HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 2016-86RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT PREPARED FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, THE
UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN, AND THE ONE ELEVEN
DEVELOPMENT CODE (SCH#2015081020); AND ADOPTION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTION OF A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CASE NO. GPA/EA 16-261
WHEREAS, at the City of Palm Desert City Council's (City Council) direction, and in
conformance with Government Code section 65300, the City of Palm Desert (City) initiated
a comprehensive update to the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, as part of the comprehensive update to the City's General Plan, the
University Neighborhood Specific Plan was prepared to provide further detail regarding the
vision and framework for development on 400 acres in proximity to the University of
California Riverside and California State University San Bernardino extension campuses;
and
WHEREAS, also as part of the comprehensive update to the City's General Plan,
the One Eleven Development Code was prepared to implement the General Plan Update's
City Center Element (Chapter 10) and provide the framework, design objectives, and
implementation techniques for future development near and around the intersection of
Highway 111 and San Pablo Avenue; and
WHEREAS, together, the comprehensive update to the City's General Plan, the
University Neighborhood Specific Plan, and the One Eleven Development Code are
considered the "General Plan Update" and these three documents were considered
together pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, §§
21000 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 and State CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., §§ 15000 et seq.) section 15367, the City of Palm Desert is
the lead agency for the General Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City determined
that an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared in order to analyze all
potential adverse environmental impacts resulting from General Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft EIR for the
General Plan Update on or about August 10, 2015, and circulated the NOP for public review
and comment through September 11, 2015; and
WHEREAS, in the NOP, the City solicited comments from various public agencies,
other entities, and members of the public; and
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
WHEREAS, on or about August 19, 2016, the City initiated a 45-day public review
and comment period on a Draft EIR prepared to analyze and disclose the potential
significant environmental impacts associated with the General Plan Update and released
the Draft EIR for public review and comment; and
WHEREAS, shortly after releasing the Draft EIR for public review and comment, the
City noticed that Table 25.18-2 "Downtown District Development Standards" contained in
Draft EIR Technical Appendix 3.0-2 (The One Eleven Development Code) overstated land
use intensities along the Highway 111 corridor; and
WHEREAS, on or about August 24, 2016, the City recirculated Technical Appendix
3.0-2 (The One Eleven Development Code) with the corrected Table 25.18-2, as well as
corrected minor typographical errors on pages 19, 27, and 28 of Technical Appendix 3.0-2,
and initiated a 45-day public review and comment period on the recirculated Technical
Appendix 3.0-2; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086, the City consulted
with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory
agencies, and others during the 45-day public review and comment periods;
WHEREAS, the City received four comment letters, including letters from the Desert
Sands Unified School District, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, the
Twenty -Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, and the Coachella Valley Water District during
the 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City also received one comment letter from the law firm Holland &
Knight on behalf of an unidentified and unnamed client, after the close of the public
comment period on the Draft EIR, but during the public comment period for the recirculated
Technical Appendix 3.0-2. However, this comment letter included comments beyond the
scope of the recirculated Technical Appendix and therefore is considered to be a late
comment letter on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final EIR, consisting of the comments received
during the 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, the late comment
letter received from Holland & Knight after the close of the public review and comment
period for the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions (errata) to the
Draft EIR. For the purposes of this Resolution, the "EIR" shall refer to the Draft EIR, as
revised by the Final EIR, together with the other seconds of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15088(b), the written
responses to comments contained within the Final EIR have been provided to any public
agency that commented on the EIR at least 10 days prior to the City Council's certification
of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, Findings of Fact with respect to environmental impacts caused by the
General Plan Update are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to the City as
a whole, including the entirety of the administrative record for the General Plan Update, and
these Findings of Fact are presented as Attachment "A" to this Resolution and incorporated
herein by reference; and
2
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that the Planning
Commission finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in
Section 2 of Attachment "A"; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that the Planning
Commission finds are potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a level of Tess than
significant through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR
are described in Section 3 of Attachment "A"; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that the City Council
finds are potentially significant and cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant
even after the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section 4 of
Attachment "A"; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts identified in the Final EIR are described in
Section 5 of Attachment "A"; and
WHEREAS, irreversible environmental changes identified in the Final EIR are
described in Section 6 of Attachment "A"; and
WHEREAS, growth inducing impacts identified in the Final EIR are described in
Section 7 of Attachment "A"; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the General Plan Update that might eliminate or reduce
significant environmental impacts are described in Section 8 of Attachment "A"; and
WHEREAS, a Statement of Overriding Considerations identifying the benefits of the
General Plan Update that make the General Plan Update's significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts "acceptable" are described in Section 9 of Attachment "A"; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program setting forth the
mitigation measures to which the City shall bind itself in connection with the General Plan
Update is provided as Attachment "B" to this resolution and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
on the General Plan Update, at which all persons wishing to testify were heard, and
adopted Planning Commission Resoltion 2681 recommending approval and certification of
the Final EIR to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing on the
General Plan Update, at which all persons wishing to testify were heard; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action the City Council has heard, been presented with,
reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record,
including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and
hearings; and
3
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
WHEREAS, the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and
is deemed fully adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the General
Plan Update, including the University Neighborhood Specific Plan, and the One Eleven
Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the City has not received any comments or additional information that
constituted substantial new information requiring recirculation under Public Resources Code
section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have
been satisfied by the City in the Final EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the
potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed Project have been adequately
evaluated;
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occured.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Recitals. The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this
Resolution by reference as findings of fact.
Section 2: CEQA Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby adopts the CEQA Findings of
Fact, attached hereto as Sections 1 through 8 of Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 3: Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Pursuant to
Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by
reference. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of
any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth herein and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall
control.
Section 4: Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council hereby adopts the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Section 9 of Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by reference.
Section 5: Certification of the EIR. The City Council finds that it has been presented with
the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate
and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State
CEQA Guidelines and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City
Council.
4
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts as defined by State
CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 have been received by the City Council after circulation of
the Draft EIR which would require recirculation.
Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of
proceedings.
Section 6: Custodian of Record. The documents and materials that constitute the record of
proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at 73510 Fred Waring
Drive, Palm Desert, California. The custodian for this records is the Director of Community
Development. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section
21081.6.
Section 7: Notice of Determination. A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County
of Riverside and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of final Project approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
California, at its regular meeting held on the 10th day of November 2016, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: HARNIK, JONATHAN, TANNER, WEBER, and SPIEGEL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST:
RA ELL D. SE I LERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA J
IRD44--
`ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, MaI'tIO
5
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
ATTACHMENT "A"
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SECTION 1: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
At a session assembled on November 10, 2016, the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert considered the proposed General Plan Update, University Neighborhood Specific
Plan, and One Eleven Development Code (together, the "General Plan Update" or
"proposed project").
The City Council determines that, based on all of the evidence presented, including
but not limited to the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"), comment letters
received on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, and errata to the Draft EIR
(collectively, "the EIR"), as well as all written and oral testimony given at meetings and
hearings, and the submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory
agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Project are: (1) less than
significant and do not require mitigation; or (2) potentially significant but will be avoided or
reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified Mitigation Measures; or (3)
significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be
lessened to the extent feasible by the identified Mitigation Measures.
SECTION 2: FINDINGS REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOT
REQUIRING MITIGATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, §§
21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and consistent with Public Resources Code section 21002.1 and
section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15000 et seq.),
the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of
other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant
adverse environmental impacts. State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 does not require
specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as "no impact" or a
"less than significant" impact. Nevertheless, the City Council hereby finds that the Project
would have either no impact or a less than significant impact to the following resource
areas:
A. AESTHETICS
1. Effects on Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-8.)
Explanation: Adoption and implementation of the General Plan Update would allow
for new development in the Planning Area, potentially altering scenic vistas. The General
Plan Update policies and programs would reduce impacts on scenic vistas at the
programmatic level. Land Use & Community Character Element Policies 2.1, 2.3, and 2.4
require the City to consider and address preservation of scenic views. Environmental
7
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
Resources Element Policy 2.1 would protect and preserve existing, signature views of the
hills and mountains from the City. Policy 2.3 would continue to require the preparation of a
grading analysis on hillside development to predetermine where development should occur
so as to minimize the impact of new development on view of the City's hillsides. Policy 2.4
would plan public facilities, roads, and private development to take advantage of the City's
mountain and hillside views, especially as the City Center develops. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-8.)
In addition, Municipal Code Section 25.28.080, Scenic Preservation Overlay District,
establishes development standards for scenic corridors. It is the purpose of the Scenic
Preservation Overlay district to designate those scenic corridors that have a special
aesthetic quality and to provide the opportunity for special standards for development in
these areas to protect that quality. Implementation of the General Plan Update policies and
compliance with the Municipal Code would reduce potential impacts on scenic vistas in the
Planning Area because the City would identify scenic vistas and implement development
standards of the underlying base district to ensure that the aesthetic quality of the scenic
corridor is preserved. Therefore, the impact would be Tess than significant. (Draft EIR, p.
4.1-9.)
2. Damage Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-9.)
Explanation: Adoption and implementation of the General Plan Update would
include new development in the Planning Area that could substantially damage scenic
resources within a state scenic highway. However, adoption and implementation of the
General Plan Update policies and programs and compliance with the Palm Desert Municipal
Code would result in a less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-9.)
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan Update would revitalize the
Highway 111 corridor into a downtown -type City Center. State of California designated state
scenic highway State Route 74 and eligible state scenic highway Highway 111 would be
protected by Policy 2.2 that would continue to minimize the impact on views by restricting
new billboards along the City's roads and highways, Policy 2.1 that would protect and
preserve existing, signature views of the hills and mountains from the City, and Policy 2.3
that would continue to require the preparation of a grading analysis on hillside development
to predetermine where development should occur so as to minimize the impact of new
development on view of the City's hillsides. In addition, Action 2.30 would develop and
regularly update parking management plans for all applicable areas along the Highway 111
corridor. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-9.)
3. Degradation of Visual Character
Threshold: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-9.)
8
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
Explanation: Adoption and implementation of the proposed project would include
new development that could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
within or surrounding the Planning Area. However, adoption and implementation of the
General Plan Update policies and compliance with the Palm Desert Municipal Code would
result in a less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-9.)
Future land uses consistent with the General Plan Update would allow new
development in similar locations to, and with character similar to, the existing downtown,
residential neighborhoods, commercial corridors, and industrial uses. Land Use &
Community Character Element Policy 1.1 requires new development along the City's
corridors to use design techniques to moderate height and use and ensure compatible fit
with surrounding development. In addition, Land Use & Community Character Element
Policies 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 and Environmental Resources Element Policies 2.1, 2.2, 2.3,
2.4, and 2.5 ensure future development will be consistent with the City's existing visual
character. Implementation of the General Plan Update policies and compliance with the
Municipal Code would reduce the impact associated with visual character and quality to a
less than significant level because City regulations would ensure consideration of visual
character during review of future development projects. Therefore, the impact would be less
than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-9, -10.)
4. New Sources of Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the project create a new source of substantial Tight or glare that
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-10.)
Explanation: Adoption and implementation of the proposed project would include
new development in the Planning Area that would create new sources of light and glare.
However, implementation of the Palm Desert Municipal Code would result in a less than
significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-10.)
Most of Palm Desert is urbanized and consists of typical sources of light and glare
found in urban areas. Implementation of the proposed project would include physical
improvements to City transportation infrastructure including parking, roadways, and traffic
signals. Land Use & Community Character Element Policy 2.6 would require all new
streetlights 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. In addition,
Environmental Resources Element Policy 2.5 would limit light pollution from outdoor
sources, especially in rural, hillside and mountain areas, and open spaces, to maintain
darkness for night sky viewing.
Municipal Code Chapter 24.16, Outdoor Lighting Requirements, defines outdoor
lighting requirements for lighting systems and requires a site plan, fixture cutoffs, and a
photometric plan illustrating that the proposed outdoor lighting system complies with the
requirements outlined in the ordinance. These requirements would adequately ensure that
light spillover and glare would not occur. Thus, implementation of the General Plan Update
policies and compliance with the Municipal Code would result in less than significant light
9
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
and glare impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-10.)
B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
1. Farmland
Threshold: Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-6.)
Explanation: As identified by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(FMMP), there is no Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the Planning
Area. However, the Planning Area does contain Unique Farmland and Farmland of Local
Importance. The portion identified as Unique Farmland is an Armstrong Growers Nursery
Facility located off Hidden River Road. Of the two areas of Farmland of Local Importance,
the portion located within the City limits appears to have been used for agricultural purposes
at one time and is now in the process of being converted into a combined Cal State and UC
Riverside branch campus and residential subdivisions. The other area is located within the
City's Sphere of Influence ("SOI") and contains vacant land that at one time appeared to be
used for row crops. Therefore, no impact will occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-6.)
2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-6.)
Explanation: The Planning Area does contain Unique Farmland and Farmland of
Local Importance. However, these areas are currently zoned Residential and Public
Facility. The Planning Area does not contain any Williamson Act contracted lands.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with either existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-6.)
3. Forest Land Zoning
Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timber Production?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-6.)
Explanation: The planning area does not contain any forestland, or any parcels
zoned for forestland, timberland, or timber production. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.2-6.)
10
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
4. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non -forest use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-6.)
Explanation: The planning area does not contain any forestland, therefore no
impacts relating to forestland or conversion of forestland to non -forest use would occur.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.2-6.)
5. Conversion
Threshold: Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-6.)
Explanation: As identified by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(FMMP), there is no Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the Planning
Area. However, the Planning Area does contain Unique Farmland and Farmland of Local
Importance. The portion identified as Unique Farmland is an Armstrong Growers Nursery
Facility located off Hidden River Road. Of the two areas of Farmland of Local Importance,
the portion located within the City limits appears to have been used for agricultural purposes
at one time and is now in the process of being converted into a combined Cal State and UC
Riverside branch campus and residential subdivisions. The other area is located within the
City's SOI and contains vacant land that at one time appeared to be used for row crops.
These two areas are currently zoned Residential and Public Facility. The proposed project
includes a policy that would allow existing golf courses to be used for community scale
agriculture (community gardens, boutique agriculture, etc.). As this land is currently
developed as a golf course it is not designated agriculture and therefore does not result in
the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. No impacts relating to conversion would
occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-6.)
C. AIR QUALITY
1. Conflict with AQMP
Threshold: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional
air quality management plan?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-8.)
Explanation: Adoption and implementation of the City of Palm Desert's General Plan
policies and programs would comply with the regional Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP) and would result in a Tess than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-8 through -
16. )
Consistency with AQMP Growth Forecast
11
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
Vehicle use, energy consumption, and associated air pollutant emissions are directly
related to population growth. A project may be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would
generate population, housing or employment growth exceeding the forecasts used in the
development of the AQMP. According to Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) growth forecasts in their Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP/SCS), Palm Desert will have a resident population of 61,700 in 2040.
Development facilitated by the proposed General Plan, including development proposed as
part of the University Neighborhood Specific Plan, would add an estimated 11,905
permanent residents between 2012 and 2040, bringing the City's total population to 61,691,
which is within SCAG's 2040 population forecasts of 61,700 from the 2016 RTP/SCS
(SCAG 2016). Therefore, the proposed General Plan would be consistent with SCAG
projections. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-9.)
Consistency with AQMP Control Measures
The AQMP includes specific control measures to reduce air pollutant emissions in
order meet federal and state air quality standards. One of the most important methods the
AQMP relies on to achieve its goals is the use of emission control measures, many of which
were established as part of the previous AQMP adopted in 2007. Between 2008 and 2011,
twelve control measures or rules were adopted or amended by the SCAQMD. Currently, the
SCAQMD staff is in the process of developing the 2016 AQMP, which was released to the
public for review and comment on June 30, 2016 and will be a comprehensive and
integrated Plan primarily focused on addressing the ozone standards. The Plan will be a
regional and multi -agency effort (SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, and EPA). State and federal
planning requirements include developing control strategies, attainment demonstrations,
reasonable further progress, and maintenance plans. The 2016 AQMP will incorporate the
latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the latest
applicable growth assumptions, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy, and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-9 through 4.3-16; see also Table 4.3-2 [Palm Desert General Plan
Consistency with SCAQMD Transportation Control Measures].)
2. Violate Air Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the project violate an air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-16, -18.)
Explanation:
Short-term Construction Emissions
Construction activity carried out under the proposed project could occur throughout
the City of Palm Desert. Individual future developments would be subject to independent
environmental review under CEQA, at which time SCAQMD project -level thresholds would
be used to assess the potential construction -related air quality impacts of the proposal.
Depending upon the development type and size, maximum daily emissions associated with
individual projects could potentially exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds, resulting in a
12
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
significant air quality impact.
LSTs only apply to those emissions generated by on -site construction activities, such
as emissions from on -site grading, and do not apply to off -site mobile emissions. Because
they are localized, and depend on project -level information such as quantities of demolition,
grading, and construction, application of LST thresholds is only appropriate for project -level
CEQA analysis, not in the program -level CEQA analysis completed for the proposed
project. City of Palm Desert General Plan Policy 6.1 would require siting of sensitive
receptors and site planning to minimize the exposure to localized air pollution, and analysis
of the potential for exceedances of LST thresholds would be carried out on a project -by -
project basis, as necessary and appropriate.
The SCAQMD has established Rules 402 and 403, which require that air pollutant
emissions not be a nuisance off -site, and reduce the ambient entrainment of fugitive dust.
Rule 403 includes best available control measures (BACM) for all construction activity,
contingency control measures for large operations, and conservation management
practices for confined animal facilities. Major categories addressed by Rule 403 to reduce
fugitive dust include earth moving, disturbed surface areas, unpaved roads, open storage
piles, demolition, and other various construction activities. During construction, individual
property owners, developers, or contractors would be required to comply with applicable
SCAQMD rules, which reduce temporary construction -related air pollutant emissions. In
addition, to reduce the impacts of local fugitive dust and PM10 emissions, the City of Palm
Desert adopted a Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control Ordinance (Chapter 24.12 of the Palm
Desert City Municipal Code). In addition, if necessary, individual projects that could occur
under the proposed project would be required to implement additional mitigation if site -
specific analysis identifies the potential to exceed applicable thresholds. Adherence to
SCAQMD rules and local policies would reduce potential construction -related impacts to a
less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-17, -18.)
Long-term Operational Emissions
Long-term emissions associated with the proposed General Plan are those
associated with vehicle trips and stationary sources. Emissions associated with individual
projects, depending on project type and size, could exceed project -specific thresholds
established by the SCAQMD. However, such projects would be required to undergo
independent project -level CEQA review and to include mitigation measures to address
potentially significant project -level impacts. Overall growth within City of Palm Desert would
be within SCAG regional growth forecasts upon which regional air quality planning is based.
The project includes policies that would reduce vehicle use and vehicle miles traveled and
result in a reduction in fuel consumption and resulting air pollutant emissions, including
policies designed to decrease the generation of air pollution and greenhouse gases through
the reduction of vehicle miles traveled by promoting infill development in the developed
areas of the City. These policies also emphasize pedestrian and bicycle travel. Adherence
to these policies would reduce impacts to Tess than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-18
through -21.)
13
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
3. Criteria Pollutants
Threshold: 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-16 through -18.)
Explanation: The Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (Basin),
within which Palm Desert is located, is a non -attainment area for both the federal and state
standards for ozone and PM10. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-2.) LSTs were devised in response to
concern regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. LSTs
represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an air
quality exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard at the nearest sensitive receptor, taking into consideration ambient concentrations
in each source receptor area (SRA), project size, distance to the sensitive receptor, and
other factors. However, LSTs only apply to emissions within a fixed stationary location.
LSTs have been developed for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs do not apply to on -site
mobile sources such as cars on a roadway (SCAQMD 2009). (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-7.)
Construction -related emissions are speculative at the General Plan level because such
emissions are dependent on the characteristics of individual development projects. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.3-8.) Similar to construction -related emissions, operational emissions are
speculative at the General Plan level because such emissions are dependent on the
characteristics of individual projects. Nonetheless, because operation associated with
buildout under the General Plan Update would generate both construction and operational
criteria pollutant emissions, a qualitative analysis was completed. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-8.)
