAGING AREA & ACCESS CORRIDOR SURF ACADEMY DEMO AREA TEMP VERTICAL BOARD STORAGE PERSONAL STORAGE LOCKERS PERSONAL STORAGE LOCKERS PERSONAL STORAGE LOCKERS ADA RESTROOM 7'x9' UNISEX RESTROOM 7'x7' CHANGING 5'x6' CHANGING 5'x5' CHANGING 5'x6' CHANGING 5'x5' CHANGING 5'x5'28' - 0"1' - 6"7' - 2"32' - 1"8' - 8"42' - 7"42' - 8"OUTLINE OF ROOFS ABOVE TEMP VERTICAL BOARD STORAGE 6' - 6" CHANGING 5'x5' CHANGING 5'x5' CHANGING 5'x5' CHANGING 5'x5' 4' 8' 16'0 1/8"=1'-0" at 22x34 1/16"=1'-0" at 11x17 BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com N c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:17 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 BEACH PAVILION - FLOOR PLAN 2018 A3.112.14.18 1 FLOOR PLAN KEY PLAN 38' - 2"32' - 0"25' - 11"19' - 5"13' - 6"22' - 6"5' - 6"29' - 6"1/2" = 1'-0"1/2" = 1'-0"1/2" = 1'-0"OCOTILLO TRELLIS AND ADJUSTABLE SHADES NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. ROOF DRAINAGE BELOW 1-1/4" = 1'-0"1-1/4" = 1'-0"39' - 10" DESERT LANDSCAPED ROOF DESERT LANDSCAPED ROOF 1/2" = 1'-0" 33' - 5" 4' 8' 16'0 1/8"=1'-0" at 22x34 1/16"=1'-0" at 11x17 BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com N c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:18 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 BEACH PAVILION - ROOF PLAN 2018 A3.212.14.18 1 ROOF PLAN KEY PLAN FINISH GRADE 0'-0" (269'-0") TO ROOF 9'-4" (278'-4") TO PARAPET 10'-0" (279'-0") TO TRELLIS 14'-6" (283'-6") FINISH GRADE 0'-0" (269'-0") TO ROOF 9'-4" (278'-4") TO PARAPET 10'-0" (279'-0") TO TRELLIS 14'-6" (283'-6") FINISH GRADE 0'-0" (269'-0") TO ROOF 9'-4" (278'-4") TO PARAPET 10'-0" (279'-0") TO TRELLIS 14'-6" (283'-6") 20 6 7 1 8 4 17 1 9 8 5 8 4 7 9 8 17 5 1 WOOD SIDING 2 WOOD SOFFIT 3 BOARD FORMED CONCRETE4 CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS5 6 RUSTING STEEL7 TIMBER COLUMN, FRAME8 OCOTILLO TRELLIS9 PAINTED STEEL10 RAMMED EARTH 11 DESERT VEGETATED ROOF12 WINDOW SYSTEM13 PHOTOVOLTAIC SHADE14 GUARD RAIL15 ADJUSTABLE SHADE MATERIAL LEGEND EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH SYSTEM PERFORATED STAINLESS STEEL16 17 18 19 20 21 SEASONAL SUNSHADE STONE WALL LOUVER SCUPPER & DOWNSPOUT METAL ROOF 22 FIREPLACE WETSUIT STORAGE BOARD STORAGE BOARD STORAGE EQUIPMENT RENTAL WET MAINTENANCE GARAGE TOILET UNISEX RESTROOM CHANGING 4' 8' 16'0 1/8"=1'-0" at 22x34 1/16"=1'-0" at 11x17 BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:19 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 BEACH PAVILION - ELEVATIONS & SECTION 2018 A3.312.14.18 1 EAST ELEVATION 2 SOUTH ELEVATION 3 WEST ELEVATION 4 LONGITUDINAL SECTION 1 A4.2 3 A4.2 2 A4.2 4 A4.2 4 A4.2 KITCHEN 15'x30' UNISEX RESTROOM 7'x6' ADA RESTROOM 9'x7' 22' - 