Information regarding specific development projects, soil types, and the locations of
receptors would be needed in order to quantify the level of impact associated with individual
construction projects. During construction, individual property owners, developers, or
contractors would be required to comply with applicable SCAQMD rules, which reduce
temporary construction -related air pollutant emissions. In addition, to reduce the impacts of
local fugitive dust and PM,o emissions, the City of Palm Desert adopted a Fugitive Dust
(PM10) Control Ordinance (Chapter 24.12 of the Palm Desert City Municipal Code). The
implementation of these regulations would reduce potential impacts relating to criteria
pollutants from construction to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-15.) Similarly,
impacts associated with project operation would also be less than significant, given that
emissions associated with individual projects would be required to undergo independent
project -level review, and the project is consistent with SCAG's regional growth forecasts,
upon which regional air quality planning is based. Further, policies included in the proposed
project relating to pedestrian and bicycle travel, and the reduction of vehicle miles traveled,
would further reduce program -level impacts to Tess than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-18
through -21.)
4. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
14
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-21.)
Explanation: Adoption and implementation of the proposed project would generate
and contribute vehicle traffic to existing roadways within the City as a result of proposed
land uses, which could contribute to potential CO hot spots. However, traffic volumes
anticipated at intersections throughout the City with implementation of the City of Palm
Desert's General Plan would not be large enough to trigger a CO hot spot, resulting in a
less than significant impact.
The SCAQMD defines typical sensitive receptors as residences, schools,
playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities,
rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. When evaluating
potential Tong -term air quality impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD is primarily
concerned with high localized concentrations of CO. Motor vehicles, and traffic -congested
roadways and intersections are the primary source of high localized CO concentrations.
Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or state standards for
CO are termed CO "hotspots."
Implementation of the proposed project would not expose existing or future sensitive
uses within the City to substantial CO concentrations. The Basin is in attainment of state
and federal CO standards and has been for several years. Background levels of carbon
monoxide are generally low in the basin. The highest recorded 8-hour average
concentration of CO in the basin in 2011 was 0.6 ppm, which is well below the state and
federal 8-hour standard of 9 ppm. A review of data for 2015 showed state and federal
standards for CO were not exceeded (SCAQMD, May 2016). Although CO is not expected
to be a major air quality concern in Riverside County over the planning horizon, elevated
CO levels can occur at or near intersections that experience severe traffic congestion.
However, as discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, the proposed project's potential
traffic congestion impacts would be less than significant. As a result, this impact would be
less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-21 and -22.)
5. Objectionable odors
Threshold: Would construction and/or operation of the project create objectionable
odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-22.)
Explanation: The proposed project would facilitate development within Palm Desert.
Some commercial and industrial uses developed under the City of Palm Desert's General
Plan Update may generate odor nuisance effects to the public. Examples of commercial
uses that have the potential to cause odor impacts include fast food restaurants,
photographic studios, and laundry facilities. Industrial uses may also generate odors.
However, the City of Palm Desert's General Plan Policies 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 would require
siting of sensitive receptors and site planning to minimize the exposure to odors. In
addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) would prohibit any land use (except agricultural
land uses) from generating odors that "endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of
any such persons of the public" (SCAQMD 1976). Agricultural land uses are not permitted
within the incorporated City and therefore would not generate substantial odors within the
15
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
City. Therefore, implementation of the project and compliance with SCAQMD Rules and
Regulations would ensure that a substantial number of receptors are not exposed to
substantial odor emissions. As such, significant odor impacts are not anticipated. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.3-22.)
Construction activity would also generate temporary airborne odors associated with
the operation of construction vehicles (i.e., diesel exhaust) and the application of
architectural coatings. However, these odors are not generally considered to be especially
offensive. Emissions would be temporary and would be confined to the immediate vicinity of
the construction site and activity. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.3-22.)
D. ENERGY IMPACTS
Threshold: Would the project result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary
consumption of energy?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-26.)
Explanation: As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.4-2, the City of Palm Desert consumed
759,776,308 kilowatt hours of electricity and 19,191,985 therms of natural gas in the year
2008. According to CARB's EMFAC2014 modeling software, 38,910,825 gallons of
automotive fuel were consumed daily in Palm Desert in the year 2015. The increase in
electricity usage as a result of full buildout of the development potential allowed under the
proposed project would constitute an approximate 15.4 percent increase in the typical
annual electricity consumption and an approximate 18.9 percent increase in the typical
annual natural gas consumption attributable to all buildings in Palm Desert. The increase in
automotive fuel would increase use in the county by 13.9 percent. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-26.)
The development allowed under the proposed project would be required to comply
with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provide minimum efficiency
standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space
heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Furthermore,
SCE is subject to California's Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires
investor -owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to
increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total
procurement by 2020 and to 50 percent of total procurement by 2030. The increase in
reliance of such energy resources further ensures projects will not result in the waste of the
finite energy resources. Individual development projects will be required to undergo project -
specific environmental review, and mitigation measures will be identified at that time to
reduce any significant impacts. The City's ongoing development review process includes a
review and comment opportunity for privately owned utility companies, including SCE and
the Southern California Gas Company, to allow informed input from each utility company on
all development proposals. The input facilitates a detailed review of all projects by service
purveyors to assess the potential demands for utility services on a project -by -project basis.
The ability of utility providers to provide services concurrently with each project is evaluated
during the development review process. Utility companies are bound by contract to update
energy systems to meet any additional demand. Thus, the proposed project would not
place a substantial demand on regional energy supply or require significant additional
16
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
capacity, or significantly increase peak and base period electricity demand, or cause
wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during project construction,
operation, and/or maintenance, or preempt future energy development or future energy
conservation. Therefore, this impact would be Tess than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-27.)
E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Riparian Habitat
Threshold: Would the project 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-25.)
Explanation: Adoption and implementation of the General Plan Update could result
in the loss or degradation of riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities
considered sensitive habitats under CEQA. However, adoption and implementation of
General Plan Update policies and implementation actions would result in a less than
significant impact. The Coachella Valley Multiple -Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(CVMSHCP) considered sensitive habitats and identified conservation goals for sensitive
habitats; they are therefore conserved under the CVMSHCP. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-26.)
A 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement for removal of or disturbance to riparian
habitat and waters of the State from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
("CDFW") may be required for development associated with any sites in the Planning Area.
This agreement would include measures to minimize and restore riparian habitat and would
require the project applicant(s) associated with the development to prepare and implement
a vegetation mitigation and monitoring plan. All projects must comply with state law and with
the CVMSHCP, which are specifically designed to reduce impacts to riparian and sensitive
natural communities. About 80 acres of desert fan palm oasis is located in the SOI (see
Draft EIR Table 4.5-4). Compliance with CVMSHCP would ensure impacts to this
community is reduced to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-26.)
In addition, proposed policies in the General Plan Update protect sensitive habitat.
Environmental Resources Element Policy 1.5 states that when considering development
applications and infrastructure improvements, waterways must be treated as amenities, not
hazards, and designs that embrace the waterways are encouraged. Environmental
Resources Element Policy 4.1 requires new developments adjacent to identified plant and
wildlife habitat areas to maintain a protective buffer, and Policy 4.2 would 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. For these
reasons, this impact is less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-25, -26.)
2. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct
17
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-26.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed project could result in the Toss of
jurisdictional waters of the United States and waters of the State. However, this impact is
considered less than significant. All water features mapped (see Draft EIR, Appendix 4.0)
in the City are assumed to be considered jurisdictional. Any development that seeks
authorization to place fill in jurisdictional features may be required to obtain a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") through the Clean Water Act Section 404
permitting process prior to project implementation. If a Section 404 permit were to be
required from the USACE, a Clean Water Act Section 401 permit would be also required
from the RWQCB. Additionally, if on -site jurisdictional features qualify as, waters of the
State, authorization from the CDFW for impacts to these features would be required through
the 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement process.
In addition, the CVMSHCP includes requirements for any development that may
affect riparian or wetland areas. Furthermore, construction -related impacts to water quality
would be mitigated through a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. Environmental Resources Element Policy 3.1 requires new development in Palm
Desert to comply with requirements of the CVMSHCP.
All of the agencies operate under a no net loss of wetlands policy that ensures
development does not result in the loss of jurisdictional waters of the United States or of the
State. Since development cannot proceed without the requisite permits, and all permits
must be approved by the federal or state agencies, this impact is considered Tess than
significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-26, -27.)
3. Movement of Wildlife
Threshold: Would the project 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-27.)
Explanation: Adoption and implementation of the General Plan Update could
impede wildlife movement in the Planning Area. The primary travel corridors available in
Palm Desert include the drainages and associated riparian habitats and golf courses that
provide adequate cover and vegetation to be used as a migratory corridor for common and
special -status wildlife species. New and intensified development resulting from
implementation of the General Plan Update could result in disturbance, degradation, and
removal of these important corridors for the movement of common and special -status
wildlife species. Several portions of the Planning Area, including the undeveloped
mountainous areas and desert washes, could facilitate regional wildlife movement. The
mountainous southern Planning Area is located in an Essential Connectivity Area. In
addition, the Missing Linkages layer shows that the Planning Area overlaps with linkages for
bighorn sheep, desert tortoise, fringe -toed lizard, various birds, and large mammals such as
deer, bears, and mountain lions. The Planning Area is not located in a CVMSHCP identified
18
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
corridor.
The General Plan Update would protect existing open spaces and wildlife corridors.
The General Plan Update does not propose land use changes that would convert existing
open space areas, e.g., golf courses, containing native vegetation or habitat to developed
uses. Rather, the General Plan Update includes land use designations that would focus
new residential uses and nonresidential development around the Highway 111 corridor and
around the California State University campus and the University of California campus. In
addition, large areas of land are designated as Open Space, predominantly in the southern
portion of the City. Implementation of proposed General Plan Update policies would ensure
that habitats used by migratory species would be protected from impacts associated with
construction, recreation, and industrial activities. Therefore, impacts to wildlife corridors and
wildlife movement would be minimized, and the impact would be Tess than significant.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-27, -28.)
4. Local Policies or Ordinances
Threshold: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-28.)
Explanation: The City of Palm Desert has not adopted any policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources other than compliance with the CVMSHCP and all projects
must comply with this plan. Therefore, there is no impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-28.)
5. Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-28.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed project could result in conflicts with the
provisions of the CVMSHCP. However, compliance with the mandatory provisions of the
CVMSHCP, including payment of mitigation fees, would result in Tess than significant
impacts. A component of the CVMSHCP is Local Development Mitigation Fees (LDMF),
which is a funding source for the CVMSHCP and is required for development activities to
occur. These fees are utilized to fund the mitigation for certain special -status species and
habitats. Future development projects will be required to pay these fees to comply with the
overlying habitat conservation plan. With adherence to the standard conditions and
requirements, any impacts will be Tess than significant and the proposed project will have no
conflict with the MSHCP. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-28.)
F. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
19
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-6.)
Explanation: Anticipated development would not lead to the demolition of historic
buildings and structures and/or damage to subsurface historic -period resources because all
projects that affect historic resources must comply with Title 29 of the City of Palm Desert
Municipal Code. The Municipal Code requires public consideration of historic building
modification and may require changes to projects to preserve or document resources.
Several adopted federal, state, and local regulations guide the process of identifying
and preserving historic resources in Palm Desert. State regulations incentivize the
preservation of historic and cultural resources, while local policies provide guidance for the
identification and protection of resources. Environmental Resources Element Policy 9.5
encourages 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.
Implementation of the General Plan Update policies to protect historic resources,
along with adherence to existing federal, state, and City regulations, would preserve
designated and eligible historical resources. Therefore, this impact would be Tess than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-6.)
2. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-9.)
Explanation: Anticipated development in Palm Desert would occur through new infill
development on vacant property and with redevelopment or revitalization of underutilized
properties, which could disturb human remains under previously undisturbed ground
surfaces. In addition, infrastructure and other improvements requiring ground disturbance
could disturb human remains below the ground surface.
California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and California Public
Resources Code Section 5097 dictate procedures for the treatment of discovered human
remains. If human remains are uncovered during ground -disturbing activities, all such
activities within a 100-foot radius of the find must be halted immediately and the project
applicants' designated representative notified. A project applicants' responsibilities for
acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in
detail in California Public Resources Code Section 5097.9. The City of Palm Desert or its
appointed representative and the professional archaeologist are then required to contact the
most likely descendant (MLD), as determined by the NAHC, regarding the remains. The
MLD, in cooperation with the property owner and the lead agency, would then determine the
ultimate disposition of the remains. Therefore, required compliance with California Health
and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and California Public Resources Code Section
20
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
5097 would result in a less than significant impact to human remains. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-9,
-10.)
G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Fault Rupture
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-6.)
Explanation: The City and the SOI are not located within a fault zone, as defined by
the Alquist-Priolo Act (CGS 2014). Based on information from the California Geological
Survey, no known major active faults are located in the City or the SOI. According to the
Southern California Earthquake Data Center (2014), the closest active faults to Palm Desert
are the San Andreas fault, located approximately 4 miles to the north; the San Jacinto fault,
located 10 miles to the southwest; and the Elsinore fault, located 30 miles to the southwest.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.7-1.)
Development in the City would be designed in accordance with California Building
Code ("CBC") requirements that address structural seismic safety. All new development and
redevelopment would be required to comply with the CBC, which includes design criteria for
seismic loading and other geologic hazards, including design criteria for geologically
induced loading that govern sizing of structural members and provide calculation methods
to assist in the design process. Additionally, Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
25.28.110 sets development standards and requirements for areas in the Seismic Hazard
Overlay District that must be incorporated into development proposals prior to design and
construction. All applications for development in the overlay district must submit in-depth
geological soils investigation technical studies. Further, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
requires that cities use the Seismic Hazard Zone Maps in their land use planning and
building permit processes and that site -specific geotechnical investigations be conducted
within the Zones of Required Investigation in order to identify and evaluate seismic hazards
and formulate mitigation measures prior to permitting most developments designed for
human occupancy. These requirements, along with continued adherence to the City's
Municipal Code Section 25.25.110, and implementation of the policies contained in the
General Plan Update would ensure this impact is reduced to less than significant. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.7-6, -7.)
2. Seismic Ground Shaking
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground
shaking?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-6.)
21
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
Explanation: Six historic seismic events (M 5.9 or greater) have significantly affected
the Coachella Valley region in the past 100 years. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-1.) Development in
the City would be designed in accordance with CBC requirements that address structural
seismic safety. All new development and redevelopment would be required to comply with
the CBC, which includes design criteria for seismic loading and other geologic hazards,
including design criteria for geologically induced loading that govern sizing of structural
members and provide calculation methods to assist in the design process. Additionally,
Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.28.110 sets development standards and
requirements for areas in the Seismic Hazard Overlay District that must be incorporated into
development proposals prior to design and construction. All applications for development in
the overlay district must submit in-depth geological soils investigation technical studies.
Further, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires that cities use the Seismic Hazard Zone
Maps in their land use planning and building permit processes and that site -specific
geotechnical investigations be conducted within the Zones of Required Investigation in
order to identify and evaluate seismic hazards and formulate mitigation measures prior to
permitting most developments designed for human occupancy. These requirements, along
with continued adherence to the City's Municipal Code Section 25.25.110, and
implementation of the policies contained in the General Plan Update would ensure this
impact is reduced to less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-6, -7.)
3. Ground Failure and Liquefaction
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving seismic -related ground
failure, including liquefaction?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-6.)
Explanation: In 1997 and 1998, California developed guidelines for delineating,
evaluating, and mitigating seismic hazards, including liquefaction. Seismic Hazard Zones
(SHZ) maps identify areas within and adjacent to the City and SOI that are susceptible to
seismic hazards. SHZ mapping delineating liquefaction -susceptible areas do not exist for
Palm Desert. However, according to the Riverside County Land Information System (2014),
the majority of the City and all of the northern portion of the SOI are located in an area
susceptible to moderate liquefaction potential. Liquefaction susceptibility in the City and the
SOI is based on sediment type, depth to groundwater, and proximity to the San Andreas
fault. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-2.)
Seismic activity can induce ground failure (lurch cracking, lateral spreading, and
slope failure), liquefaction, water waves (seiches), movement on nearby faults (sympathetic
fault movement), dam failure, and fires. However, development in the City would be
designed in accordance with CBC requirements that address structural seismic safety. All
new development and redevelopment would be required to comply with the CBC, which
includes design criteria for seismic loading and other geologic hazards, including design
criteria for geologically induced loading that govern sizing of structural members and
provide calculation methods to assist in the design process. Additionally, Palm Desert
Municipal Code Section 25.28.110 sets development standards and requirements for areas
in the Seismic Hazard Overlay District that must be incorporated into development
proposals prior to design and construction. All applications for development in the overlay
22
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
district must submit in-depth geological soils investigation technical studies.
Further, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires that cities use the Seismic
Hazard Zone Maps in their land use planning and building permit processes and that site -
specific geotechnical investigations be conducted within the Zones of Required
Investigation in order to identify and evaluate seismic hazards and formulate mitigation
measures prior to permitting most developments designed for human occupancy.
These requirements, along with continued adherence to the City's Municipal Code
Section 25.25.110, and implementation of the policies contained in the General Plan Update
would ensure this impact is reduced to less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-6, -7.)
4. Landslides
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or death, involving landslides?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-6.)
Explanation: Landslides develop when water rapidly accumulates in the ground
during heavy rainfall, changing the earth into a flowing river of mud or "slurry." Figure 7.5 of
Draft EIR Appendix 4.0 identifies landslide -susceptible areas in the City and the SOI. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.7-2.)
However, development in the City would be designed in accordance with CBC
requirements that address structural seismic safety. All new development and
redevelopment would be required to comply with the CBC, which includes design criteria for
seismic loading and other geologic hazards, including design criteria for geologically
induced loading that govern sizing of structural members and provide calculation methods
to assist in the design process. Additionally, Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
25.28.110 sets development standards and requirements for areas in the Seismic Hazard
Overlay District that must be incorporated into development proposals prior to design and
construction. All applications for development in the overlay district must submit in-depth
geological soils investigation technical studies.
Further, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires that cities use the Seismic
Hazard Zone Maps in their land use planning and building permit processes and that site -
specific geotechnical investigations be conducted within the Zones of Required
Investigation in order to identify and evaluate seismic hazards and formulate mitigation
measures prior to permitting most developments designed for human occupancy.
These requirements, along with continued adherence to the City's Municipal Code
Section 25.25.110, and implementation of the policies contained in the General Plan Update
would ensure this impact is reduced to less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-6, -7.)
5. Erosion and Loss of Topsoil
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the Toss of topsoil?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-7.)
23
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
Explanation: Implementation of the updated General Plan would result in
improvements to existing roadways and the potential for additional commercial, residential,
and industrial development in the City. The grading and site preparation activities
associated with such development would remove topsoil, disturbing and potentially
exposing the underlying soils to erosion. However, all demolition and construction activities
that would occur would be subject to compliance with the CBC. Additionally, any
development involving clearing, grading, or excavation that causes soil disturbance of 1 or
more acres, or any project involving less than 1 acre that is part of a larger development
plan is subject to provisions of the NPDES Statewide General Permit, and required to
prepare and comply with an approved SWPPP. NPDES requirements would significantly
reduce the potential for substantial erosion or topsoil loss to occur in association with new
development.
Further, project applicants will be required to comply with Chapter 24.20, Stormwater
Management and Discharge Control, of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Proposed
General Plan Policy 2.3 supports integrated land management for site design and
improvements that protect the natural and built environment, including both public and
private structures, from hazardous wind events. This policy protects future development and
existing natural resources in the City by reducing the potential for soil erosion associated
with high wind hazards.
Thus, compliance with the CBC and the NPDES would minimize effects from erosion
and ensure consistency with the Water Quality Control Plan of the Colorado River Basin
Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, compliance with Palm Desert Municipal
Code Chapter 24.20 and NPDES requirements would result in less than significant impacts
related to soil erosion. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-7, -8.)
6. Unstable and Expansive Soils
Threshold: 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?
Threshold: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-
B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-8.)
Explanation: It does not appear that expansive clays or soils exhibiting shrink -swell
characteristics underlie the Planning Area. Regardless, the CBC and other related
construction standards apply seismic requirements and address certain grading activities.
The CBC includes common engineering practices requiring special design and construction
methods that reduce or eliminate potential expansive soil -related impacts. Compliance with
CBC regulations would ensure the adequate design and construction of building
foundations to resist soil movement.
Additionally, the Municipal Code requires that site -specific geotechnical studies
generally contain a summary of all subsurface exploration data, including a subsurface soil
profile, exploration logs, laboratory or on -site test results, and groundwater information. The
24
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
reports also interpret and analyze the subsurface data, recommend specific engineering
design elements, discuss conditions for the solution of anticipated problems, and
recommend geotechnical special provisions. These provisions would address any site -
specific expansive soil hazards for future development under the General Plan Update.
Therefore, adherence to the CBC and the City's Municipal Code would reduce the effects
resulting from developing on unstable soils to a minimum. This impact is therefore
considered to be less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-8, -9.)
7. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-6.)
Explanation: The City of Palm Desert Municipal Code does not include provisions
for new development with on -site septic systems and relies on the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health for management of existing individual septic systems.
Therefore, there would be no impact related to the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-6.)
8. Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-9.)
Explanation: The project does not propose any development activities that would
directly disturb currently undiscovered paleontological resources. Future discretionary
approvals that could result in the potential disturbance of paleontological resources will be
subject to individual review of potential impacts under a separate CEQA document.
Additionally, General Plan Environmental Resources Element Policy 9.6 requires any
paleontological artifacts found in the City or the SOI to be reported to the City and
temporarily loaned to local museums like the Western Science Center for Archaeology and
Paleontology in Hemet. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.
4.7-9.)
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIALS
1. Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-9.)
Explanation: Adoption and implementation of the General Plan Update would enable
development of new residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. New
25
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
development would result in increased transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous
materials in the Planning Area, such as those relating to light industrial uses, gas stations,
automotive repair shops, and dry cleaners, among others.
The City will continue to enforce existing disclosure laws that require users,
producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes to clearly identify the
materials that they store, use, or transport and to notify the appropriate City, county, state,
and federal agencies in the event of a violation. Facilities developed consistent with the
General Plan Update that would use hazardous materials on -site would be required to
obtain permits and comply with appropriate regulatory agency standards designed to avoid
hazardous waste releases and protect public health.
General Plan Safety Element Policy 1.1 directs the City to establish and maintain a
database containing maps and other information that identifies and describes the
community's hazards. Policy 1.2 directs the City to regularly maintain and update the Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan as an integrated component of the General Plan. Policy 1.3 directs
the City to consult with agencies and partners to provide public education materials on safe
locations and evacuation routes in case of emergency or a hazardous event. Compliance
with and enforcement of existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations concerning
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, supported by implementation
of the General Plan Update policies, would reduce potential impacts to a Tess than
significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-9, -10.)
2. Upset and Accidents
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-11.)
Explanation: New development could result in upset and/or accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The transport, storage,
and use of hazardous materials by developers, contractors, business owners, and others
are required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations during project construction
and operation. Facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain permits from
the EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which gives the EPA the
authority to control the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous waste. Additionally, the hazardous materials regulations included in federal law
govern the transportation of hazardous materials. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration issues regulations concerning highway routing of hazardous materials,
hazardous materials endorsements for a commercial driver's license, highway hazardous
material safety permits, and financial responsibility requirements for motor carriers of
hazardous materials. Locally, the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health is
responsible for consolidating, coordinating, and making consistent the administrative
requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of state standards regarding
the transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials in Riverside County. In
addition, General Plan Safety Element Policy 1.5 directs the City to consult with the
Coachella Valley Emergency Managers Association and the Coachella Valley Association
26
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
of Governments (CVAG) to maintain and update the City's Emergency Operations Plan,
and maintain disaster preparedness plans for evacuation and supply routes,
communications networks, and critical facilities' capabilities. Further, Policy 1.3 directs the
City to consult with agencies and partners to provide public education materials on safe
locations and evacuation routes in case of emergency or a hazardous event.
Thus, compliance with and enforcement of existing laws and regulations concerning
the upset and/or accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment, supported
by implementation of the General Plan Update policies, would ensure that the general
public would not be exposed to any unusual or excessive risks related to accidental upset
and/or release of hazardous materials into the environment. The impact is less than
significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-11, -12.)
3. Hazards Near Schools
Threshold: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-12.)
Explanation: Future land uses consistent with the General Plan Update could
include commercial uses within one -quarter mile of existing and new schools. Regulations
regarding the placement of schools also restrict the presence of toxic and hazardous
substances and hazardous facilities and hazardous air emissions within one -quarter mile of
a proposed school site. In addition, the Education Code requires written findings of the
environmental impact report or negative declaration prepared for a proposed school site
must include a statement verifying that the site is not currently or was not formerly a
hazardous, acutely hazardous substance release, or solid waste disposal site or, if so, that
the wastes have been removed. The DTSC's School Property Evaluation and Cleanup
Division is responsible for assessing, investigating, and cleaning up proposed school sites.
The division ensures that proposed school sites are free of contamination or, if the
properties were previously contaminated, that they have been cleaned up.
State CEQA Guidelines section 15186, School Facilities, requires that school
projects, as well as projects proposed to be located near schools, examine potential health
impacts resulting from exposure to hazardous materials, wastes, and substances.
Furthermore, permitting requirements for individual hazardous material handlers or emitters
require evaluation and notification where potential hazardous materials handling and
emissions could occur in proximity to existing schools. Since any future placement of
schools would be required to comply with state statutory and regulatory requirements
addressing safety from hazards, including hazardous materials, impacts from the placement
of schools in the vicinity of such hazards are anticipated to be less than significant. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.8-12, -13.)
4. Cortese List
Threshold: Would the project 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
27
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-9.)
Explanation: No sites in Palm Desert are included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As such, no impact would
occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-9.)
5. Public Airports and Private Airstrips
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or land use plan
area 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 for people residing or working
in the project area?
Threshold: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-13.)
Explanation: Some portions of the SOI are located in Compatibility Zones B1, B2, C,
D, and E of the Bermuda Dunes Airport Influence Area, which is regulated by the Riverside
County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for airport compatibility requirements.
Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in the construction of residential,
commercial, and industrial uses in proximity to the airport. Safety hazards associated with
airports are generally related to construction of tall structures that could interfere with
airplane flight paths or related to an increase in the number of people working or residing in
areas subject to crash hazards. The Airport Influence Area constitutes the area within
which certain land use actions are subject to ALUC review. Table 2A of the Riverside
County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan — Volume 1 Policy Document outlines
prohibited uses that correspond with each compatibility zone (Riverside County ALUC
2004). However, implementation of the proposed Safety Element policies would ensure
safety of people working or residing within 2 miles of Bermuda Dunes Airport. Safety
Element Policy 6.2 directs the City to adopt and implement airport compatibility zones upon
annexation of areas within the Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Area.
Policy 6.3 requires new development in the vicinity of the airport to conform to the County's
airport land use and safety plans. Additionally, Policy 6.5 requires the Riverside County
ALUC to review all new projects and projects proposing to add square footage or change in
building occupancy type within 2 miles of the airport. Further, Policies 6.7 and 6.8 include
residential density and nonresidential intensity for development within the Airport
Compatibility Zones and require the range specified in Table 2A of the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-13, -14.) ALUC has received a copy of the Draft
EIR, and submitted a letter to the City during the Draft EIR's public review and comment
period stating that ALUC had no objections to the Draft EIR's analysis of airport -related
impacts. Therefore, compliance with existing regulations, supported by implementation of
the proposed policies associated with the General Plan Update, would reduce
programmatic airport safety impacts to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-13i
see also Final EIR Response No. 2.)
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
6. Emergency Response and Evacuation
Threshold: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-15.)
Explanation: In the event of a hazardous material emergency, several agencies are
responsible for timely response. The Riverside County Fire Department and the Palm
Desert Police Department respond to large-scale, emergency hazardous material incidents
within the City boundaries. The City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan specifies actions for the
coordination of operations, management, and resources during emergencies. The proposed
project would not alter the City's overall land use patterns or land use designations to such
an extent that they would conflict with either the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan or the
operations of local agencies.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increased number of
people who would require evacuation in case of an emergency. Proposed General Plan
Safety Element Policy 4.1 directs the City to maintain optimal fire readiness and response
service in coordination with Riverside County and other agencies. Additionally, Palm Desert
Municipal Code Section 26.40.040 establishes minimum roadway widths for subdivision
development. Minimum widths range from 24 to 106 feet, with standards that vary based on
street parking characteristics. This provision reduces risks associated with inadequate
access by emergency responders. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not
impair the City's ability to implement its emergency response plan or utilize its emergency
evacuation routes. As such, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-14.)
7. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-15.)
Explanation: Areas at risk for extreme wildfires are designated by Cal Fire and
include lands where dense vegetation with severe burning potential is present. Moderate,
high, and very high fire hazard severity zones are located in the Planning Area, both within
the existing City limits (local responsibility area) and in the SOI (state responsibility area).
All of the high and very high fire hazard severity zones are located in the southern portion of
the Planning Area, along with some limited moderate fire hazard severity zones along the
urban edge (Cal Fire 2007). Several proposed policies would protect people and property
from wildland fire hazards. Safety Element Policy 4.1 directs the City to maintain optimal fire
readiness and response service in coordination with Riverside County and other agencies.
Policy 4.2 directs the City to adopt and implement fire mitigation standards for areas
designated by Cal Fire as high and very high fire hazard severity zones. Policy 4.3 requires
new developments and homeowners associations to maintain brush clearance criteria that
meets 120 percent of the current state requirement for fire hazard severity zones in the City.
29
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
Implementation of the proposed policies contained in the General Plan Update and
compliance with existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations related to wildland
fire hazards would result in program -level impacts that would be less than significant. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.8-15.)
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-17.)
Explanation:
Short Term Construction
Construction activities associated with buildout of the proposed project may
introduce sediments and other contaminants typically associated with construction into
stormwater runoff, potentially resulting in the degradation of downstream surface water and
groundwater. The General Plan Update has the potential to result in the generation of new
dry weather runoff containing these pollutants and to increase the concentration and/or total
load of the pollutants in wet weather stormwater runoff.
The SWRCB is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act and has issued a
Statewide General Permit for construction activities in the state. In Palm Desert, the
Construction General Permit (CGP) is implemented and enforced by the Colorado River
Basin RWQCB. In accordance with the requirements of the CGP, prior to construction of
any project, a risk assessment must be prepared and submitted to the Colorado River Basin
RWQCB to determine the project's risk level and associated water quality control
requirements. These requirements will, at a minimum, include the preparation and
implementation of a SWPPP identifying specific BMPs to be implemented and maintained in
order to comply with the applicable narrative effluent standards. These BMPs include
erosion controls, sediment controls, wind erosion controls, and tracking controls. The
Construction General Permit also requires that construction sites be inspected before and
after storm events and every 24 hours during extended storm events. The purpose of the
inspections is to identify maintenance requirements for the BMPs and to determine the
effectiveness of the BMPs that are being implemented. Together, these regulations, plans,
and BMPs would ensure that short term construction would not violate water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-19, -20.)
Long Term Operation
The amount and type of runoff generated by land uses in the City with
implementation of the proposed project may be greater than that under existing conditions
due to increases in impervious surfaces. Expected pollutants for the proposed project
include sediment/turbidity, nutrients, organic compounds (petroleum hydrocarbons), trash
and debris, oxygen demanding substances, bacteria and viruses, oil and grease, pesticides,
30
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
and metals. These constituents may result in water quality impacts to on- and off -site
drainage flows and to downstream area waterways. Water in the Planning Area drains to
the Salton Sea watershed; however there are no impaired water bodies within the Planning
Area.
To reduce urban runoff impacts associated with potential pollutants, the updated
General Plan contains policies with requirements that address surface water quality
impacts. For instance, Public Utilities & Services Element Policy 1.2 requires on -site
stormwater retention and infiltration to improve stormwater quality and reduce flows into the
storm drain system. Additionally, Policy 1.1 requires development projects to pay for their
fair share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that
development (regional shallow groundwater). Policy 1.4 encourages the reuse and recycling
of stormwater for non -drinking purposes to reduce the use of potable drinking water.
Further, Policy 1.7 requires the use of low impact development strategies to minimize urban
runoff, increase site infiltration, manage stormwater and recharge groundwater supplies.
Policy 1.10 requires developers to incorporate stormwater management into landscaping.
City of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 24.20 establishes requirements for
stormwater and non-stormwater quality discharge and control by prohibiting discharges of
pollutants or waters containing pollutants that cause or contribute to a violation of applicable
water quality standards. In addition, a project -specific water quality management plan
(WQMP), in compliance with the Areawide Urban Runoff Management Program, would be
required. Compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 24.20 and adherence to policies
contained in the General Plan Update and to State General Construction Activity
Stormwater Permit requirements would result in impacts to water quality that are less than
significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-20, -21.)
2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-21.)
Explanation: Palm Desert is in the service area of the Coachella Valley Water
District ("CVWD"), which delivers a total potable water supply of 104,309 AFY and projected
to deliver a total of 151,000 AFY in 2020. Water demand is met through local groundwater
supplies. CVWD does not rely on a wholesale agency for its urban water supply.
Development that could result from implementation of the updated General Plan may create
areas of new impervious surface that would no longer serve as locations for infiltration of
water to recharge the underlying Whitewater River (Indio) subbasin of the Coachella Valley
Groundwater Basin.
However, multiple General Plan Update policies and implementation actions would
maintain and enhance groundwater recharge occurring in the Planning Area. Public Utilities
& Services Element Policy 1.3 encourages the use of aboveground and natural stormwater
facilities in new development and redevelopment, such as vegetated swales and permeable
paving. Policy 1.7 requires the use of low -impact development strategies to minimize urban
31
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
runoff, increase site infiltration, manage stormwater, and recharge groundwater supplies.
Action 2.49 continues to maintain and enforce regulations and guidelines for the
development and maintenance of project -specific on -site retention/detention basins to
control stormwater and implement the NPDES program, including measures to enhance
groundwater recharge, complement regional flood control facilities, and address applicable
community design policies.
Because of the minimal amount of new impervious surfaces that would result with
implementation of the General Plan Update, the rate of infiltration needed to support
groundwater recharge would not be substantially decreased. Additionally, implementation of
General Plan Update policies and actions would maintain and protect groundwater recharge
resources. Therefore, this impact would be Tess than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-22; see
also Final EIR Response No. 4.)
3. Existing Drainage Patterns and Erosion/Siltation
Threshold: 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, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-23.)
Explanation: Multiple General Plan policies would increase stormwater infiltration,
manage stormwater in a more comprehensive way, and reduce erosion and sedimentation
in the planning area. Public Utilities & Services Element Policy 1.1 requires development
projects to pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements
necessitated by that development. Policy 1.2 recommends that 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. Furthermore,
Policy 1.3 encourages the use of aboveground and natural stormwater facilities in new
development and redevelopment, such as vegetated swales and permeable paving. Policy
1.7 requires the use of low -impact development strategies to minimize urban runoff,
increase site infiltration, manage stormwater, and recharge groundwater supplies.
Additionally, Policy 1.13 requires the prevention of water -borne soil erosion from sites,
especially those undergoing grading and mining activities. Safety Element Policy 3.3
requires the monitoring, updating, and enforcing of stormwater management plans in
coordination with regional agencies, utilities, and other jurisdictions.
In addition, the General Plan Update contains implementation actions intended to
mitigate erosion and sedimentation impacts. Action 2.49 continues to maintain and enforce
regulations and guidelines for the development and maintenance of project -specific on -site
retention/ detention basins to control stormwater and implement the NPDES program,
including measures to enhance groundwater recharge, complement regional flood control
facilities, and address applicable community design policies.
Existing requirements and regulations, as well as the General Plan Update policies
and implementation actions, would reduce the amount of surface water runoff in the
Planning Area. Compliance with these regulations and the minimal amount of new surface
runoff that would result from implementation of the General Plan Update would minimize the
32
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
potential for existing drainage patterns to be altered in a manner that could cause increased
erosion or sedimentation. Therefore, this impact would be Tess than significant. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.9-23.)
4. Existing Drainage Patterns and Flooding
Threshold: 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
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in
flooding on- or off -site?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-24.)
Explanation: The drainage systems and patterns of the area are not anticipated to
be substantially altered because of the existing built -out conditions of the City, plans for new
development to focus on infill locations, and programs to require on -site retention and
infiltration of stormwater. Existing requirements and regulations, as well as General Plan
Update policies and implementation actions, would also reduce the amount of surface water
runoff by increasing stormwater infiltration, managing stormwater in a more comprehensive
way, and reducing erosion and sedimentation in the planning area. Development projects
are also required to pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements
necessitated by that development. Further, low -impact development strategies are required
where feasible to minimize urban runoff, increase site infiltration, manage stormwater, and
recharge groundwater supplies. Also, General Plan Action 2.49 continues to maintain and
enforce regulations and guidelines for the development and maintenance of project -specific
on -site retention/ detention basins to control stormwater and implement the NPDES
program, including measures to enhance groundwater recharge, complement regional flood
control facilities, and address applicable community design policies. Compliance with these
regulations and the minimal amount of new surface runoff that would result from
implementation of General Plan Update would minimize the potential for existing drainage
patterns to be altered in a manner that could cause increased on- or off -site flooding.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-24, -25.)
5. Runoff
Threshold: Would the project 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-24.)
Explanation: A minimal amount of new runoff would be created by implementation of
the General Plan Update because most new development would consist of infill or
redevelopment in areas currently urbanized with impervious surfaces. Construction
activities may result from development associated with implementation of the General Plan
Update and generate the potential for increased pollutants in runoff or add substantial
sources of polluted runoff. However, regulatory requirements would serve to reduce the
amount of stormwater runoff and pollutants generated by new development. Specifically,
projects would be required to comply with NPDES requirements. Mandatory compliance
33
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
would control construction activities and minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the
degradation of water quality. These requirements would include BMPs appropriate to
reduce the overall discharge volume and amount of pollutants in stormwater. Additionally,
multiple General Plan Update policies would minimize runoff and protect water quality.
Because only small areas of new impervious surface would result from development
associated with implementation of the plan, the increased volumes or rates of discharge
and associated pollutants in runoff would be minimal. Additionally, adherence to applicable
water quality regulations and implementation of General Plan Update policies and
implementation actions would minimize the potential to 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. Therefore, this impact would be
less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-24, -25.)
6. Degradation of Water Quality
Threshold: Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-26.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in
development that could increase pollutants during both construction and operation.
However, development is required to comply with multiple regulations and legal
requirements regarding the protection of water quality, and best management practices
must be implemented to ensure water quality is not degraded during construction or long-
term operation. As described in the Regulatory Setting subsection above, multiple water
quality protection laws, regulations, and permitting requirements serve to minimize the
potential to degrade water quality.
Additionally, multiple General Plan Update policies and implementation actions
reduce the potential to degrade water quality and require steps to improve water quality.
Public Utilities & Services Element Policy 1.2 states that 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 1.7 requires the use
of low -impact development strategies to minimize urban runoff, increase site infiltration,
manage stormwater and recharge groundwater supplies. Additionally, Policy 1.9 requires
collaboration with Thousand Palms, Rancho Mirage, Cahuilla Hills, Bermuda Dunes, and
agencies in the watershed to reduce and remove contaminants from stormwater runoff.
Policy 1.11 requires water detention basins to be aesthetically pleasing and to serve
recreational purposes, such as in the form of a mini -park.
Adherence to required water quality control permits and requirements and
implementation of the General Plan Update policies and implementation actions would
reduce the potential for future development to degrade water quality. Therefore, this impact
would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-26, -27.)
7. Housing in Flood Hazard Area
Threshold: Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
34
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
hazard delineation map?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-27.)
Explanation: FEMA mapping delineates areas located in flood hazard zones. New
development in the watershed could potentially result in housing located in 100-year flood
hazard areas, or new or redeveloped housing may continue to be allowed in flood hazard
areas in other jurisdictions. 100-year flood zones are found along the Whitewater Channel,
at the Ironwood Country Club and into and through the Dead Indian Creek and Canyons at
Bighorn, and the very southeastern portion of the City. These locations are either already
developed as golf courses/country clubs or are zoned open space.
All future projects, regardless of jurisdiction, would be required to comply with
regulatory requirements related to floodplain development. FEMA has established the
design standard for flood protection in areas covered by Flood Insurance Rate Maps, with
the minimum level of flood protection for new development determined to be within a 100-
year flood hazard area. The CBC also contains requirements for constructing structures in
flood hazard zones. Required compliance with these regulations and building codes would
minimize risk due to the placement of housing in flood hazard zones, thereby reducing the
potential impact. Additionally, multiple General Plan Update policies and implementation
actions would minimize flooding potential and reduce hazards associated with flooding, and
future development would be required to comply with flood hazard development regulations
and requirements. Therefore, the proposed project's impacts related to the placement of
housing in flood hazard areas would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-27.)
8. Structures in Flood Hazard Area
Threshold: Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
that would impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-28.)
Explanation: Most of the portion of the City and SOI north of Interstate 10 is in a
100- or 500-year flood zone. The Palm Valley Stormwater Channel and the Whitewater
River are in a 100-year flood zone. In addition, a small portion of the City and SOI near the
Palm Valley Stormwater Channel is in a 500-year flood zone.