0"21' - 6"42' - 1"63' - 7"30' - 0"11' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 6"8' - 0"65' - 7"BAR 9'x19'9 ' - 0 " UNISEX RESTROOM 7'x6" 1 5 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 4 "4 ' - 8 " 1 5 ' - 0 " 4 A4.2 4 A4.2 1 /2 " = 1 '-0 " 1 /2 " = 1 '-0 " 1 /2 " = 1 '-0 " FLUE 5' - 0"26' - 0"5' - 0"3' - 6"28' - 6"71' - 2"1/2" = 1'-0"4' 8' 16'0 1/8"=1'-0" at 22x34 1/16"=1'-0" at 11x17 BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:20 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 SOUTH BAR - PLANS 2018 A4.112.14.18 1 FLOOR PLAN2ROOF PLAN KEY PLAN TERRACE 1'-6" (271'-6") TO PARAPET 11'-0" (282'-6") TO TRELLIS 14'-6" (286') FINISH GRADE 0'-0" (270') TERRACE 1'-6" (271'-6") TO PARAPET 11'-0" (282'-6") TO TRELLIS 14'-6" (286') FINISH GRADE 0'-0" (270') TERRACE 1'-6" (271'-6") TO PARAPET 11'-0" (282'-6") TO TRELLIS 14'-6" (286') FINISH GRADE 0'-0" (270') 1918 6 98 11 20 21 8 21 9 5 6 1 21 11 8 2022 1 WOOD SIDING 2 WOOD SOFFIT 3 BOARD FORMED CONCRETE4 CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS5 6 RUSTING STEEL7 TIMBER COLUMN, FRAME8 OCOTILLO TRELLIS9 PAINTED STEEL10 RAMMED EARTH 11 DESERT VEGETATED ROOF12 WINDOW SYSTEM13 PHOTOVOLTAIC SHADE14 GUARD RAIL15 ADJUSTABLE SHADE MATERIAL LEGEND EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH SYSTEM PERFORATED STAINLESS STEEL16 17 18 19 20 21 SEASONAL SUNSHADE STONE WALL LOUVER SCUPPER & DOWNSPOUT METAL ROOF 22 FIREPLACE KITCHEN UNISEX RESTROOM ADA RESTROOM 4' 8' 16'0 1/8"=1'-0" at 22x34 1/16"=1'-0" at 11x17 BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:22 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 SOUTH BAR - ELEVATIONS & SECTION 2018 A4.212.14.18 1 EAST ELEVATION 2 SOUTH ELEVATION 3 WEST ELEVATION 4 LONGITUDINAL SECTION U P UP UP  LAGOON SERVICE + MAINTENANCE 49'x145' WELL PUMP ROOM 10'x10' TRANSFORMER ROOM 19'x20' MAIN MAINTENANCE 19'x52' ELEVATOR 10'x9' LAGOON BAR POOL MAINTENANCE 27'x11' WAVE MACHINE ROOM 24'x240' 5 1 ' - 0 "30' - 5"11' - 0"28' - 7"22' - 0" 61' - 8"12' - 5"10' - 0"73' - 6"95' - 11"25' - 3" 1 3 ' - 2 "92' - 0"19' - 4"5' - 4"14' - 7"131' - 2"A5.3 1 A 5.42A5.4 1 A 5.323 A5.4 3 A5.4 88' - 5"32' - 0"24' - 0"32' - 5"SPORT LIGHTING BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com 5' 10' 20'0 1"=10' at 22x34 1"=20' at 11x17 N c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:23 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 WAVE MACHINE - FIRST FLOOR 2018 A5.112.14.18 KEY PLAN 2 9 0 ' - 0 " D N  DN  DN OPEN TO BELOW88' - 5"30' - 6"25' - 4" 1 3 ' - 2 "6' - 7"19' - 4"4' - 4"15' - 8"131' - 5"23' - 2"75' - 0"21' - 6"39' - 10"64' - 5"28' - 9"11' - 1" EVENT PLATFORM 52' X 144' ROOF CANOPY OUTLINE 96' - 6"4-1/4" = 1'-0" ELEVATOR 