General Plan Update policies and implementation actions would minimize flooding
potential and hazards. Safety Element Policy 1.2 requires maintaining and regularly
updating the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as an integrated component of the General
Plan, in coordination with Riverside County and other participating jurisdictions, to maintain
eligibility for maximum grant funding. Public Utilities & Service Element Action 2.46 requires
coordination with FEMA, state agencies, Riverside County, and other jurisdictions to
understand the potential changes to the extent or severity of flood hazards based on the
impacts of a changing climate. Action 2.47 prohibits development in the 100-year floodplain,
unless adequate flood mitigation is provided on -site as well as downstream of the project
area. Furthermore, Action 2.48 monitors and updates the floodplain management ordinance
and continues participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Because the General
Plan Update would continue existing land use patterns and any new development would be
35
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
required to comply with flood hazard development regulations and requirements,
implementation of the updated General Plan would not substantially redirect or impede flood
flows due to placement of structures in flood hazard areas. Additionally, General Plan
Update policies and implementation actions would minimize flooding potential and flood
hazards. Therefore, this impact would be Tess than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-28.)
9. Dam and Levee Failure
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee
or dam?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-29.)
Explanation: New development would be required to comply with regulations and
building standards for flood hazard areas. Thus, increased exposure to flood hazards that
might result in significant loss, injury, or death would be minimized.
Furthermore, General Plan Update policies and implementation actions would
minimize flooding potential and hazards by requiring maintaining and regularly updating the
City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as an integrated component of the General Plan.
Additionally, General Plan policies require consultation with agencies and partners to
provide public education materials on safe locations and evacuation routes in case of
emergency or hazardous event, and consultation with the Coachella Valley Emergency
Managers Association and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) to
maintain and update the City's Emergency Operations Plan. All new development is
required 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. Additionally, Policy 3.2 requires new
developments to contribute to funding regional flood control infrastructure improvements.
Policy 3.4 prioritizes open space or uses that serve recreational purposes as a preferred
land use within areas of high flood risk. Policy 3.5 requires the dissemination of information
on dam inundation areas subject to potential risks of flooding in the event of dam failure or
seismic hazard, including preparation for seiche events, which can be caused by seismic
events and consist of the occurrence of a standing wave that oscillates in a body of water,
such as a dam.
Public Utilities & Safety Element Action 2.46 requires coordination with FEMA, state
agencies, Riverside County, and other jurisdictions to understand the potential changes to
the extent or severity of flood hazards based on the impacts of a changing climate. Action
2.47 prohibits development in the 100-year floodplain, unless adequate flood mitigation is
provided on -site as well as downstream of the project area. Action 2.48 monitors and
updates the floodplain management ordinance and continue participation in the National
Flood Insurance Program.
Adherence to development requirements and regulations in flood hazard areas
throughout the watershed, and implementation of General Plan Update policies and
implementation actions, would reduce the potential for Toss, injury, or death from flooding,
including flooding from the failure of a dam or levee. The General Plan Update would not
36
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
result in new situations where increased loss, injury, or death from flooding would be
substantial. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-29.)
10. Inundation
Threshold: Would the project be susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-30.)
Explanation: The General Plan Update includes policies and implementation actions
to mitigate, prepare for, and respond to seiche and mudflow-related inundation. For
example, Safety Element Policy 3.5 requires the dissemination of information on dam
inundation areas subject to potential risks of flooding in the event of dam failure or seismic
hazard, including preparation for seiche events, which can be caused by seismic events
and consist of the occurrence of a standing wave that oscillates in a body of water, such as
a dam. Additionally, Action 2.38 requires an update of the City's public GIS database with
information on the extent and potential impact of seismic, geotechnical, fire, and flood
hazards occurring in the City and the SOI. All future developments will be required to submit
their data for incorporation into this database. Therefore, the General Plan Update's
contribution to inundation impacts from seiches, tsunamis, and mudflows would not be
considerable, and the impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-30.)
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. Divide a Community
Threshold: Would the project physically divide an established community?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-10.)
Explanation: No aspect of the proposed General Plan Update would divide the
existing City. In addition, the updated General Plan includes provisions that directly address
land use connectivity, compatibility, and encroachment of new development on existing
neighborhoods and land uses. Thus, the General Plan Update would result in no impact
regarding division of an established community or land use compatibility issues. (Draft EIR,
pp. 4.10-10, -11.)
2. Conflict with Plans
Threshold: Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-11.)
Explanation: The General Plan Update would instigate the state requirement to
update the City's Municipal Code, Zoning Map, and other regulations to be consistent with
the new General Plan and/or to address compatibility issues. State law requires zoning to
be consistent with General Plan land use designations. The City is responsible for ensuring
37
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
that the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan are in conformity. In most instances, this
consistency will mean that land is designated in the General Plan and zoned for similar
uses with similar development standards (i.e., similar densities and minimum parcel sizes).
Where zoning and General Plan land use designations are not identical, General Plan
policies would be consulted carefully for guidance in amending the Zoning Ordinance for
consistency with the updated General Plan. As such, inconsistency with City land use plans
and regulations would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-11, -12.)
3. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-11.)
Explanation: The City of Palm Desert is a permittee to the Coachella Valley Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). This partnership is further supported by
the proposed General Plan through Environmental Resources Element Policy 3.1, which
requires new development to comply with requirements of the CVMSHCP. Impacts would
therefore be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-11.)
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
1. Known and Locally Important Resources
Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Threshold: Would the project result in the Toss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resources recovery site, delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-5.)
Explanation: The entirety of Palm Desert is classified as Mineral Resource Zone 3
(MRZ-3) under the California Mineral Land Classification System. In MRZ-3 areas, mineral
resources are present, but the significance of the resource is considered speculative
because no mining has historically occurred in the area. In addition, Riverside County
General Plan Policy OS 14.5 requires that new non -mining land uses adjacent to existing
mining operations be designed to provide a buffer between the new development and the
mining operations. The buffer distance would be based on an evaluation of noise,
aesthetics, drainage, operating conditions, biological resources, topography, lighting, traffic,
operating hours, and air quality. Implementation of the Palm Desert General Plan Update
would not result in the direct or indirect loss of availability of a known or locally important
mineral resource because of urbanization in the MRZ-3 area. Therefore, the General Plan
Update would have a less than significant impact on mineral resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-
5.)
38
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
L. NOISE
1. Noise Level Standards
Threshold: Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies as a result of operation?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-20.)
Explanation: As a result of increased residential development in the City, the number
of noise -sensitive receptors would also increase. As a consequence, the increase in
dwelling units could result in locating noise -sensitive receptors near existing and planned
noise -generating land uses. Where exterior noise levels are below 65 dBA Ldn, interior
noise levels for new construction would typically meet the interior 45 dBA Ldn standard
established in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, due to standard construction
techniques that reduce interior noise. Where exterior noise levels range from 60 dBA to 70
dBA Ldn, interior noise can be mitigated by standard wall and window construction, and the
inclusion of mechanical forced -air ventilation to allow occupants the option to keep windows
closed to control noise. Where exterior noise levels exceed 70 dBA Ldn, residential units
would not normally be able to meet the 45 dBA Ldn interior standard simply through typical
construction methods. Thus, noise -sensitive uses located within the 70 dBA Ldn contour
may require additional noise reduction measures, such as windows and doors with high
Sound Transition Class (STC) ratings to meet the 45 dBA Ldn criteria.
The City of Palm Desert General Plan also proposes an increase in non-residential
land uses in the City. Noise sources associated with commercial and industrial land uses
could include mechanical equipment operations, public address systems, parking lot noise
(e.g., opening and closing of vehicle doors, people talking, car alarms), delivery activities
(e.g., use of forklifts, hydraulic lifts), trash compactors, and air compressors. Noise from
such equipment can reach intermittent levels of approximately 90 dBA 50 feet from the
source (EPA, 1974: B-1). However, these noise generating activities would be subject to the
requirements of the City's Noise Control Ordinance, which establishes limits on noise
generated by machinery, equipment, fans, and HVAC equipment. In addition, the City of
Palm Desert's General Plan Noise Element Policies 1.1 through 1.6, and 2.1 through 2.5
include actions to reduce noise related conflicts between residential and non-residential
land uses. With adherence to and implementation of these policies and adherence to the
City's Noise Control Ordinance, program -level stationary noise source and land use conflict
noise impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-21, -24, -25.)
2. Groundborne Vibration and Noise
Threshold: Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-26.)
Explanation: Construction activities that would occur under the proposed project
would generate groundborne vibration. If sensitive receptors are located close enough to
39
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
potential project construction sites these sensitive receptors (such as residences or
schools) could experience vibration levels exceeding the FTA's vibration impact threshold of
72 VdB. However, this threshold is for residences where people normally sleep. FTA also
sets a 100 VdB threshold for minor cosmetic damage to fragile buildings. Section 9.24.070
of the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) specifically exempts noise sources
associated with construction, erection, demolition, alteration, repair, addition to or
improvement of any building, structure, road or improvement to realty, provided that such
activities take place during daytime hours. The City reviews the potential for construction
vibration impacts before it issues building permits, and would require measures to ensure
that physical damage to neighboring building would not occur before issuing a building
permit.
Automotive traffic on roadways and train traffic on railways also produce
groundborne vibration. A loaded truck can produce 86 VdB at 25 feet, and 74 VdB at 100
feet. Such vibration levels may occasionally exceed the FTA's 72 VdB threshold, but would
not exceed the 100 VdB threshold. Although the proposed project may increase automotive
traffic levels in the City, the same policies within the General Plan Update that would reduce
impacts from auto traffic -related noise would also reduce impacts from auto traffic -related
vibration. Vibration levels from trains depend on the kind of train. Vibration levels from
heavy rail would be approximately 80 VdB (FTA, May 2006), which is lower than that of a
loaded truck at 25 feet, and which would not exceed the 100 VdB threshold. Vibration from
the railroad tracks is and would continue to be intermittent, and traffic on this freight rail line
would not significantly increase due to implementation of the General Plan Update to the
extent that it would expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels.
Future development consistent with the proposed project would be subject to the
City's standards and review process as discussed above, which would ensure that such
development would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-
27, -28, -29.)
3. Permanent Ambient Noise
Threshold: Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-18.)
Explanation: Development within the City would generate additional traffic, which
would increase ambient noise levels along local and regional roadways. However, the
proposed project includes policies that would reduce noise related to vehicular traffic. These
policies require new development and/or modifications to existing development to include
sound -reducing design measures to maintain compatibility with adjacent and surrounding
uses; promote alternative transportation technologies that minimize noise impacts; and
require performance of project -specific acoustical studies for individual development
projects. Traffic noise levels associated were calculated for roadway segments in the City
and modeled under existing and 2040 conditions. (See Draft EIR Table 4.12-4.) Based on
the modeling, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial
40
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
change in traffic noise levels under 2040 conditions, when compared to existing conditions.
When comparing future 2040 noise levels to existing noise levels, no roadway segment
would experience increases in ambient noise levels that exceed significance criteria and
impacts would be considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-18.)
Freight rail service is responsible for generating substantial noise levels in this area.
Given the variety of freight and length of trains that use the corridor, it is not possible to
precisely quantify rail noise levels. Although the passage of trains is an intrusive noise
source, it occurs only periodically and with limited duration. A more substantial noise source
in this area is Interstate 10, which experience high levels of truck traffic accounting for
approximately 28% of the total daily traffic. The Town Center Neighborhood, Employment
District, Industrial District, Public Facility/Institutional District, Regional Retail District, and
Suburban Retail Center would experience the most growth adjacent to Interstate 10 under
buildout of the General Plan. These areas would allow a variety of uses, including
residential, research and development, retail, recreational, governmental, and industrial.
Some of these uses may include future sensitive receptors. However, the City of Palm
Desert General Plan Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, and 3.4, included in the Noise Element are
designed to prevent and reduce sources of excessive noise, including rail operations.
Guidance included in the General Plan will be applied at the project level as the City
considers land use changes in the future. Development projects located along the railroad
line would be required to reduce noise levels in accordance with the City of Palm Desert
General Plan policies and an updated Noise Control Ordinance through project design and
site planning. This would be a Tess than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-25, -26.)
4. Public Airports and Private Airstrips
Threshold: Is the project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Threshold: Would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels if the project is located in the vicinity of a private airstrip?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-26.)
Explanation: The Bermuda Dunes Airport is located approximately 1.75 miles east
of the current City limits and located within Palm Desert's sphere of influence. The Bermuda
Dunes Airport is a privately owned "Public Use General Aviation, Utility Category Airport." It
is FAA approved and operates under State of California and County of Riverside permits. In
2015, the airport underwent various, substantial changes with regards to staffing and
facilities. The airport has since introduced a new maintenance operation and is currently
engaged in a remodeling process for both the lobby and the adjacent 15,000 square foot
hangar. In total, the airport has parking accommodations for approximately 250 aircraft.
There are approximately 11,500 operational activities (landings and takeoffs) per year,
which equates to an average daily traffic count of 32 operations (Bermuda Dunes, 2016).
The City of Palm Desert General Plan Policies 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5, included in the Noise
Element, are designed to prevent and reduce sources of excessive noise, including airport
operations. Any development in Palm Desert or its SOI that is also within the Airport Land
41
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
Use Compatibility Plan of Bermuda Dunes Airport would also require review by ALUC,
which would help ensure compliance with Policy 1.5. As such, additional existing and future
residents within the City would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of City standards
as a result of continued operation of the airport. This would be a less than significant
impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-26.)
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. Population Growth
Threshold: Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly or indirectly?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-7.)
Explanation: The proposed project's land use concepts would result in a population
growth potential nearly identical to, and therefore consistent with, that projected by SCAG.
Planning for the SCAG estimated rate of growth ensures that the General Plan will
accommodate development and ensure the availability of land to accommodate future
conditions. The land use concept in the updated General Plan has been developed to
accommodate projected population increases and make sure Palm Desert is strategically
positioned to manage future growth and to capture positive growth opportunities. The
proposed Land Use Map and policy orientation of the updated General Plan seek to make
an efficient and appropriate use of land. The physical environmental impacts associated
with population growth consists of traffic (commuting for jobs) and the related impacts of
traffic noise, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. These environmental issues are
addressed elsewhere in this EIR. Adoption and implementation of the updated General Plan
would not result in a substantial increase in population growth since the development
potential anticipated by the General Plan would be consistent with the SCAG 2040 forecast
for population and employment growth. This impact would be less than significant (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.13-7, -8.)
2. Displace Housing and People
Threshold: Would the project displace substantial number of existing house or
people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-8.)
Explanation: While implementation of the General Plan Update does not directly
result in the construction of any new development, the updated General Plan focuses future
growth as infill development along the Highway 111 corridor and around the Cal State/UC
campus. New development and infill development would not result in displacement of
housing or people. Furthermore, as previously stated, approximately 40 percent of housing
units in Palm Desert were vacant in 2016 (DOF 2016a); therefore, it is unlikely that
substantial numbers of housing or people would be permanently displaced or that such
displacement would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No
demolition or substantial change in land use designation that would result in the
displacement of residents is proposed in the General Plan. Therefore, impacts associated
42
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
with implementation of the General Plan Update relative to displacement of a substantial
number of persons or housing are considered Tess than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-8.)
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Fire Services
Threshold: 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 fire protection and emergency services?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-5.)
Explanation: Fire protection and emergency medical services for Palm Desert will
continue to be provided by the Riverside County Fire Department ("RCFD"). The potential
population increase projected under the General Plan would increase the demand for fire
protection and emergency services. Proposed General Plan Safety Element Policy 7.2 and
Policy 7.8 direct the City to work with the RCFD through the review of proposed
development projects to ensure fire safety issues are considered. These provisions will
allow adequate levels of personnel and equipment to respond to routine incidents and to
larger events. As previously stated, the RCFD's average en -route -to -on -scene response
time is 3.6 minutes, with 86.2 percent of call response under 5 minutes. In addition, the
updated General Plan contains several policies that aid in fire prevention and protection.
Future development is also subject to compliance with the CBC and the California Fire
Code, which would aid in reducing the demand on fire protection services by requiring fire
protection detection systems, proper fire flow, and use of appropriate construction materials.
Compliance with these codes and implementation of the above General Plan policies and
actions would ensure the provision of adequate fire protection services. Project -level CEQA
review of future fire protection facilities would identify and mitigate significant environmental
impacts associated with the provision of additional fire protection personnel and facilities.
Therefore, impacts associated with fire protection services would be reduced to a less than
significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-5, -6.)
2. Law Enforcement Services
Threshold: 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 law enforcement services?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-11.)
Explanation: An increase in population resulting from implementation of the General
Plan Update may place higher demands on police facilities to maintain acceptable response
times and service ratios. The Palm Desert Police Department ("PDPD") currently operates
with 81 staff members. As shown in Chapter 3, Project Description, the City is anticipated to
43
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
experience population growth with the potential to increase the current population to 61,691
by the year 2040 (from 49,335 in 2016). Law enforcement service needs under the
incremental population increase would be met by the City and the PDPD if additional patrol
hours are deemed necessary. Additionally, all future residential and nonresidential
development projects in Palm Desert are subject to development impact fees to mitigate the
impacts of new development. Development impact fees finance public facilities and service
improvements, including police services capital and facilities needs. Subsequent
environmental review, compliance with General Plan Update policies, and compliance with
the City's Municipal Code would ensure that environmental impacts associated with the
continued provision of police services would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-
11, -12.)
3. Schools
Threshold: 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 public schools?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-16.)
Explanation: An increase in population resulting from implementation of the General
Plan Update may place greater demands on education facilities due to the projected
increase of approximately 8,049 new households from 2015 to 2040. According to the
Desert Sands Unified School District, as illustrated in Table 4.14.3-2, the General Plan
Update is anticipated to generate 1,372 elementary, 732 middle school, and 1,015 high
school students, for a total of 3,119 students. Because new residential and
commercial/industrial uses are anticipated with implementation of the General Plan Update,
each development project will be required to pay developer impact fees in the amount
required at the time of building permit issuance. In addition, Public Utilities & Services
Element Policy 6.1, requires cooperation and coordination with the Desert Sands and Palm
Springs Unified Schools districts in identifying future demand, site acquisition, and plans for
facility needs. Development impacts fees are also required for payment by all new
development projects pursuant to the California Education Code. As such, if project -level
significant impacts are identified, applicable mitigation measures will be placed on a project
as conditions of approval. Therefore, existing laws and regulations would require funding for
the provision or expansion of new school facilities to offset impacts from new residential or
commercial/industrial development. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR,
pp. 4.14-16, -17: see also Final EIR, Response No. 1.)
4. Libraries
Threshold: 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 library facilities?
44
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-24.)
Explanation: The increase in population and new development anticipated with
implementation of the proposed project could result in minimal additional demands placed
on library services. However, development pursuant to proposed project would likely not
require the provision of additional library space. However, if a new library should be
constructed, typical environmental effects regarding the construction and operation of a
library facility may involve issues with air quality (during the construction of the facility),
biological resources (depending on location), cultural resources (depending on location),
and public utilities (demand for electric, water, and wastewater service). The provision of
additional facilities in the future would be required to undergo project -specific environmental
review at such time as an application for a project is submitted. Implementation of General
Plan Update policies would direct the provision of adequate facilities, staffing, equipment,
technology, and funding to meet existing and projected library service needs as demands
grow with the increase in population. Therefore, with implementation of the General Plan
Update policies, this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-24, -25.)
O. PARKS AND RECREATION
1. Existing and New Recreational Facilities
Threshold: Would the project result in the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
Threshold: Would the project result in the inclusion of recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-21.)
Explanation: An increase in population resulting from implementation of the
proposed project may place greater demands on parks or recreational facilities in the
Planning Area such that deterioration of these facilities could occur or be accelerated. The
City and SOI include approximately 163 acres of parkland, 23,060 acres of open space, and
6,834 acres of golf courses. The City of Palm Desert's established goals and standards for
parkland identified in the 2004 General Plan are 0.25 acres per 1,000 residents for mini
parks, 1 acre per 1,000 residents for neighborhood parks, and 5 acres per 1,000 residents
for community parks. Although the City has not reached these standards for each park type,
the City provides an average of 3.23 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The existing
amount of parkland in the City is adequate, as it currently exceeds the amount of parkland
required by the Quimby Act. Therefore, the additional new residents would not significantly
impact park facilities. The General Plan Update policies and implementation actions in the
Environmental Resources Element and the Land Use & Community Character Element
would ensure that adequate parks and recreational facilities are available to accommodate
the anticipated increase in new residents. The General Plan Update policies and
implementation actions would maintain existing levels of service for parks and recreation
facilities for both current and new residents, including maintenance to prevent deterioration
of existing parks. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreation facilities and services would be
45
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-21, -22.)
P. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
1. Congestion Management Plans
Threshold: Would the project conflict with the Riverside County Congestion
Management Program, which establishes LOS E as the performance standard?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-52.)
Explanation: Adoption and implementation of the General Plan Update would not
conflict with the Riverside County Congestion Management Program. Adoption and
implementation would maintain the level of service standard (LOS E) for CMP intersections
and roadways. (See Draft EIR, Table 4.15-28 and Table 4.15-29.) This would result in a
less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-52, -53.)
2. Performance Standards of Adjacent Jurisdictions
Threshold: Would the project conflict with the performance standards of jurisdictions
adjacent to Palm Desert?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-53.)
Explanation: Adoption and implementation of the General Plan Update would not
conflict with the performance standards of jurisdictions adjacent to Palm Desert. Adoption
and implementation would maintain the level of service standards for facilities in adjacent
jurisdictions (Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, La Quinta, and Riverside County). This would
result in a Tess than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-53; see also Table 4.15-30
[Rancho Mirage], Table 4.15-31 [Indian Wells]; Table 4.15-32 [La Quinta]; and Table 4.15-
33 [Riverside County].)
3. Air Traffic Patterns
Threshold: Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-55.)
Explanation: Palm Springs International Airport is located approximately 9 miles
northwest of the City and Bermuda Dunes Airport is located approximately 2 miles east of
the City. The Palm Desert General Plan policies and programs related to land use, mobility,
and structural heights would not influence air traffic patterns by creating either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. Further, the
Draft EIR was provided to ALUC, and ALUC had no objections. City policy also refers
development projects to the ALUC for consideration during preliminary consideration and
environmental review. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.15-55.)
46
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
4. Design Feature Hazards
Threshold: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
or incompatible uses?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-55.)
Explanation: The General Plan was developed to minimize conflicts between
incompatible uses. The City of Palm Desert has developed and maintains set standard
drawings to ensure that design features are consistent within the City and consistent with
current design practice. These standard drawings ensure that design features related to
transportation do not create any hazards on the transportation system. Given that the City
maintains these standards, and that all projects processed by the General Plan are
reviewed by staff for appropriate design features, this impact is considered less than
significant.
In addition to the City process described above, several Mobility Element policies
address safety. This includes Policy 7.2 (requiring the City to review accident data and
address safety conditions in the City), Policy 1.1 (discussing complete streets and the need
to create safe, livable, and inviting environments), Policy 3.1 (discussing the need for safe
and convenient pedestrian system), Policy 3.6 (discussing the need for safe pedestrian
routes to school), Policy 4.5 (supporting regional education to improve safety for bicyclists),
and Policy 5.6 (discussion safe routes to transit). In addition, the City requires site plan
review and design review of all new developments prior to issuance of any building permits.
Such a review includes review for potential design hazards. Thus, City processes, standard
drawings, and the policies in the Mobility Element are designed to reduce design hazards
and conflicts between incompatible land uses and between all transportation network users.
The impact would be Tess than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-56.)
5. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-56.)
Explanation: In the event of an evacuation, the City's primary routes include, if
available, Highway 111, Monterey Avenue, Cook Street, Fred Waring Drive, Country Club
Drive, and Frank Sinatra Drive. Palm Desert General Plan policies include actions aimed at
ensuring emergency response readiness, by requiring the City to create safe environments
that would be accessible during an emergency; evaluate impacts related to adequate
service levels; evaluate the impacts of transportation network changes on emergency
vehicle access and response times; and employ TSM strategies where appropriate, which
would aid in emergency access and response times through the coordination of signals.
Implementation of current state and federal regulations (for example, those regulations and
standards applicable to roadway design, police protection, fire department access, etc.),
combined with Palm Desert General Plan policies, would reduce the potential impacts on
emergency preparedness and emergency access in the City. Therefore, the impact would
be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-56.)
47
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
6. Alternative Transportation Modes
Threshold: Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-56.)
Explanation: The General Plan Mobility Element proposes a comprehensive system
of bicycle lanes and golf cart facilities. Additionally, the Mobility Element identifies a series
of Goals and Policies to ensure the integrity and service levels for bikes, pedestrians, golf
carts, and transit facilities are maintained. Figure 4.2 in the Mobility Element (Proposed
Bicycle and Golf Cart Network) was developed to be consistent with regional and local
plans. The proposed roadway cross sections provide pedestrian facilities. In addition,
myriad General Plan Mobility Element Policies support implementation of complete streets
(which, by definition, provide for all users of all ages and all abilities) or support the use of
bicycles, golf carts, transit, or walking. These policies all provide consistency with existing,
planned, and regional improvements supporting bicyclists, pedestrians, golf cart users, and
transit users. Therefore, with the General Plan Mobility Element's proposed circulation
network and policies, impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-56, -57.)
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
1. Wastewater
Threshold: Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-34.)
Explanation: The increased population resulting from implementation of the General
Plan Update would generate additional wastewater flows that would be treated by the
Coachella Valley Water District ("CVWD"). Effluent from the City is conveyed to CVWD's
Cook Street plant, which treats an average of 10 million gallons per day and had a capacity
of 18 mgd in 2014. Effluent from Bermuda Dunes, Del Webb's Sun City, and other
development north of Miles Avenue is conveyed to the treatment plant located at Madison
Street and Avenue 38. This plant treats approximately 2.5 million gallons per day of
wastewater and has a capacity of 5 mgd. Because the implementation of the proposed
project facilitates future development, an increase wastewater flow is expected to occur to
accommodate the increase in population. However, because no specific development is
proposed as part of the updated General Plan, wastewater generation rates are based on
the estimation of probable future land uses as a result of the General Plan Update.
General Plan Public Utilities & Services Element Policy 2.1 states that the City of
Palm Desert will work with the Coachella Valley Water District to ensure sewers are
operational and in good working order. Policy 2.2 requires development projects to pay for
their share of new sewer infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that development.
This policy would ensure that increased demand associated with an increase in population
48
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
would not significantly increase wastewater service demands. Therefore, implementation of
the General Plan Update would result in a Tess than significant impact with regard to
compliance with wastewater treatment requirements. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-34.)
2. New Treatment Facilities
Threshold: Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Threshold: Would the project 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 project demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-34.)
Explanation: Because the implementation of the General Plan Update facilitates
future development, an increase wastewater flow is expected to occur to accommodate the
increase in population. However, because no specific development is proposed as part of
the updated General Plan, wastewater generation rates are based on the estimation of
probable future land uses as a result of the General Plan Update. At buildout, the population
is projected to increase to 61,690 residents in 31,401 units. This is an increase of 11,905
residents and 8,049 units over current population estimates. Using a wastewater generation
rate of 230 gallons per day per capita, future growth anticipated under the proposed
General Plan Update would result in an increased demand for wastewater treatment by
approximately 2,738,150 million gallons per day, which would represent an approximately
12 percent increase in use for both wastewater treatment plans serving the Planning Area,
which have a combined capacity of 23.0 mgd. This increase is not considered a substantial
increase over existing capacity. Additionally, future development would be required to pay
development impact fees and connection fees, which would fund any potential future
expansion of the water reclamation plants in CVWD's jurisdiction.
Based on existing capacities and the incremental increase in wastewater flows, there
is enough capacity to accommodate the increase in wastewater flows generated by future
development arising from the General Plan Update. Additionally, General Plan policies
would help to further reduce associated impacts. Therefore, implementation of the General
Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact with regard to compliance with
wastewater treatment requirements. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-34 through -37.)
3. Storm Water
Threshold: Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-37.)
Explanation: Palm Desert is within the service area of the Coachella Valley Water
District (CVWD), which provides regional stormwater/flood protection, irrigation water
49
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
importation and distribution, and irrigation drainage collection for the City of Palm Desert.
Given the programmatic nature of the project, the exact quantity of stormwater runoff from
future development cannot be determined. New residential and nonresidential development
and redevelopment activities may provide opportunities to create new pervious surfaces to
facilitate groundwater infiltration through new greenspace, landscaping, or use of porous
pavements. Incorporation of stormwater management facilities, such as retention basins,
swales, or vegetation planted for evapotranspiration, would reduce drainage loads through
the stormwater system. Several General Plan policies would further reduce potential
impacts relating to storm water drainage facilities by promoting conservation and reuse
practices, incentivizing new construction to exceed CBC requirements, allowing the use of
greywater, and requiring that 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. Further, if new development were likely to
increase stormwater runoff beyond existing capacity, such impacts would be offset by
developer fees collected during the development review and CEQA process. Therefore,
with implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and implementation actions,
impacts to stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.
4.14-38, -39.)
4. Water Supply
Threshold: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements
needed?
Impact: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-39.)
Explanation: The proposed General Plan's projected increase in population by 2035
would result in a 7 percent decrease of the forecast population for the entire CVWD service
area According to the CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan (2011), the district has a
current baseline water demand rate of 482 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Based on this
baseline water demand rate, future growth anticipated in 2035 under the proposed General
Plan would result in an increased demand of 5.0 million gallons per day (mgd), or 5,600
AFY.
The City's Municipal Code has several ordinances in place to ensure water supply
and efficiency measures are in place. For example, in the MHDO (Medium/High Density
Housing Overlay) District, projects must include water conservation measures such as
"blended" water systems, on -site recycling, the use of gray water, and water efficient
fixtures (Section 25.28.030 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code). Additionally, Section
24.04.010 of Palm Desert's Municipal Code codifies CVWD's water -efficient landscape
ordinance (in compliance with the Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance). This ordinance requires landscape design that incorporates climate
appropriate plant material and efficient irrigation for all new and rehabilitated landscaping
projects. Compliance with these ordinances will ensure that future development reduces
water demand to meet target demands. Based on the target water use demand, the
projected population growth assumed under the proposed General Plan would result in an
increased demand of 4.9 mgd by 2035, or 5,531 AFY. Furthermore, the updated General
Plan would reduce the demand for water supply with several policies and actions that would
50
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
encourage recycled water use, and require low impact development strategies to minimize
runoff, increase infiltration and manage stormwater. Impacts would be less than significant.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-40, -41; see also Final EIR Response No. 4.)
5. Solid Waste
Threshold: Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Threshold: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-45.)
Explanation: Future development would generate solid waste that would be
disposed of in the Mecca II and Oasis landfills. Each of the serving landfills has remaining
capacity (60,267 tons, collectively) to serve future development resulting from the proposed
project (Merlan 2015). As part of its long-range planning and management activities, the
Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD) ensures that Riverside
County has a minimum of 15 years of capacity, at any time, for future landfill disposal. The
most recent 15-year projection by the RCWMD indicates that no additional capacity is
needed to dispose of countywide waste through 2024, with a remaining disposal capacity of
28,561,626 tons in the year 2024 (County of Riverside 2015b). In addition, all future
development would be required to comply with the mandatory commercial and multi -family
recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341. Furthermore, General Plan Public Utilities and
Services Element Policies 4.1 through 4.6 and Action 2.36 would reduce the demand for
solid waste disposal. Because there is adequate capacity at existing landfills to serve future
development, and future development would be required to meet County and state recycling
requirements to further reduce demands on area landfills, this impact would be Tess than
significant (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-45.)
SECTION 3: FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED
TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council hereby finds that feasible Mitigation Measures have been identified
in the EIR and these Findings that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially
significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant
impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level,
are as follows:
A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Special Status Species
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-24, -
51
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
25.)
Explanation: Land use and development consistent with the proposed project could
result in adverse impacts on special -status species or on essential habitat for such species.
Any future development in areas that are currently undeveloped could result in direct loss of
sensitive plants or wildlife. Where there are direct impacts to special -status species,
indirect impacts would occur as well. Indirect impacts may include habitat modification,
increased human/wildlife interactions, habitat fragmentation, encroachment by exotic
weeds, and area -wide changes in surface water flows and general hydrology due to
development of previously undeveloped areas.
Several federally and state -listed species have the potential to occur within the
Planning Area, however each are covered under the CVMSHCP. (See Draft EIR Tables
4.5-2, 4.5-3.) Payment of the mitigation fee and compliance with all applicable requirements
of the CVMSHCP provide full mitigation under CEQA, the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the California Endangered Species Act
(CESA) for impacts to MSHCP covered species and habitats. The MSHCP also addresses
indirect impacts through linkages and plan fees.
In addition, several special status species have potential to occur within the Planning
Area, but are not covered under the CVMSHCP, including raptors and migratory birds.
Because these species are not covered by the CVMSHCP, they may require additional
protections to ensure potential impacts remain less than significant. These protections
include proposed General Plan Policies 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, which require new development
adjacent to habitat to maintain a protective buffer, support the creation of conservation and
preservation easements, and requiring new development to incorporate native vegetation.
In addition, to address potentially significant impacts to special status species not
covered by the CVMSHCP, the following mitigation measure has been identified:
MM 4.5-1:
Pertaining to special -status species (identified in Tables 4.5-1, 4.5-2,
and 4.5-3) with the potential to occur in the Planning Area that are not
part of the CVMSHCP:
1. Prior to the approval of grading plans for development
associated with the General Plan update, the project applicant(s) shall
retain a qualified biologist to perform a biological resources evaluation
for private and public development projects in order to determine the
presence/absence of non -covered special -status plant species with
the potential to occur in and adjacent to (within 100 feet, where
appropriate) the proposed impact area, including construction access
routes. It is required that such surveys be conducted at the proper time
of year when rare or endangered species are both evident and
identifiable.
2. For projects in which special -status species are found, likely to
occur, or where the presence of the species can be reasonably
inferred, the City shall require feasible mitigation of impacts to ensure
that the project does not contribute to the decline of affected special-
52
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
status species populations in the region to the extent that their decline
would impact the viability of the regional population. Before the
approval of grading plans or any ground -breaking activity for
development associated with the General Plan update, the project
applicant(s) shall submit a mitigation plan concurrently to the CDFW
and the USFWS for review and comment. The plan shall include
mitigation measures for the population(s) to be directly affected. The
actual level of mitigation may vary depending on the sensitivity of the
species, its prevalence in the area, and the current state of knowledge
about overall population trends and threats to its survival. The final
mitigation strategy for directly impacted plant species shall be
determined by the CDFW and the USFWS through the mitigation plan
approval process.
Through compliance with the CVMSHCP, the proposed General Plan policies listed
above, and Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-1, which addresses impacts to species that are not
covered under the CVMSHCP, impacts from adoption and implementation of the Palm
Desert General Plan update are considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-24, -
25.)
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5?
Impact: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-7, -9.)
Explanation: Anticipated development in Palm Desert would occur through infill
development on vacant property and with redevelopment or revitalization of underutilized
properties, which could result in damage to prehistoric- and historic -period archaeological
resources located on or near previously undisturbed ground surfaces. In addition,
infrastructure and other improvements requiring ground disturbance could result in damage
to or destruction of archaeological resources buried below the ground surface. The
direction to recognize archaeological resources would typically be accomplished through, as
appropriate, research, surveys, and testing prior to construction, as well as monitoring
during ground -disturbing activities. The proper handling of discovered resources and the
enforcement of applicable state and federal laws and regulations would qualify as the direct
maintenance of archaeological resources. Much of the Planning Area is built out, and most
new development pursuant to the General Plan update will therefore take place above
ground on previously disturbed land, thereby minimizing the potential to disturb
archaeological resources. However, ground -disturbing activities on previously undisturbed
land could affect the integrity of an as -yet -unknown archaeological site, thereby causing a
substantial change in the significance of the resource. Although efforts will be made to
identify and mitigate impacts to potential archaeological resources prior to ground
disturbance, there is no way to know if significant archaeological resources occur below
undisturbed ground surfaces.
53
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
For future projects that require excavation activity (e.g., clearing/grubbing, grading,
trenching, or boring) into native soil and that have the potential to exhibit native ground
surface within or in the immediate vicinity of the excavation footprint, project applicants will
be required to conduct archaeological resources assessments in order to identify and
mitigation potential impacts to archaeological resources. A Phase 1 Assessment typically
consists of identifying known archaeological resources through records search and
consultation with Native American tribes, a pedestrian survey of the project site, a review of
the land use history, and coordination with knowledgeable organizations or individuals. If
warranted, additional analyses such as archaeological test excavations and/or remote
sensing methods can be implemented to identify resources. Coordination with the Native
American tribes is assured through compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 and through
implementation of Title 29 of the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code.
In addition, the following mitigation measures have been identified:
MM 4.6-2a: For future projects that require excavation activity (e.g.,
clearing/grubbing, grading, trenching, or boring) into native soil and
that have the potential to exhibit native ground surface within or in the
immediate vicinity of the excavation footprint, preparation of an
archaeological study (Phase I Assessment) shall be required by
Project Applicants.
MM 4.6-2b: If resources are identified, they shall be evaluated for their eligibility for
listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, the National
Register of Historic Places (if applicable), and/or a local listing and to
determine whether the resource qualifies as a unique archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA (Phase 11 Assessment). Methodologies for
evaluating a resource can include, but are not limited to, subsurface
archaeological test excavations, additional background research, and
coordination with Native Americans and other interested individuals in
the community.
MM 4.6-2c: If the resources are determined eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, appropriate mitigation shall be
developed and implemented to mitigate impacts to the resource. If
resource avoidance measures, such as resource "capping" (covering a
resource with a layer of fill soils before building on the resource) or
incorporating a resource into a park plan or open space, are deemed
not feasible, additional subsurface archaeological excavations (i.e.,
data recovery) that serve to recover significant archaeological
resources before they are damaged or destroyed by the proposed
development shall be implemented (Phase 111 Assessment).
Documentation (technical reports and California Department of Parks
and Recreation Site Forms) and recovered materials (artifacts and
other specimens) shall be curated at a suitable repository and/or
museum for future study and research.
MM 4.6-2d: Archaeological construction monitoring and construction personnel
awareness training shall be conducted for development proposals that
54
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
have a high potential to encounter previously unknown buried
resources during construction. If resources are encountered during
construction, appropriate treatment measures shall be developed to
preserve the resource. If it is not feasible to preserve the resource, a
program to remove or recover the resource from the construction site
shall be implemented.
Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-2a through MM 4.6-2d would require various
assessments, as necessary, by a qualified archaeologist for projects subject to CEQA
involving ground -disturbing activities on previously undisturbed land and would require
preparation and implementation of a treatment plan if buried resources would be affected by
a proposed project. Thus, with implementation of the mitigation measures above, the
General Plan update would provide for the appropriate treatment and/or preservation of
resources if encountered. Therefore, potentially significant impacts to archaeological
resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-9.)
2. Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 21074?
Impact: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-10
through -12.)
Explanation: Anticipated development in Palm Desert would occur through infill
development on vacant property and with redevelopment or revitalization of underutilized
properties, which could result in damage to previously unknown cultural resources. Such
resources may include resources of cultural or religious importance to Native American
groups. However, a number of General Plan policies, specifically, Environmental Resources
Element Policies 9.1, 9.2, 9.2, 9.4, address this concern. These policies direct the City to
recognize and maintain such resources, and require, in areas where there is a high chance
that human remains may be present, preconstruction surveys to establish the occurrence of
human remains, if any. General Plan Policy 9.2 requires that any human remains
discovered during implementation of public and private projects be treated with respect and
dignity and fully comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws. General Plan Policy 9.3 requires notification of
California Native American tribes and organizations of proposed projects that have the
potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Policy 9.4 requires sites with significant
cultural resources to be protected. Policy 9.7 requires development to avoid archaeological
and paleontological resources, whenever possible. If complete avoidance is not possible,
development would be required to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts to the resources.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.6-10.)
Pursuant to AB 52, Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 indicates that Native
American consultation is required upon written request by a California Native American tribe
who has previously requested that the lead agency provide it with notice of such projects.
Native American tribes may have knowledge about cultural resources in the area and may
have concerns about adverse effects from development on tribal cultural resources as
defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. These resources may be sacred lands,
55
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
traditional cultural places and resources, and archaeological sites. In compliance with AB
52, the City has provided formal notification to the three tribes that have previously
requested notice of proposed projects under AB 52. In addition, the City sent approximately
30 tribes formal invitations to consult pursuant to SB 18. As of the release of the Draft EIR,
no tribe as formally requested consultation under either statute; however, the Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians has indicated, in its response to both the SB 18 and AB 52
invitations, that it will review the Draft EIR during the public review period and provide its
comments at that time.
Given that much of the General Plan Planning Area is built out, and most new
development pursuant to the General Plan update will therefore take place above ground on
previously disturbed land, thereby minimizing the potential to disturb tribal cultural resource
resources. However, ground -disturbing activities on previously undisturbed land could affect
the integrity of an as -yet -unknown resource. Therefore, absent mitigation, this impact would
be potentially significant.
For future projects that require excavation activity, project applicants will be required
to conduct archaeological resources assessments in order to identify and mitigate potential
impacts to archaeological resources. Coordination with the Native American tribes is
assured through compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 and through implementation of Title 29
of the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code. In conjunction with these assessments, future
project applicants will be required to implement Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-2a through
MM 4.6-2d (see text above). (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-11.)
Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-2a through MM 4.6-2d would require various
assessments, as necessary, by a qualified archaeologist for projects subject to CEQA
involving ground -disturbing activities on previously undisturbed land and would require
preparation and implementation of a treatment plan if buried resources would be affected by
a proposed project. These measures require proiect applicants to meet enforceable
performance standards through the preparation of a Phase I Assessment for archeological
resources and consultation with local tribal agencies in accordance with AB 52. If resources
are identified, they shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the California Register
of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, and/or a local listing and to
determine whether the resource qualifies as a unique resource pursuant to the CEQA (via
Phase 11 Assessment). If the resources are determined eligible for listing, appropriate
mitigation shall be developed and implemented to mitigate impacts to the resource. In
addition, construction monitoring and construction personnel awareness training shall be
conducted for development proposals with a high potential to encounter previously unknown
buried resources during construction. If resources are encountered during construction,
appropriate treatment measures shall be developed, with the preference being to preserve
the resource in place. Thus, with implementation of the mitigation measures above, the
General Plan update would provide for the appropriate treatment and/or preservation of
resources if encountered. Therefore, potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural
resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-12; see also
Final EIR Response No. 3.)
56
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
C. NOISE
1. Noise Level Standards
Threshold: Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies as a result of construction?
Impact: Less than significant impact with the incorporation of mitigation. (Draft EIR,
pp. 4.12-13, -18.)
Explanation: While the City has established exterior and interior noise standards
(see Draft EIR, p. 4.12-10 [Table 4.12-1]), construction noise is exempt from the City's noise
ordinance, and the City has no adopted standards or thresholds for construction noise,
which is intermittent and temporary in nature. However, when the construction -related
standards of other jurisdictions are applied, these standards are not likely to be exceeded
by the proposed project. Noise standards from Caltrans, the American National Standards
Institute, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, the Federal
Railroad Administration, and the California Department of Industrial Relations were
reviewed. These agencies seem to settle on 85 dBA as a reasonable threshold of noise
exposure for construction workers. Construction activities would be intermittent and
temporary, and it is highly unlikely that a noise -sensitive receptor (as exposed to a
construction worker) would be exposed to construction -related noise levels above 85 dBA
continuously for the length of the project's construction. However, the City has determined
that exposure of noise -sensitive receptors to construction noise levels above 85 dBA would
result in a potentially significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-16.)
To ensure that construction noise is below 85 dBA, mitigation measure NOI-1
requires the use of grading and excavation equipment that has been certified to generate
noise levels of no more than 85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, or erecting a temporary noise
barrier during construction to ensure that the noise level is not exceeded, and coordinating
with the adjacent receptors such that they are aware of the construction schedule.
As a result of this impact being potentially significant, the following mitigation
measure was identified:
MM NOI-1: Construction Noise Impacts. Construction resulting from future
developments consistent with the General Plan Update would
potentially result in higher noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors.
The following best management practices (BMPs) would reduce short-
term construction -related noise impacts:
1. Notification shall be mailed to owners and occupants of all
developed land uses immediately bordering the construction site, and
posted directly across the street from the construction site, providing a
schedule for major construction activities that will occur for the
duration of the construction period. In addition, the notification will
include the identification of and contact number for a community
liaison and a designated construction manager who would be available
57
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
on -site to monitor construction activities. The construction manager
will be located at the on -site construction office during construction
hours for the duration of all construction activities. Contact information
for the community liaison and the construction manager will be located
at the construction office, City Hall, and the police department.
2. During all construction site excavation and grading, the
construction contractor shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or
mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent
with manufacturers' standards.
3. The construction contractor shall place all stationary
construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from
sensitive receptors nearest the construction site.
4. For off road construction the contractor shall utilize grading and
excavation equipment that is certified to generate noise levels of no
more than 85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.
5. All equipment designed for use on public roads shall be
properly maintained with operating mufflers and air intake silencers as
effective as those installed by the original manufacturer.
6. The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in
areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -
related noise sources and noise -sensitive receptors nearest the
construction site during all project construction.
Compliance with Mitigation Measure NOI-1 will ensure notification of the adjacent
receptors, a contact to call concerning noise, a requirement to conduct the noisiest
construction activities (e.g., grading and trenching) during the time of day when most
residents are at work, and that the noise wall is constructed to reduce noise during the
noisiest construction activities of the project. This will ensure that noise levels are at or
below the 85 dBA threshold; therefore, this impact is less than significant with mitigation
incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-13 through -17.)
2. Temporary Ambient Noise
Threshold: Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Impact: Less than significant impact with the incorporation of mitigation. (Draft EIR,
pp. 4.12-13, -18.)
Explanation: Explanation: While the City has established exterior and interior noise
standards (see Draft EIR, p. 4.12-10 [Table 4.12-1]), construction noise is exempt from the
City's noise ordinance, and the City has no adopted standards or thresholds for construction
noise, which is intermittent and temporary in nature. However, when the construction -
related standards of other jurisdictions are applied, these standards are not likely to be
58
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
exceeded by the proposed project. Noise standards from Caltrans, the American National
Standards Institute, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, the
Federal Railroad Administration, the California Department of Industrial Relations were
reviewed. These agencies seem to settle on 85 dBA as a reasonable threshold of noise
exposure for construction workers. Construction activities would be intermittent and
temporary, and it is highly unlikely that a noise -sensitive receptor (as exposed to a
construction worker) would be exposed to construction -related noise levels above 85 dBA
continuously for the length of the project's construction. However, the City has determined
that exposure of noise -sensitive receptors to construction noise levels above 85 dBA would
result in a potentially significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-16.)
To ensure that construction noise is below 85 dBA, mitigation measure NOI-1
requires the use of grading and excavation equipment that has been certified to generate
noise levels of no more than 85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, or erecting a temporary noise
barrier during construction to ensure that the noise level is not exceeded, and coordinating
with the adjacent receptors such that they are aware of the construction schedule.
Compliance with Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (see text above) will ensure notification
of the adjacent receptors, a contact to call concerning noise, a requirement to conduct the
noisiest construction activities (e.g., grading and trenching) during the time of day when
most residents are at work, and that the noise wall is constructed to reduce noise during the
noisiest construction activities of the project. This will ensure that noise levels are at or
below the 85 dBA threshold; therefore, this impact is Tess than significant with mitigation
incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-13 through -17.)
D. TRANSPORTATION
1. Performance Standards
Threshold: Would the project degrade peak hour operations at an intersection from
an acceptable LOS D, increase control delay by 2.0 or more seconds at an intersection
already operating unacceptably, degrade daily level of service as a roadway segment from
an acceptable LOS D, or increase volume by 2% or more on a segment already operating
unacceptably?
Impact: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp 4.15-41, -
49.)
Explanation: Intersection level of service was modeled for the proposed project's
buildout scenario (2040). This modeling showed peak hour intersection volumes and
determined that two of the 39 study intersections identified are anticipated to operate below
the LOS D standard during the PM peak hour (Intersection #15, Washing Street & Country
Club Drive; Intersection #36, Monterey Avenue & Dinah Shore Drive). (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-
41; see also Draft EIR Table 4.15-23.) Similarly, one of the 40 study roadway segments is
anticipated to operate below the LOS D standard (Washington Street north of Country Club
Drive). (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-45; see also Draft EIR Table 4.15-24.)
To address these potentially significant impacts, the following mitigation measures
were identified:
59
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
MM 4.15-1a: The City of Palm Desert shall implement Policy 1.7 (System Efficiency)
and optimize traffic signals at the intersections identified in this report
that are under City jurisdiction.
Two City intersections operate below the acceptable LOS D in the PM
peak hour (Washington Street & Country Club Drive and Monterey
Avenue & Dinah Shore Drive) in the Buildout (2035) scenario.
Optimization of the cycle length to 130 seconds at Washington Street
and Country Club Drive (and the coordinated intersections along
Washington Street) would result in acceptable operations.
Optimization of the cycle length to 130 seconds at Monterey Avenue &
Dinah Shore Drive (and the coordinated intersections along Monterey
Avenue) would result in acceptable operations when implemented in
combination with the identified improvements in mitigation measure
MM 4.15 1 b. Mitigated level of service calculation worksheets are
included in Appendix F of the Draft EIR.
MM 4.15-1b: The City of Palm Desert shall implement the following intersection and
roadway improvements:
Monterey Avenue & Dinah Shore Drive: Provide an additional (third)
westbound through lane and restripe the eastbound right turn lane to a
shared through -right lane, which would necessitate a third receiving
lane on the intersections eastern leg. This mitigation measure requires
reclassifying Dinah Shore Drive (between the western city boundary
and Portola Avenue) as a six -lane vehicular -oriented arterial in the
proposed circulation network in the General Plan Mobility Element.
Additionally, right-of-way acquisition may be required.
Washington Street (north of Country Club Drive): Provide an additional
(fourth) southbound lane between the 1-10 eastbound ramps and the
Country Club Drive intersections. Suitable right-of-way can be
acquired from the existing 23-foot median lane. The additional lane
would transition directly to the outer southbound left turn lane at the
intersection of Washington Street and Country Club Drive.
With the incorporation of the above mitigation measures, level of service for the
potentially impacted study intersections and roadway segments would operate at an
acceptable LOS D. Thus, with the incorporation of mitigation, impacts are Tess than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-49; see also Draft EIR Table 4.15-25.)
SECTION 4: FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY
MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures
outlined in the EIR and in these Findings, the following impacts from the proposed Project
cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations is therefore included herein:
60
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
A. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1. Direct and Indirect Emissions
Threshold: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Impact: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-16, -19.)
Explanation: The full realization of the development potential allowed under the
proposed project would result in approximately 105,449 metric tons of CO2e annually under
year 2020 conditions and 94,837 metric tons of CO2e annually under year 2035 conditions.
These estimates reflect combined emissions from all the potential new development
allowed under the General Plan update and do not reflect emissions attributable to
individual projects, as none are currently proposed. However, the General Plan does not
include any provisions which require that its growth potential be attained. Not all of the
identified land will be available for development at any given time based on site readiness,
environmental constraints, market changes, and other factors. The full development
potential allowed under the General Plan update is not expected to occur until at least 2040,
if ever. Nonetheless, GHG emissions projections associated with the full development
potential over existing conditions are compared to year 2020 and year 2035 patterns and
efficiencies to provide a conservative analysis as well as to conform with the SCAQMD-
recommended methodology for assessing GHG-related impacts from plan -level projects.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.4-18.)
The SCAQMD's greenhouse gas emissions plan -level threshold is 6.6 metric tons of
CO2e per service population (residents plus employees) per year by the year 2020 and 4.1
metric tons of CO2e per service population per year by the year 2035. As stated in Section
3.0, Project Description, there are currently 49,786 residents in Palm Desert and 36,874
jobs. Palm Desert is expected to accommodate 11,905 additional people and employment
in the city is projected to increase by 13,662 jobs under the General Plan update. Therefore,
the service population in Palm Desert would be 112,227 (49,786 existing residents + 11,905
new residents + 36,874 existing jobs + new 13,662 jobs). Dividing the GHG emissions for
each time period yields a metric ton per service population ratio of 6.5 for year 2020
conditions and 6.4 for year 2035 conditions. Therefore, the 2020 conditions ratio is below
the 2020 SCAQMD plan -level threshold of 6.6 metric tons per service population, yet the
2035 ratio exceeds the 2035 SCAQMD plan -level threshold of 4.1 metric tons per service
population. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-19.)
SCAQMD thresholds were developed based on substantial evidence that such
thresholds represent quantitative levels of GHG emissions, compliance with which means
that the environmental impact of the GHG emissions will normally not be cumulatively
considerable under CEQA. As identified, the resultant emissions contribution exceeds the
2035 SCAQMD plan -level threshold of 4.1 metric tons per service population. As shown, a
percentage of GHG emissions would be generated by mobile sources, which is an emission
source that cannot be regulated by the City of Palm Desert. The project would be required
to implement energy efficiency design requirements consistent with the California Green
Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly
referred to as the CALGreen Code, described above. However, the resulting GHG
61
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
emissions generated by the project are nevertheless considered cumulatively considerable
and significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-19.)
Implementation of programs and policies, derived largely from the General Plan, will
reduce potential GHG-related impacts; however, it is impossible, due to limitations in the
modeling software, to quantify the effectiveness of every General Plan policy provision.
Individual development projects will be required to undergo project -specific environmental
review, and mitigation measures will be identified at that time to reduce any significant
impacts. The projects must meet SCAQMD, Palm Desert Strategic Plan, and Palm Desert
Environmental Sustainability Plan requirements. There are no feasible mitigation measures
available that exceed the reductions already made via implementation of the proposed
project's policies. Therefore, this potential impact remains significant and unavoidable.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.4-19.)
2. GHG Reduction Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Threshold: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Impact: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-20 through -23.)
Explanation: The Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG's) 2016-
2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), adopted
April 7, 2016, is a Tong -range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs
with economic, environmental and public health goals. GHG emissions resulting from
development -related transportation sources is a potent source of emissions, and therefore
project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the proposed
project would inhibit the GHG reduction goals promulgated by the state. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-
20.)
The 2016 RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects —ranging from
highway improvements, railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and
replacement bridges. These future investments were included in county plans developed by
the six CTCs and seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region's
network and expand mobility choices for everyone. The RTP/SCS is an important planning
document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for federal funding. The plan
takes into account operations and maintenance costs, to ensure reliability, longevity and
cost effectiveness. In addition, the RTP/SCS is supported by a combination of
transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state greenhouse gas
emission reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements, preserve open space
areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement
industry and utilize resources more efficiently. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-21.)
An analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the goals of the RTP/SCS
was completed, and determined that the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG's
ability to achieve the region's mobile source GHG reduction targets outlined in the 2016
RTP/SCS. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-21 through -23; see also Draft EIR Table 4.4-5.)
However, as described above, the proposed project's long-term emissions would not
62
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
be consistent with the SCAQMD service population thresholds, which were set to identify
whether projects would substantially conflict with existing California legislation (AB 32)
adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. While the proposed project's 2020 conditions
ratio is below the 2020 SCAQMD plan -level threshold of 6.6 metric tons per service
population, yet the 2035 ratio exceeds the 2035 SCAQMD plan -level threshold of 4.1 metric
tons per service population. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-19.) Therefore, the proposed project would
conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
Implementation of programs and policies, derived largely from the General Plan, will
reduce potential GHG-related impacts; however, it is impossible, due to limitations in the
modeling software, to quantify the effectiveness of every General Plan policy provision.
Individual development projects will be required to undergo project -specific environmental
review, and mitigation measures will be identified at that time to reduce any significant
impacts. The projects must meet SCAQMD, Palm Desert Strategic Plan, and Palm Desert
Environmental Sustainability Plan requirements. There are no feasible mitigation measures
available that exceed the reductions already made via implementation of the proposed
project's policies. Therefore, this potential impact remains significant and unavoidable.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.4-19.)
B. TRANSPORTATION
1. Caltrans Performance Standards
Threshold: Would the project conflict with Caltrans traffic study guidelines, which
establish LOS C as the performance standard?
Impact: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-49.)
Explanation: Traffic modeling determined that the segments of Interstate 10 forming
the northern city boundary will perform unacceptably in the Buildout (2040) scenario.
Mitigating the identified impacts to these segments would require a complete reconstruction
of the freeway and additional freeway travel lanes. Specifically, acceptable peak hour
operations would require one additional general purpose lane in the eastbound direction
and two additional general purpose lanes in the westbound direction. Since freeways are an
interconnected system, it would not be possible, nor effective, to provide isolated spot
improvements of one segment of the freeway where deficient operations are observed.
Upgrading facilities at these specific segments would still result in unacceptable operations
on Interstate 10 beyond these segments. Additionally, significant right of way acquisition
would be necessary, which is partly constrained by the railroad tracks parallel to Interstate
10. Furthermore, the facilities are not controlled by the City of Palm Desert, and therefore
the City of Palm Desert could not require, fund, or construct these additional lanes.
Therefore, this impact is deemed significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-51.)
SECTION 5: FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
Consistent with CEQA's requirements, the EIR for the Project includes an analysis of
cumulative impacts, which include the impacts of the project plus all other pending or
63
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
approved projects within the affected area for each resources. The affected environment
for most of the resources areas described below was determined to be the City of Palm
Desert, and neighboring jurisdictions.
The City Council hereby finds as follows:
A. AESTHETICS
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan Update would not include new
development that would substantially degrade scenic vistas from other nearby areas outside
the Planning Area, damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, existing visual
character within or surrounding the Planning Area, or create new sources of light or glare.
Therefore, cumulative aesthetic impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.1-11.)
The General Plan Update includes policies that would prevent development of
hillside areas that are important visual resources seen from viewpoints in Palm Desert and
surrounding cities. California designated state scenic highway State Route 74 and California
eligible state scenic highway Highway 111 would be protected by the General Plan Update.
Visual character in Rancho Mirage and La Quinta adjacent to the Planning Area is similar to
the visual character of Palm Desert. Projected regional growth in adjacent jurisdictions
could potentially alter the existing visual character or degrade the inherent sense of place in
certain areas. The visual character of the Planning Area, including its edges, would be
protected through Citywide development standards and other requirements noted in policies
and implementation programs of the General Plan Update described in Impact 4.1-3.
Furthermore, the cumulative effect of light and glare would be limited, since two or more
projects would need to be built in proximity to each other to create a combined Tight and
glare impact. These effects are inherently local and are related to the construction of
specific buildings or groups of buildings. Therefore, adoption and implementation of the
General Plan Update would not include new development that would substantially degrade
scenic vistas from other nearby areas outside the Planning Area, damage scenic resources
within a state scenic highway, existing visual character within or surrounding the Planning
Area, or create new sources of Tight or glare and cumulative impacts would be less than
cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-11.)
B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan Update in addition to anticipated
future development in surrounding cities could cause a substantial change in the
significance of agricultural and forest resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5. The Toss of some agricultural resources may be prevented through implementation
of CEQA review and surrounding City policies, which would not, however, ensure that these
resources can be protected and preserved. This impact is considered less than cumulatively
considerable. Agricultural resources in surrounding cities have similar soil types. Potential
future development in the surrounding region could include conversion of farmland.
Although some agricultural resources may be listed as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance or under a Williamson Act contract, the listing itself
does not ensure protection of the resource. Future discretionary development in
surrounding cities would be subject to the requirements of CEQA. The cumulative effect of
64
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
future development would be the continued loss of farmland and local food sources.
Implementation of the General Plan Update would be less than cumulatively considerable.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.2-6.)
C. AIR QUALITY
The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts relating to air
quality, either compared to applicable SCAQMD thresholds, or in terms of policy
consistency. The SCAQMD thresholds used in this analysis are from the AQMP, which is
designed to bring the region into attainment with federal and state health based standards
and to comply with Clean Air Act requirements. All other agencies in the region are subject
to the AQMP, and the proposed project's Tess than significant air quality impacts, when
combined with emissions from other sources in the region, would therefore not be
cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-23.)
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The General Plan Update does not propose land use changes that would affect open
space in the City. Rather, it includes land use designations that would focus new residential
uses and nonresidential development around the Highway 111 corridor and around the
California State University campus and the University of California campus. However,
cumulative changes, including land use changes, could affect wildlife movement either
directly or indirectly. The General Plan Update does not propose land use changes that
would convert existing open space areas to developed uses. Furthermore, the policies and
implementation actions described above would reduce the contribution to cumulative
effects. Because the General Plan Update would not convert existing open space areas to
developed uses and would implement these policies and implementation actions, the
General Plan's contribution to cumulative effects would not be considerable. In addition, the
project will be subject to the provisions of the CVMSHCP. The CVMSHCP has been
analyzed under CEQA. Project compliance with these provisions fully mitigates for impacts
to CVMSHCP covered species associated with the proposed project. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15130(a)(3) states that a project's contribution to a cumulative impact is not
cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of
mitigation measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. Therefore, compliance
with the MSHCP and other federal and state regulations will reduce impacts associated with
development to Tess than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-29.)