9'x8' 3 A5.4 3 A5.4 8' - 0"85' - 6"SPORT LIGHTING SHAFT BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com 5' 10' 20'0 1"=10' at 22x34 1"=20' at 11x17 N c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:24 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 WAVE MACHINE - SECOND FLOOR 2018 A5.212.14.18 KEY PLAN GROUND LEVEL 0'-0" (272'-6") TO WALL 10'-8" (283'-2") TO ROOF 41'-9" (314'-3") LEVEL 2 18'-10" (290'-4") GROUND LEVEL 0'-0" (272'-6") TO WAVE MACHINE 15'-7" (288'-1") TO ROOF 41'-9" (314'-3") LEVEL 2 18'-10" (290'-4") 1021 19 21 1 10 186 21 21 10 1 19 1810 1 WOOD SIDING 2 WOOD SOFFIT 3 BOARD FORMED CONCRETE4 CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS5 6 RUSTING STEEL7 TIMBER COLUMN, FRAME8 OCOTILLO TRELLIS9 PAINTED STEEL10 RAMMED EARTH 11 DESERT VEGETATED ROOF12 WINDOW SYSTEM13 PHOTOVOLTAIC SHADE14 GUARD RAIL15 ADJUSTABLE SHADE MATERIAL LEGEND EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH SYSTEM PERFORATED STAINLESS STEEL16 17 18 19 20 21 SEASONAL SUNSHADE STONE WALL LOUVER SCUPPER & DOWNSPOUT METAL ROOF 22 FIREPLACE BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com 5' 10' 20'0 1"=10' at 22x34 1"=20' at 11x17 c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:25 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 WAVE MACHINE - ELEVATIONS 2018 A5.312.14.18 1 WAVE MACHINE - EAST ELEVATION 2 WAVE MACHINE - SOUTH ELEVATION GROUND LEVEL 0'-0" (272'-6") TO WAVE MACHINE 15'-7" (288'-1") TO ROOF 41'-9" (314'-3") LEVEL 2 18'-10" (290'-4") GROUND LEVEL 0'-0" (272'-6") TO WALL 10'-8" (283'-2") TO ROOF 41'-9" (314'-3") LEVEL 2 18'-10" (290'-4") 10 21 18 18 19 WAVE MACHINE EQUIPMENT 1821191518 110 MAIN MAINTENANCE 19'x52' LAGOON SERVICE + MAINTENANCE 49'x145' EVENT PLATFORM 52' X 144' 1 WOOD SIDING 2 WOOD SOFFIT 3 BOARD FORMED CONCRETE4 CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS5 6 RUSTING STEEL7 TIMBER COLUMN, FRAME8 OCOTILLO TRELLIS9 PAINTED STEEL10 RAMMED EARTH 11 DESERT VEGETATED ROOF12 WINDOW SYSTEM13 PHOTOVOLTAIC SHADE14 GUARD RAIL15 ADJUSTABLE SHADE MATERIAL LEGEND EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH SYSTEM PERFORATED STAINLESS STEEL16 17 18 19 20 21 SEASONAL SUNSHADE STONE WALL LOUVER SCUPPER & DOWNSPOUT METAL ROOF 22 FIREPLACE BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com 5' 10' 20'0 1"=10' at 22x34 1"=20' at 11x17 c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:26 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 WAVE MACHINE - ELEVATIONS & SECTION 2018 A5.412.14.18 1 WAVE MACHINE - WEST ELEVATION 2 WAVE MACHINE - SOUTHEAST ELEVATION 3 WAVE MACHINE - LONGITUDINAL SECTION UP DN LEVEL 1 0'-0" (268'-0") LEVEL 2 8'-7" (276'-7") TO ROOF 21'-4" (289'-4") 