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historical resources in surrounding cities include various types of buildings and/or
structures, some of which share historical associations or similar attributes of architectural
character. Potential future development in the Planning Area and the surrounding region
could include demolition or destruction of historical resources. Not all municipalities have a
formal review process that applies to all properties defined by CEQA as historical
resources; thus, it is reasonable to assume that some historical resources could be
substantially changed or demolished. The cumulative effect of future development would be
the continued Toss of these resources. However, General Plan Environmental Resources
Element Policy 9.5 encourages 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
65
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
architectural details and design elements of historic structures to be preserved during
renovations and remodels as much as feasible. Implementation of the General Plan Update
policies to protect historic resources, along with adherence to existing federal, state, and
City regulations, would preserve locally designated historical resources. Therefore, this
would be a Tess than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-12.)
Though archaeological and tribal cultural resources can sometimes be protected
when discovered during excavation, there is no way to ensure that all such resources can
be protected and preserved. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.6-2a through MM
4.6-2d would require assessment by a qualified archaeologist for discretionary projects in
Palm Desert involving ground -disturbing activities on previously undisturbed land and would
require preparation and implementation of a treatment plan if buried resources would be
affected by a proposed project in the City. Impacts to as -yet -unknown archaeological or
tribal cultural resources discovered in the City would be mitigated. Therefore, with
implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.6-2a through MM 4.6-2d, the General Plan
Update's contribution would not be considerable, and impacts would be less than
cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-13.)
Impacts to human remains are related to conditions and circumstances that are
considered site specific. Therefore, the geographic context for the analysis of potential
cumulative impacts to human remains consists of individual development sites. Although
cumulative development in the region may include numerous projects with impacts to
human remains, these impacts would affect each individual project, rather than resulting in
an additive cumulative effect. Therefore, cumulative development would result in a less than
cumulatively considerable impact to human remains. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-13.)
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Geotechnical impacts tend to be site -specific rather than cumulative in nature. All
new development in Palm Desert would be required to comply with the CBC, which
mandates stringent earthquake -resistant design parameters and common engineering
practices requiring special design and construction methods that reduce or eliminate
potential expansive soil -related impacts. Furthermore, new development consistent with the
proposed project would also be subject to NPDES provisions, as required. NPDES
requirements would significantly reduce the potential for substantial erosion or topsoil loss
to occur in association with new development by requiring an approved SWPPP that
includes a schedule for the implementation and maintenance of erosion control measures
and a description of erosion control practices, including appropriate design details and a
time schedule. The General Plan Update also requires that damage to new structures from
seismic, geologic, or soil conditions be prevented to the maximum extent feasible. Further,
implementation of NPDES requirements and CBC standards would reduce cumulative
impacts associated with geology and soils throughout the region. Furthermore, site -specific
review, including geotechnical reports, required by the City of Palm Desert would reduce the
proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts to less than cumulatively
considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-10.)
While multiple impacts relating to paleontological resources may occur during the
implementation period of the General Plan, cumulative impacts are unlikely. Cumulative
impacts that may occur would be reduced to Tess than cumulatively considerable levels by
66
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
the requirements of CEQA, which include requirements for activities that preserve unique
resources in place in an undisturbed state. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-10.)
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is inherently cumulatively in nature. The
proposed project would exceed SCAQMD service population thresholds in the 2040 horizon
year, and there are no feasible mitigation measures available beyond the myriad General
Plan policies included in the proposed project to reduce vehicle miles traveled and thus
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts relating to these emissions, and such an impact would
be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-20.)
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Exposure to existing known hazardous materials is usually site specific and not
cumulative in nature. Future development consistent with the General Plan is required to
follow policies that notify the public of a proposed use that involves hazardous materials.
Hazardous materials use at a specific location is subject to state and federal regulations
linked to the material(s) involved. Transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. Development consistent with the
proposed General Plan would not typically result in the additional exposure of people
elsewhere in the cumulative setting area, nor would development result in an increase in
environmental hazards from pre-existing hazardous materials or operations in the Planning
Area.
While some cumulative impacts will occur as the area identified in the cumulative
setting continues to develop, several regulations, policies, and laws are in place that will
reduce the risk to people and structures in the region. Considering the protection granted by
local, state, and federal agencies and their requirements for development and use of
hazardous materials, the overall cumulative impact would not be significant. By the same
token, the General Plan's incremental contribution to cumulative hazards and hazardous
materials impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-16.)
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Implementation of the General Plan Update has the potential to result in
development that could create increased pollutants during both construction and operation.
However, future development, including cumulative development both within the City and
outside its jurisdiction, must comply with multiple regulations and legal requirements
regarding the protection of water quality, and best management practices must be
implemented to ensure water quality is not degraded during construction or long-term
operation. Adherence to required water quality control permits and requirements and
implementation of the General Plan Update policies and implementation actions would
reduce the potential for future development to degrade water quality. Multiple General Plan
Update policies and implementation actions would also maintain and enhance groundwater
recharge in the Planning Area. Because of the minimal amount of new impervious surface
that would result with implementation of the General Plan Update, the rate of infiltration
needed to support groundwater recharge would not be substantially decreased.
67
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
Additionally, implementation of General Plan Update policies and actions would maintain
and protect groundwater recharge resources. Compliance with regulations and the General
Plan Update would minimize the potential for existing drainage patterns to be altered in a
manner that could cause increased erosion, sedimentation, or the likelihood of flooding.
Therefore, impacts associated with hydrology and water quality are less than cumulatively
considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-31.)
J. LAND USE
The cumulative setting associated with the General Plan Update includes approved,
proposed, planned, and other reasonably foreseeable projects and development in Palm
Desert and surrounding municipalities. Developments and planned land uses, including the
General Plan Update, could cumulatively contribute to land use —related impacts. Under
cumulative conditions, the General Plan Update and subsequent development would not
contribute to land use conflicts. There would be no further contribution to the division of an
established community or conflicts between planning documents and regulations. General
Plan Update policies and implementation actions provide for land use compatibility in Palm
Desert and coordination with adjacent jurisdictions as well as continued participation in the
CVMSHCP. Therefore, this impact is less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, pp.
4.10-12, -13.)
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
Because no mining has historically occurred in the area, impacts associated with
mineral impacts as a result of the proposed project is speculative. Because no mineral
resources are currently being mined, or have historically been mined, development of the
planning area with other uses will not result in cumulative impacts to mineral resources
within the area or region. Implementation of the Palm Desert General Plan Update would
not result in the direct or indirect loss of availability of a known or locally important mineral
resource because of urbanization in the MRZ-3 area. Therefore, this impact is less than
cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-5.)
L. NOISE
Considering the proposed project is a General Plan Update, which takes into
account existing and potential development over approximately the next twenty years, the
analysis of noise -related impacts contained within this chapter of the EIR is already
cumulative in nature. Cumulative development in the City of Palm Desert would add
population, business, and traffic to the community. This cumulative development would also
increase noise levels in the community, especially in the vicinity of its busiest roadways.
However, this impact has already been analyzed and determined to be less than significant
under Impacts 4.12-2 and 4.12-3, which found that the General Plan Update's potential to
result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity is
less than significant with implementation of the policies of the proposed project and
enforcement of the City's Noise Ordinance. This impact is therefore less than cumulatively
considerable, and no mitigation is necessary. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-29.)
68
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The cumulative setting condition includes the unincorporated areas surrounding
Palm Desert, as well as the larger Riverside County region, including La Quinta, Bermuda
Dunes, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells. The General Plan's impact would be cumulatively
considerable if, when considered with other existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably
foreseeable development in the cumulative setting, it would contribute to substantial
regional population growth. The population and employment growth instigated by the
updated General Plan would be consistent with the SCAG forecast for 2040. Therefore, the
General Plan Update's contribution to the potential for cumulative inducement of population
growth would not be cumulatively considerable. Furthermore, changes in Palm Desert and
the surrounding region through 2040 could result in displacement of people or housing
through the expansion of nonresidential land uses, infrastructure improvements such as
roadway, utility, or transit expansion, or other changes. However, implementation of the
General Plan Update would not displace people or housing in the Planning Area, and the
regional effects of the changes forecast (including job and population growth in the Planning
Area) would not make a considerable contribution. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be
less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-9.)
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
The cumulative context for public services is generally specific to the Planning Area
rather than regional. The cumulative context for impacts includes projected regional growth
in surrounding cities and in Riverside County. Future regional growth would result in an
increased demand for fire protection, law enforcement services, schools and libraries.
However, through the implementation of General Plan policies relevant to these services,
the payment of development impact and school impact fees, compliance with existing
regulations including the Fire Code and CBC the proposed project would not contribute to
significant impacts. Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-
7, -12, -13, 17, 25.)
O. RECREATION
Residents of a City lacking adequately parkland or recreational facilities may travel
to adjacent cities to use such facilities. Therefore, the context is the City of Palm Desert,
adjacent jurisdictions, and the County of Riverside. Implementation of the proposed project,
along with other existing, planned, proposed, approved, and reasonably foreseeable
development would increase the use of existing parks and would require additional park and
recreation facilities in the cumulative setting, the provision of which could have an adverse
physical effect on the environment. However, with the implementation of general plan
policies, the Quimby Act, and maintenance of existing parkland, park facilities would not be
significantly impacted. This impact is less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p.
4.14-23.)
P. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
A regional traffic model was used as the base for the Palm Desert traffic model,
which was used to analyze impacts of the updated General Plan at buildout, along with
projected regional growth. The regional traffic model already assumes a level of growth for
69
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
other nearby jurisdictions based on all reasonably foreseeable and probable future projects
in the region and population/employment projections. In sum, all traffic impact analyses
considered in the Draft EIR are considered cumulative by nature because anticipated land
use forecasts for other areas are already included in the traffic model. Thus, the proposed
project would result on a cumulatively considerable conflict with LOS performance
standards and Caltrans Performance standards. While the incorporation of mitigation
measures would reduce the LOS performance standard impact to a level of less than
cumulatively considerable, the cumulatively conflict with Caltrans standards would remain
cumulatively considerable, significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-58 through -
64. )
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The Salton Sea watershed, and the Whitewater River subbasin of the Coachella
Valley Groundwater Basin is the general area of influence for these cumulative impacts.
While implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other existing, planned,
proposed, approved, and reasonably foreseeable development in the region would increase
the demand for water supply and wastewater treatment. The provision of associated
facilities could result in environmental impacts. However, the proposed project's contribution
to the need for expanded water and wastewater services is considered Tess than
cumulatively considerable given requirements for project -level CEQA review and the
proposed General Plan Update's policies and implementation actions. Impacts would be
less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-41.)
Regarding solid waste, subsequent CEQA review of future facilities, along with the
proposed General Plan's policies and implementation actions, would ensure that
cumulatively impacts associated with the continued provision of solid waste facilities would
be less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, 4.14-46.)
SECTION 6: FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES AND MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
A. SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES
According to Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an
EIR is required to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would
occur should the proposed Project be implemented. Generally, a project would result in
significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
• The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable
resources;
• The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally
commit future generations to similar uses;
• The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result
from any potential environmental accidents; or
70
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the continued commitment of
the majority of the planning area to urban uses, thereby precluding non -urban uses through
the lifespan of the plan. While implementation of the General Plan would potentially result in
the use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes, all such activities would
comply with applicable state and federal laws related to hazardous materials transport, use,
and storage, which significantly reduces the likelihood and severity of accidents that could
result in irreversible environmental damage. The proposed project does not propose an
increase in airport or transportation activities directly although growth assumed in the plan
may increase usage of these resources. Specific projects resulting in expansion of these
resources would be subject to all applicable state and federal laws and require project -level
CEQA review.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the continuation of long-term
resource commitments to urban development. The proposed project represents an
incremental intensity increase over the existing General Plan by allowing for mixed uses
and integrated design along State Route 111 and in the University Neighborhood Specific
Plan. However, this increased intensity would represent a redevelopment of existing land
uses or inf ill of vacant parcels substantially surrounded by existing urban development.
Resources that would be permanently and continually consumed with
implementation of the General Plan include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels.
The CBC, along with state and federal laws regarding efficiency of appliances and vehicles,
will ensure that the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result in
the inefficient or wasteful use of such resources.
With respect to operational activities, compliance with all applicable building codes,
as well as standard conservation features, and current City programs would ensure that
natural resources are conserved to the maximum extent possible. It is possible that new
technologies or systems will emerge, or will become more cost-effective or user-friendly, to
further reduce the reliance upon nonrenewable natural resources. Nonetheless, future
construction activities related to implementation the proposed project would result in the
irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil
fuels (including fuel oil), natural gas, and gasoline for automobiles and construction
equipment. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-2, -3.)
SECTION 7: FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the
ways the proposed Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction
of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth -inducing
impacts include the removal of obstacles to population growth (e.g., the expansion of a
wastewater treatment plant allowing more development in a service area) and the
development and construction of new service facilities that could significantly affect the
environment individually or cumulatively. In addition, growth must not be assumed as
beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
Potential growth inducement impacts of adoption and implementation of the
71
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
proposed project are addressed in Draft EIR Section 4.13, "Population, Employment, and
Housing." The projected 2040 population is 61,691 which represents an overall increase of
approximately 25 percent from the 2015 population of 49,335 and an average annual
increase of 0.90 percent over the next 25 years. The proposed project would accommodate
the projected 2040 population of 61,691 residents who represent an increase of 11,905
residents from the 2012 population of 48,786. The overall growth rate for this 28 year period
averages 0.77 percent per year. (Draft EIR, p. 5-3.)
The purpose of a general plan is to guide the anticipated growth and development in
a community. The design focus of the HWY 111 Corridor and the University Neighborhood
Specific Plan is intended to encourage development. The Proposed Project would
accommodate approximately 2,368 new residents that represent about 20 percent of the
anticipated population growth in the City by 2040. While the University Neighborhood
Specific Plan includes development of universities that would be expected to draw growth to
this area of the City, the anticipated growth is included in the regional growth projection for
the General Plan. There is no aspect of the proposed project that would be expected to
significantly increase the growth rate projected in the community over the planning period.
(Draft EIR, p. 5-4.)
SECTION 8: FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Project is intended to meet the following objectives:
1. Anticipate new demographics and market trends to expand economic
competitiveness and attract new employers.
2. Continue to serve as a destination that entices visitors and to endure as a
community with a high quality of life that attracts the best and the brightest
residents, students, and businesses.
3. Create a greater range of development patterns to offer existing and future
residents additional options for the types of place they live in, maintaining a
moderate density and scale: just enough to create interest and activity, but
not so much as to overwhelm people and not so little as to dilute the sense of
place or inhibit walking and bicycling.
4. Create safe and comfortable places for pedestrians with convenient, safe,
and easy street crossings and convenient, close access to buildings.
5. Reduce automobile dependence through enhanced active transportation
options.
6. Create an authentic, walkable downtown along the Highway 111 corridor.
7. Create a mixed -use, mixed -housing walkable neighborhood in the vicinity of
the California State University campus.
72
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
8. Create lively centers for residents and visitors to congregate throughout the
city.
9. Create a layered transportation network that will expand transportation
opportunities for walking, bicycling, and transit, while recognizing the
importance of the automobile, to expand access to the city and throughout
the city.
10. Maintain the city's unique geographic setting by protecting existing open
space and expanding the types of open space and recreational areas within
the city
B. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
As identified above, the proposed project results in the following significant and
unavoidable impacts, even after the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (emissions with
the potential to impact the environment; conflict with plans, policies and regulations adopted
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions).
Transportation: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (conflict with Caltrans
performance standards).
C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE
SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
Among the factors that are used to consider project alternatives for detailed
consideration in an EIR are whether they would meet most of the basic Project objectives,
be feasible, and whether they would avoid or substantially reduce the significant
environmental impacts of the Project. (State CEQA Guidelines section 15126(c).)
1. Distributed Land Use Alternative
Description: The Distributed Land Use Alternative was developed to determine
whether accommodating projected growth in the City through increasing density in the
existing neighborhoods, rather than in the Highway 111 corridor and the University
Neighborhood Specific Plan ("UNSP"), would distribute traffic more evenly along Interstate
10 and avoid the significant and unavoidable conflict with Caltrans performance standards.
Rather than concentrating growth in the UNSP or Highway 111 areas, the same anticipated
growth would occur incrementally over the City through smaller individual projects and infill.
Under this Alternative, the reduction of trips, pedestrian connectivity, and other General
Plan and Specific Plan expectations that would be anticipated under the project as
proposed, would either occur very slowly as the intervening property is developed or would
not occur at all, as there would be no resources to pay for the improvements and no way to
compel existing property owners to retrofit. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-5, -6.)
Impacts: This Alternative would likely not reduce the proposed project's significant
and unavoidable transportation impacts. This is because Monterey Avenue and Cook
Street form two of the three existing freeway on -ramps in the area and it is logical to
73
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
assume that two-thirds of existing and future traffic would continue to use the freeway
segment identified in Impact 4.15-2 as failing. Therefore, Caltrans performance standards
would likely continue to not be met. Further, this Alternative would not reduce the proposed
project's significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions impacts, as the
transportation network and associated design efficiencies assumed with the 111 Corridor
Plan and University Neighborhood Specific Plan would not occur, and it is therefore
reasonable to assume that there would be more vehicular traffic associated with the
planned growth, which would increase greenhouse gas emissions. (Draft EIR, p. 6-6.)
Obiectives: This alternative would not meet the basic project objectives dealing with
alternative transportation. Specifically, it would not meet Objective 5 because distant and
separate developments will have a difficult time connecting transportation corridors. Further,
Objectives 6, 7, and 8 would be more difficult, to realize as the anticipated density would be
in the existing neighborhoods. (Draft EIR, p. 6-6.)
Finding: The City Council rejects the Distributed Land Use Alternative on the
following grounds, each of which provides a full and independent justification for rejection of
the Alternative: (1) the Alternative fails to reduce any of the significant and unavoidable
impacts of the proposed project; (2) the Alternative potentially could increase the severity of
impacts associated with the proposed project because it will not realize the same reductions
in vehicle miles traveled; and (3) the Alternative fails to meet a majority of the Project
objectives.
2. Off-Site/Alternative Location Alternative
Description: This Alternative considered alternative locations for key project
components, specifically the University Neighborhood Specific Plan and the 111 Corridor
Plan. The UNSP proposes a new mixed -use community adjacent to the planned campuses
for California State University San Bernardino and the University of California, Riverside, on
approximately 400 acres. However, there are no other locations within the City of the size
necessary to sustain a new mixed -use community. In addition, any alternative location for
the Specific Plan would not be adjacent to the planned university campuses, which would
reduce potential for synergy between these compatible and complementary uses. Finally,
moving the Specific Plan to an alternative location would leave approximately 400 acres of
land adjacent to the planned campuses undeveloped or underdeveloped. Alternative uses
on land adjacent to the future campuses would likely not serve university students and
employees well, and these campus users would be required to drive farther distances for
services, housing, meals, and other uses. An alternative location for the downtown
concept contemplated by the 111 Corridor Plan is similarly infeasible. The 111 Corridor Plan
proposes to develop a walkable downtown by enhancing the existing commercial and
residential base. These uses cannot be located elsewhere within the city because the
condition does not exist. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-6, -7.)
Impacts: This Alternative would not reduce the proposed project's significant and
unavoidable impacts, because the significant and unavoidable impacts are not tied to or a
function of the location of either the UNSP or the 111 Corridor Plan. Further, this
Alternative would likely increase greenhouse gas emissions and therefore worsen the
severity of a potentially significant impact due to the increase vehicle miles traveled by
students and employees of the universities.
74
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
Obiectives: The Alternative Location Alternative would not meet several basic project
objectives. Specifically, Objective 7, create a mixed -use, mixed -housing walkable
neighborhood in the vicinity of the California State University campus, would not be met.
Similarly, Objective 1 would not be met to the same extent as the proposed project,
because failing to develop the area in the vicinity of the campuses would be a failure to
expand competitiveness, attract new employees to the campuses, and anticipate new
demographics (specifically, the new students and employees brought to the area by the
planned campuses). Objective 2, which includes enticing the best and brightest students to
the city, would not be met to the same extent, as services associated with the new
campuses would be developed to a much lesser degree than under the proposed General
Plan. Objective 6 would also be met to a lesser extent, because students and employees of
the campuses would be forced to drive farther for housing and other services. An alternative
location for the 111 Corridor Plan uses would result in a project that fails to meet Objective
6, create an authentic, walkable downtown along the Highway 111 corridor. In addition, this
Alternative would not meet Objective 3, allowing for a range of uses that encourage the
sense of place, and Objective 8 to create a lively center for residents and visitors to
congregate. (Draft EIR, p. 6-7.)
Finding: The City Council rejects the Alternative Location Alternative on the
following grounds, each of which provides a full and independent justification for rejection of
the Alternative: (1) the Alternative fails to reduce any of the significant and unavoidable
impacts of the proposed project; (2) the Alternative potentially could increase the severity of
impacts associated with the proposed project because it would potentially increase vehicle
miles traveled; (3) the Alternative fails to meet a majority of the Project objectives; and (4)
the Alternative is infeasible, because no other areas within the City's jurisdiction could
accommodate the uses proposed in the Specific Plan area.
3. Development of Former Golf Courses Alternative
Description: This Alternative proposes development of the City's several non-
operational golf courses with residential and commercial uses. The former golf courses are
currently surrounded by residential development that was designed to front a golf course.
The redevelopment of golf courses therefore would present a design and land use
challenge, as the property to be redeveloped often comprises narrow fairways with little to
no roadway access. While golf course areas are designed for golf cart and pedestrian
access, they typically are not accessible by passenger vehicles or service trucks (e.g.,
garbage, delivery, and emergency vehicles). Thus, new redevelopment on former golf
courses may be constrained by access issues. Similarly, use compatibility, form, massing,
orientation, and other design constraints presented by existing development adjacent to the
golf courses make redevelopment with residential or commercial uses impractical. (Draft
EIR, p. 6-7.)
Impacts: Redevelopment of golf courses with nonresidential uses could result in
traffic pattern, noise, Tight, and other impacts on existing adjacent residences.
Redevelopment of golf courses with residential and commercial uses would also not reduce
the proposed General Plan's significant and unavoidable traffic impacts because traffic
would continue to use Interstate 10, and the golf courses are located between Cook Street
and the Monterey Avenue interchanges. Impacts relating to cultural resources would be the
same as with the proposed General Plan, and transportation impacts to local roadway
75
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
intersections and segments would be similar or greater than the proposed General Plan.
(Draft EIR, pp. 6-7, -8.)
Obiectives: This Alternative would conflict with Objective 3 which encourages a
complementary design approach by increasing density and intensity in areas with low -
density homes. The filling of open space in these areas would also conflict with Objective 10
which encourages the protection of open space and recreation areas. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8.)
Finding: The City Council rejects the Development of Former Golf Courses
Alternative on the following grounds, each of which provides a full and independent
justification for rejection of the Alternative: (1) the Alternative fails to reduce any of the
significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project; (2) the Alternative potentially
could result in new environmental impacts due to compatibility issues with existing adjacent
residential uses; (3) the Alternative fails to meet several of the Project objectives; and (4)
the Alternative is infeasible, due to the physical constraints associated with the layout,
location, and design of the existing golf courses.
4. Retrofitting Existing Development Alternative
Description: This alternative considered requiring homes and businesses to meet
Title 24 energy standards at time of sale or physical improvement to the property. Impact
4.4-1 in Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, shows that the energy use by the existing
city will contribute citywide emissions above the SCAQMD threshold of 6.6 metric tons of
CO2e per service population (residents plus employees) per year in 2020 and 4.1 metric
tons of CO2e per service population per year in 2035. While the proposed project includes
numerous programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the city's existing
conditions (i.e., older buildings, lack of alternative transportation connectivity, and the
distance between services and customers) will continue to generate greenhouse gas
emissions, even as new, more efficient development comes online over the course of
General Plan buildout. As shown in Table 4.4-4, when considered alone, new development
under the proposed General Plan would be highly efficient, and when considered against
service population thresholds, would alone result in a less than significant impact. As also
shown in Table 4.4-4, it is the consideration of emissions from existing conditions that
results in an exceedance of the relevant significance threshold. Therefore, this alterative
considered retrofitting existing homes and businesses with solar panels, better insulation,
new double -paned windows, and more efficient roofs and HVAC equipment. (Draft EIR, p.
6-8.)
It is unclear whether the City would have the authority to mandate retrofitting of a
building for energy efficiency if there was no request for a discretionary permit or
entitlement. Further, the City could not bear the cost of upgrading every home to meet Title
24 standards, and there would be no public support for a program that placed the cost of
upgrades on homeowners or business owners. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8.)
Impacts: Retrofitting of buildings occurs gradually over time as they are refurbished
or replaced due to obsolescence or redevelopment. Thus, it is unlikely that the retrofitting of
sufficient numbers of existing buildings would occur soon enough to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in 2040 to below the SCAQMD threshold. Thus, this Alternative is not expected
to reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project.
76
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
(Draft EIR, p. 6-8.)
Obiectives: Programs to require retrofitting of buildings to bring them to Title 24
California Building Code standards would add considerably to the cost of each building and
would be detrimental to affordable housing and business retention, conflicting with Objective
1 that seeks to expand economic competitiveness and attract new employers.
Finding: The City Council rejects the Retrofitting Existing Development Alternative
on the following grounds, each of which provides a full and independent justification for
rejection of the Alternative: (1) the Alternative fails to reduce any of the significant and
unavoidable impacts of the proposed project; (2) the Alternative is politically infeasible; (3)
the Alternative is legally infeasible; and (4) the Alternative is economically/financially
infeasible.
D. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR
The following Project Alternatives were considered in detail in the EIR. These
alternatives are rejected for various reasons as set forth below.
1. No Project Alternative (Alternative 1)
Description: Section 15126(2)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires evaluation
of the No Project Alternative. As described in the State CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of
describing and analyzing the No Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare
the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project.
However, "no project" does not necessarily mean that development will be prohibited. The
No Project Alternative includes "what would be reasonably expected to occur in the
foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent
with available infrastructure and community services."
This alternative assumes that the proposed General Plan would not be adopted and
implemented. Instead, Palm Desert would continue to grow and develop consistent with the
existing 2004 General Plan. Alternative 1 would continue to allow for growth because there
is sufficient vacant land within the existing General Plan Planning Area to accommodate the
city's projected increase of approximately 11,905 new residents and 13,662 new jobs by
2040. This growth is assumed to occur with or without the proposed project. Alternative 1
assumes that no changes to the 2004 General Plan, including the Land Use Map,
Circulation Diagram, goals, policies, or actions, would occur. Alternative 1 also assumes
that none of the proposed General Plan elements, including the 111 Corridor Plan (City
Center Area Plan) or the University Neighborhood Specific Plan, would be adopted. (Draft
EIR, p. 6-9.)
Impacts: The No Project Alternative would result in greater impacts associated with
aesthetics, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, hydrology and water quality,
and transportation. The No Project Alternative would result in impacts similar to those of the
proposed project relating to agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, cultural,
geologic/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, mineral resources,
noise, population and housing, public services and utilities. Thus, overall, the No Project
alternative will result in greater impacts than the proposed project. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-11
77
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
through -15.)
Obiectives: The No Project Alternative has the potential to meet some, but not most,
of the basic project objectives. Specifically, the No Project Alternative has the potential to
meet Objectives 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10 because the existing General Plan offers some policies
that would encourage community attractiveness and businesses. Palm Desert will remain a
beautiful city attracting visitors for recreation as well as new residents. However, in contrast,
the No Project Alternative would not meet the remaining objectives. Specifically, Objectives
3, 6, and 8 would not be met because the current land use pattern does not recognize the
Highway 111 corridor as a destination for entertainment and as a model of walkability.
Objectives 5 and 9 would not be met because the proposed project includes a
comprehensive and complementary transportation plan that recognizes all forms of
transportation and moves away from the vehicle -centric model of the existing General Plan.
(Draft EIR, p. 6-15.)
Finding: The City Council rejects the No Project Alternative on the following
grounds, each of which provides a full and independent justification for rejection of the
alternative: (1) the Alternative fails to reduce any of the significant and unavoidable impacts
of the proposed project; (2) the Alternative results in greater or more several environmental
impacts than the proposed project; and (3) the Alternative fails to meet most of the basic
project objectives.
2. Decreased Density Alternative
Description: The Decreased Density Alternative reduces the total amount of
development potential that would be allowed under the proposed General Plan and was
considered to determine whether decreased density would reduce the proposed General
Plan's significant and unavoidable transportation -related impacts. This alternative assumes
that the 111 Corridor Plan will not be adopted and implemented along with the proposed
project. As a result, the underutilized commercial area along Highway 111 would remain
designated for commercial uses and be developed consistent with the 2004 General Plan
land use configuration. This alternative does not reduce the density of the University
Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP). The City developed the UNSP with the intent of
providing a mix of housing product types and densities that could foster a more pedestrian
and neighborhood atmosphere to better interact with the university campuses along Cook
Street. The UNSP creates a land -use pattern that is more traditionally planned and that
provides guidelines for specific types of housing developments and street networks which
are harmonious with the students, faculty, and users of the university campuses. By
reducing density in this area, the city would be defaulting to a more suburban type of
development that is not conducive to creating a pedestrian atmosphere that achieves the
goal of embracing the campuses into the fold of the city. The alternative to provide less
density in the UNSP area is rejected because it fails to recognize the importance of a
California State University within the city limits and the needs of university enrollees and
employees. It also fails to create a multimodal transportation system that could reduce
vehicle trips between the UNSP area and the university campuses. (Draft EIR, p. 6-10.)
Impacts: The Decreased Density Alternative would result in greater impacts
associated with air quality. The Decreased Density Alternative would result in fewer
impacts associated with population and housing than the proposed project, however, the
78
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
proposed project's population and housing impacts were already less than significant. The
Decreased Density Alternative would also result in fewer transportation impacts than the
proposed project, but the Decreased Density Alternative's transportation impacts would
nonetheless remain significant and unavoidable. The No Project Alternative would result in
impacts similar to those of the proposed project relating to aesthetics, agriculture and
forestry resources, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources,
geologic/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and
planning, mineral resources, noise, and public services and utilities. Thus, overall, the No
Project alternative will result in slightly fewer impacts than the proposed project, but would
nonetheless not avoid the significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions impacts
or transportation impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-15 through -20.)
Objectives: The Decreased Density Alternative would achieve almost all of the
project objectives because, with the exception of the 111 Corridor Plan not being a part of
project components, all other project features would remain. The only objective this project
does not meet is Objective 5, creating an authentic walkable downtown along the Highway
111 corridor. The alternative would not meet the intent of Objective 2 to demonstrate how
an existing part of the community can be developed to entice new investment. The
Decreased Density Alternative also does not meet Objective 8 in creating lively centers for
residents and visitors to congregate throughout the city. (Draft EIR, p. 6-20.)
Finding: The City Council rejects the Reduced Density Alternative on the following
grounds, each of which provides a full and independent justification for rejection of the
alternative: (1) the Alternative fails to avoid or substantially reduce any of the significant
and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project.
E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of
alternatives to a proposed project shall identify an environmentally superior alternatives
among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR.
Alternative 2, the Decreased Density Alternative, would result in slightly fewer
impacts than the proposed project with reduced impacts related to transportation, thereby
making it environmentally superior to the proposed project with regard to this issue area.
Therefore, Alternative 2 is considered the environmentally superior alternative. However,
while Alternative 2 may reduce traffic impacts slightly due to reduced overall development,
this reduction would be relatively small. The impacts related to Caltrans LOS Performance
Standards would remain significant and unavoidable, and they would not be substantially
reduced with Alternative 2. (Draft EIR, p. 6-23.)
SECTION 9: ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines
section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against
any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the proposed
project. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, if the benefits of the proposed project
outweigh the proposed project's unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts
may be considered "acceptable."
79
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effect of the Project to the
extent feasible by adopting the Mitigation Measures contained in the Draft EIR, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and these Findings, having considered the
entire administrative record on the project, and having weighted the benefits of the
proposed project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, the City Council
has determined that each of the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of
the project separately and individually outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impact
and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the
following overriding considerations:
A. The General Plan Update will identify and plan for new growth in key areas of
the City, including the Highway 111 corridor/City Center and the areas
located around the California State University and University of California
campuses.
B. The General Plan Update will provide the City with the tools to seek
pedestrian -oriented development patterns that can diversity the City's existing
primarily automobile -oriented development patterns.
C. The General Plan Update will allow the City to realize both a true "City
Center" and a vibrant university campus area that grows the City as the
"Cultural Core" of the Coachella Valley, attracts young families, young
professionals, top-notch students and academics, and provides our existing
community with new amenities and housing opportunities that are not
presently available within the City.
D. The General Plan Update will realize the overall community vision, priorities,
and strategies that were identified by the community during the drafting of the
City's 2013-2033 Strategic Plan, Envision Palm Desert effort.
E. The General Plan Update will generate an inviting economic climate that
offers lifestyle, education, and investment opportunities, increases job and
business opportunities, and expands quality education offerings within the
City.
F. The General Plan Update will reduce automobile dependence and reliance,
which will in turn reduce future congestion of roadways and freeways and air
pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, through the consideration of
complete streets, alternative transportation mode improvements, prioritization
of pedestrian improvements, and land use design that facilities close
connections between uses.
G. The General Plan Update will anticipate and account for new demographics
and market trends, and allow the City to expand its economic base and
competitiveness within the region.
H. The General Plan Update will attract new employers, and new job
opportunities, which will increase the City's tax base.
80
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
I. The General Plan Update will fulfill the State of California's mandate that the
City update its General Plan pursuant to Government Code section 65302(b).
The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public
through the approval and implementation of the General Plan Update outweigh the
identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project that cannot be mitigated.
The City Council finds that each of the proposed project benefits separately and individually
outweigh all of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and
therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.
81
a)
O
ca
o cv
-0 E0 Y
N O d O d
%a o• N O T 0 GO -c0
°,-' d -a E E o
-0o CR� Ge•3 aY G L
0- 0 —y ' U 0- 0 c N 9, �•- 0 ,d
N c4 ✓G 'O Cr-
S..) c0 GctS
a, rn E 9
G U � � N N
o- Q N U 7 E O •L N 'C E O
O .- N
i6'409 Q- ✓ O
G0p�N6 S -o a� d
C7 a• 0 T- U 3 •'"G ay vcss 9 S.
O N'� 0 0 0 0 a- 4 N c.•✓
lay-6..
�✓ N• � C�� '2 -- -O O
N 0 4 cd p,. O `L -6 o
o Y ��0 5-ct-0a. E E
3S oho w 0.) E
D- aY E pj ° U 0 �a O EO ° 3 -Cy
Cr V U O✓ G 7G 0 �'�
U..- p W O 0 '7
oNG �o o� v ° °' E t m
od-0O0 E°0 U E ° 3
.4- G N • O o 0 N 0
.2 � � fl -. . w - v
o- 0 Y G G cc5
CC. et. la 0 90v N E s • c
✓ UO % E- 0 � 04 a) 0 cd a)r 0- 6N 6-o ✓ N O 3 0 a' v N
6G N 0 NC6 N N -O N
•G
° N 0 9 3o N p, a
CL N N c6 O ,. CQ 0 N y
cn 40 -0 ✓ N 0 3 s 0 O G •7
O Q 0 0 0 0 G O 0 'O N w U
d o06 Q O ; 09 0 e N N
S E -0 s4 c. p.4pw 2.1 G C. G y`3 r
0 G N �4 N . �! 0 0- N� .� N 0 O
p N G O� O OC3- Cy N O O Y d r p .0✓ U
0 o O ., 0 O .. E sa cd O, 6 -0
O U 7 v 4G (L 0 0 r yw N 6 O 0
•G j"c: 0 rn 0 -O •✓ ca v G 7 0 o d G
O N rN y C (� N G -o N(✓ .: G
�4 Oo O� t0 N G G 6�? Cl GO •, i
O OU GGO N •G '- E N E 0 0.'Ca ' •i- 0.0
"� a -O • N % N O ;
Cs 0"-0*
oo o4••a4iEO 7
3
''.0-o a-� ��oN �OT 2LO N le-
� � �G -Or s d % • •
Is
r
NZ 0 syo cd 9 O `L •
G r �.d N 4� � % C•G N •
o c N N 4 E 0 0 o 0
1o"mod �to� � .paa)
c. -0 7 N �° c► �
N -) o 6 .0 C.
Y
r
0
co
d
to
cD
0
6
Q
0
to
0
0)
t0
O
0
y 0 6 s 4.
�0,6)E-° 0)00
O OY N 0) N O e -0 Z'G
t� 0 r '
NI 6 E� 0 0 E
.. -0- 0- 0 0 y o 3 0
7 0'O O G 0'c6 0 0
Y
cd
tL G • ° ...a N
0 0 Z ,0 @ N� 0 G G
cd O- N 7 Y O tb
0 G
7., O� 'O•j
0 cb ct U N U 7
-"ES 0' G 0 U
-0 0 i6 p 60 O 00
�' O t6 Nd 0 cco N
G G Yt6 N Q ° N 0)
00 0)Z O d d @ ✓
cd
0 N 0 6 (0 0 G'
�•��- 0CS.
°°
0O U� U C6'6 j 0)0)
N
0 0) cc c. 0 4 0
N
N N
° N Er
& c E o � o
.6c
00-u-0.-
0 N 0 6 G 6 ° sN ✓ E E
0 0, s O'° 7 Y •° • 1 0 N N
tdY E Vas 0 0,0 .. G N O
•G° o E o G0 GE C� s E
U d 0
.10v0��0ON OR 70A Gcy
• ON N4
NOOIts°QN,G .-N0NRGN O E 0 •*6 G <6 0 N 7 % O
S.„
00 p U 0 ~0
O-0 OaaN
O ✓ O Z -°
fl cd u, m°- ° O N°
O • U 0 N_ O O 7 N N y° i6
o o%��6� i O-% G
E N 0 U 0'� N� ° O NEN t6
N= N R c6
0 0 -0 O V p. G 7- ✓ N • 4• N C6 N
i6390v605o v°rQO� �G
�• �� �,9 C�c6Y0. m NE N 7 T
� N N U 0 4 R O N— V O
G .0-Is -.0 O N 0) V ) OU 9 N
0 • O a) N 0) �.0�
EN°
N
t0
a
to
c0
OC
0
N
Z
0
J
0
W
CC
Monitoring Responsibility
Q)
E
H
Mitigation Measure
from sensitive receptors nearest the construction site.
ma a c0 8v c° ()
ro
2 U asC a) y — O C
C N c0 O :_• •C c0 U 'Vi CO 0
O .�
U (0 Q uu)) a) _c c U
C to�0 o -c O cn a) c
C a) 00 L_ (0O a) .N O
E c a) f0 Ems O c.)Q 3 Coca)
> O .0 a)a > O •o L
O c 0 • c = O U O
a O a) CIS u) � Ca
U ` a) c c
as 23oo
O(>0 EEEN= i76 -(n'
— x '_ ` O (0 0� 7 0 7
CD ascmc
O C> 2: O L a) O G) a)
LL a) a) Q Q in E H a) U 2 U
4.15 Transportation
>
O V) V
•
C a) C C O L y 00 0 C a) w
(01� 0)0 3- w 7UC as O C
_ a) a) • E m vi
O V) U u) p c0 -a E Q t
O E O
c
N O vi m ai o t a �, m E 0 • E
U a)2 O N 2 u),_ U O U al .0a) 0 U
_c C). E.o C D FD o tn CD i) c"a 3soa
- o .�E
MM 4.15-la
_ a)
O O _
> > C O N O' a1
Cn'co c`o3mo> Eft
07.1
- 7 C�) O >. (/) N
p 7m�•` `) U= c p0
cU a) 00e5� a) or E x
a�•s� •c� C� 3.E cu
crn?oo0)
coi �.- cU rnc°� c coc m-a c
oa) co00°=oC.
(a � a) 15 � t - o m .c ( to
V O> E> p OQ0 2
3 m OU -Q• m
411 O p O O
c ca O (0
«J C D y C C C� / 3C
O C O 2 c 0 0• p 4
CI) C Q•cd + O 2 -0 C.) N
O cnn o •N c U a) R) 3 c a • 2 c0
c O= E o y 0 u) c—• .N-.
0- c Q0'a) oc� E aoi
O > O c � O � U (�
O aJ u)
OQ O U O Uc a)
NY a�i ca a)So« 3-a E O
ca co•coc°o3 oc
Qo�'�oE° mErnow
0 2(r) c o_ E•--
_cCcv(an)tma) < .Ecocci
co
ta