4 A6.1 4 A6.116' - 0"12' - 0" 4' - 5" 10' - 0" RESTROOM 9'x8' RESTROOM 9'x6' FLOOR OUTLINE ABOVE32' - 0"5 A6.1 8 A6.1 7 A6.1 6 A6.1 4 A6.1 4 A6.1 12' - 0"4' - 0"8' - 6"5' - 0"26' - 6"5' - 0" 10' - 0" 5' - 0" 20' - 0"6' - 6"32' - 0"RESTROOM 9'x6' CONTROL ROOM 9'x14' ROOF OUTLINE ABOVE 38' - 6"5 A6.1 8 A6.1 7 A6.1 6 A6.1 RESTROOM CONTROL ROOM 2" / 12" 22' - 10"32' - 6"1 7 13 115 213 10 10 7 1515 1 WOOD SIDING 2 WOOD SOFFIT 3 BOARD FORMED CONCRETE4 CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS5 6 RUSTING STEEL7 TIMBER COLUMN, FRAME8 OCOTILLO TRELLIS9 PAINTED STEEL10 RAMMED EARTH 11 DESERT VEGETATED ROOF12 WINDOW SYSTEM13 PHOTOVOLTAIC SHADE14 GUARD RAIL15 ADJUSTABLE SHADE MATERIAL LEGEND EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH SYSTEM PERFORATED STAINLESS STEEL16 17 18 19 20 21 SEASONAL SUNSHADE STONE WALL LOUVER SCUPPER & DOWNSPOUT METAL ROOF 22 FIREPLACE 3' 6' 12'0 3/16"=1'-0" at 22x34 3/32"=1'-0" at 11x17 BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com N c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:28 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 CONTROL TOWER - PLANS, ELEVATIONS, SECTION 2018 A6.112.14.18 1 LEVEL 12LEVEL 24SECTION3ROOF PLAN 6 SOUTH ELEVATION 5 EAST ELEVATION7WEST ELEVATION8NORTH ELEVATION KEY PLAN FINISH GRADE 0'-0" (271'-0") TO PV ARRAY 13'-10" (284'-10") TO ROOF 10'-0" (281'-0") FINISH GRADE 0'-0" (271'-0") TO PV ARRAY 13'-10" (284'-10") TO ROOF 10'-0" (281'-0") FINISH GRADE 0'-0" (271'-0") TO PV ARRAY 13'-10" (284'-10") TO ROOF 10'-0" (281'-0") TRASH ENCLOSURE 32'x15'6"7' - 0"10' - 7"1' - 4"19' - 6"PV ARRAY OVERHEAD 3 A7.1 3 A7.1 1' - 0" 34' - 0" 1' - 0" 36' - 0"36' - 0" A7.1 5 A7.1 4 A7.1 6 TRASH ENCLOSURE PV ARRAY 3 A7.1 3 A7.1 1 WOOD SIDING 2 WOOD SOFFIT 3 BOARD FORMED CONCRETE4 CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS5 6 RUSTING STEEL7 TIMBER COLUMN, FRAME8 OCOTILLO TRELLIS9 PAINTED STEEL10 RAMMED EARTH 11 DESERT VEGETATED ROOF12 WINDOW SYSTEM13 PHOTOVOLTAIC SHADE14 GUARD RAIL15 ADJUSTABLE SHADE MATERIAL LEGEND EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH SYSTEM PERFORATED STAINLESS STEEL16 17 18 19 20 21 SEASONAL SUNSHADE STONE WALL LOUVER SCUPPER & DOWNSPOUT METAL ROOF 22 FIREPLACE 5 14 10 15 14 10 10 10 14 5 1 4' 8' 16'0 1/8"=1'-0" at 22x34 1/16"=1'-0" at 11x17 BA R architects 901 Battery Street, Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | 415 293 5700 | www.bararch.com N c BARC O P Y R I G H T architects 12/18/2018 11:20:31 AM C:\Users\PHedgcock\Documents\A-Palm Desert_PHedgcock.rvtDSRT SURF PALM DESERT, CA 18033 TRASH ENCLOSURE 2018 A7.112.14.18 1 FLOOR PLAN3TRANSVERSE SECTION 2 ROOF PLAN KEY PLAN 4 EAST ELEVATION 5 NORTH ELEVATION 6 SOUTH ELEVATION