The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRes 2014-13 - PP-HDP 13-198 72000 Chuckawalla WayDe Cotiis Hillside Home PP/HDP 13-198 February 27, 2014 Page 3 of 9 Access to the site is provided from Highway 74 through the Riverside County roads in Cahuilla Hills, via Cahuilla Way, Cholla Way, Paisano Road and Chuckawalla Way. Parcel Map No. 27963, which was recorded under the County of Riverside on August 29, 1995, accepted an owner's offer to dedicate Chuckawalla Way for public road and public utility purposes. This means that the existing dirt road along Chuckawalla Way, which connects to the applicant's property, can be used for legal access. B. Section 25.10.050 Hillside Planned Residential Development Standards: Hillside planned residential development standards. The following standards must be met prior to the approval of a hillside development plan as described in Section 25.78.020: 1. Density. Each lot shall be limited to a maximum of one unit per five acres. All lots will be entitled to at least one unit. 2. Grading. Location of building pads and access roads shall be evaluated, approved, or adjusted based on consistency with the following: i. Preserved natural contours of the land to avoid extensive cut and fill slopes to reduce the need for a staircase effect within developments. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\PP HDP 13-198 Mike DeCotis\Final CC Staff Report.doc Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map ••)1, • -14 , c' Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quad 1Map Rancho Mirage, CA1957 Photorevised 1988 r L TERRA NOVA° Planning & Research, Inc. Pinnacle IS/MND PP/HDP 13-198 Vicinity Map Palm Desert, California Pie International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 3 U= !!n 101 1128 ' r4 Exhibit Pm_ e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 4 Exhibit 2: Preliminary Grading Plan 1140 sic [moor lawman. sINCIUS l 1'reawA Now.. !Woks Ram&br. Pi : a e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 5 Exhibit 3: Preliminary Site Plan Memel* 19/MND PP,TnDP 11198 Site Plan Palm Revert. California Eatull 3 Source: c �. 4 TERRA NOVA® Planning & Resenn;fi, Inc. Exhibit 4: Aerial View Pinnacle IS/MND PPIHDP 13-198 Aerial View Palm Desert, California PiU4le International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 6 Pie International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 7 Exhibit 5: Palm Desert Land Use Map Legend Low Density (R-L) 0-4 du/ao Medium Density (R•M) 4-10 duiac Mixed Use (MU) - Commercial! Hgh Density (R-H) 10-22 duiac Open Space - Private (OS/PV) Open Space - Waterway (OSiFW) Source: Palm Desert General Plan. Updated June 6, 2008 r L 4 TERRA NOVA® Manning & Re earcb. Inc. Pinnacle IS/MNL) PP/HDP 13-198 General Plan Land LTse Palm Desert, California Exhibit 5 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVAL OF A NEW 4,000-SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME INCLUDING A 473- SQUARE-FOOT DETACHED GARAGE ON A HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 72-000 CHUCKAWALLA WAY (APN IS 652- 090-001) SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner APPLICANT: Pinnacle International Realty Group Mike De Cotiis # 300-911 Homer Street Vancouver, BC V6B2W6 CASE NO: PP/HDP 13-198 DATE: February 27, 2014 CONTENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Exhibit A, Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact 3. Draft Initial Study 4. Legal Notice 5. Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 21, 2014 6. Architectural Review Commission Minutes, dated November 12, 2013 7. Three letters submitted from one individual dated August 8, 2013, September 20, 2013, and January 21, 2014 in opposition of the project 8. Site map with directions to view the story poles 9. Plans and Exhibits: Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, Photo Survey Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2�i�_i � ,adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to the project; and approval of a new 4,000-square-foot single-family home, including a detached 473 square-foot garage, on a nine-acre parcel located on a hillside residential property. Resolution No. 2014-13 De Cotiis Hillside Home PP/HDP 13-198 February 27, 2014 Page 2 of 9 Planninq Commission On January 21,2014,the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council of the proposed project on a 5-0 vote. The Commission ultimately supported the project and stated that the applicant has worked well with staff,and was sensitive in addressing the hillside requirements. Architecture Review Commission On November 12, 2013,the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed and approved the project as proposed. The Commission supported the architectural and landscaping design, and the site location. The Commission stated that the design and the materials of the home would blend into the hillside. The Commission liked the simple, modern design with the open glass windows and large overhangs. The Commission discussed the roof material and the location of the HVAC units. The applicant stated that the units would be ground mounted. The Commissioners requested that the applicant minimize the disturbance of the property as much as possible. The ARC granted approval of the new single-family home on an 8-0 vote. Executive Summary Approval of staff's recommendation would adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration,and approve a new 4,000-square-foot single-family residence including a 473-square-foot detached garage.The applicant is requesting two exceptions to the Hillside Planned Residential (H.P.R) development standards. The exceptions include an additional 473 square-feet of structure, and an additional 5,722 square feet of total disturbed area. The property is located on a nine-acre parcel in the "Hillside Planned Residential" (H.P.R.) zone. Backqround A. Property Description: The vacant nine-acre parcel currently has an existing building pad and an existing driveway. The parcel is located in the hillside on the border of the City of Palm Desert and the County of Riverside. The parcel is west of Indian Springs Mobile Home Park, north of Bighorn Mountains Golf Club, and south of Stone Eagle Development.The applicant also owns adjacent parcels to the north, south, and southwest. All the parcels, including the nine acres,total approximately 34 acres.The proposed application only involves the nine- acre parcel known as Assessor's Parcel 652-090-001.The map below identifies the owned parcels, including the nine-acre parcel. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\PP HDP 13-198 Mike DeCotis\Final CC Staff Report.doc De Cotiis Hillside Home PP/HDP 13-198 February 27, 2014 Page 4 of 9 � ii. Architecture and landscape design which blends with the natural terrain to the greatest practical extent. iii. Retention and protection of undisturbed viewsheds,naturallandmarks,and features including vistas and the natural skyline as integral elements. iv. Building Pad Area. The m�imum area permanently disturbed by grading shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. v. Access Road or Driveway. Maximum permanent grading disturbance of natural terrain for development of access to the approved building pad shall be 3,000 square feet. Roads shall be located and designed to blend with the natural terrain to the greatest practical extent consistent with the grading provisions listed in number 2 above. vi. Renaturalization. All cuts, fills, or other areas temporarily disturbed by grading shall be re-naturalized, colored, and landscaped to blend with the adjacent undisturbed natural terrain to the satisfaction of the City council. 3. Maximum Dwelling Unit Size. Total dwelling unit, garage and accessory building size on any one lot shall not exceed 4,000 square feet. 4. Exception. The standards of subsections A.1 through A.3 of this section shall be required unless modified by the precise plan of design, taking into consideration any and all circumstances, including, but not limited to, viewshed, topography, color, texture, and profile of any structure that the Commission or Council may determine to be in conformity with the purposes set forth in this section. 5. Previously approved existing building pads shall be subject to the standard coverage limitations of 35 percent, which may be increased up to 50 percent with ARC approval. Any change to an existing approved building pad shall require a new public hearing subject to the provisions of this chapter. 6. Development on or across ridges is prohibited. 7. Building pads and architecture shall be designed to eliminate or minimize any visual impact on the City to the maximum extent feasible. C. Section 25.78.020 Hillside Development Plan: The purpose of a hillside development plan is to provide for the review of projects within the H.P.R. district to ensure that the design of projects is consistent with the hillside conditions on each development site. Within the H.P.R., no building permit shall be issued for any new building or structure unless a hillside development plan covering the area within has been approved. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word�PP HDP 13•198 Mike DeCotis\Final CC Staff Report.doc De Cotiis Hillside Home PP/HDP 13-198 February 27, 2014 Page 5 of 9 D. Zoning and General Plan Designation: Zone: H.P.R, Hillside Planned Residential General Plan: R-HR, Hillside Reserve E. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: H.P.R, Hillside Planned Residential/Stone Eagle Development South: PCD, Planned Residential/BIGHORN Development East: R-1-M, Conventional Single Family/ Indian Springs Mobile Home Park West: County of Riverside/Cahuilla Hills F. Planning Commission Meeting: At the January 21,2014, Planning Commission meeting, staff presented the project to the Commission. Staff stated that 1,522 legal notices were mailed out to owners of property within 4,000 feet of the subject property. In addition, a legal notice was published in the Desert Sun on December 27, 2013. Staff stated they had received two letters from one property owner within Cahuilla Hills. Staff informed the Commission that they have been working with that property owner for several months, because he has been opposed to the applicant having access through the County roads. Staff stated that the applicant has legal access through Cahuilla Hills, and that the County of Riverside has no concerns. Staff stated that a condition of approval was placed on the project that the applicant must pave the dirt road portion of Chuckawalla Way. The Commission did have some comments and concerns. Commissioner DeLuna expressed concern with reflection coming from the infinity pool. Staff stated that the pool is south facing and glare should not be a factor. Commissioner Stendell asked if the City has any re-naturalization standards. Staff replied that the City does not, but staff works with the applicant to re-naturalize areas to the extent required to satisfy the City. Commissioner Greenwood wanted to verify the location of the A/C units,since they were not shown on the plans. The applicant stated that the A/C units would be located on the ground, not on the roof. During the public hearing, Mr. Paul Bowie,who submitted the two letters in opposition, read his letter dated January 21,2014,which was given to the Commission prior to the meeting. Mr. Bowie stated, if the access way is approved, the applicant should pave the dirt road portion of Chuckawalla Way. He requested that the applicant be conditioned to meet Riverside County standards of street improvements, PM10 requirements, and all other County requirements, prior to the City issuing a building permit. Staff informed Mr. Bowie that a condition of approval imposing these requirements has already been added to the resolution.Overall,the Commission stated that the architecture of the home blends into the hillside, and recommended approval to the City Council on a 5-0 vote. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word�PP HDP 13-198 Mike DeCotis\Final CC Staff Report.dx De Cotiis Hillside Home PP/HDP 13-198 February 27, 2014 Page 6 of 9 Proiect Description The applicant is requesting approval of a hillside development plan for precise plan of design to allow a new 4,000-square-foot single-family home with a 473-square-foot detached garage on a nine-acre parcel. The 4,000-square-foot home consists of a great room, dining room, kitchen, den/office, five bedrooms, six bathrooms, a casita, and wine storage room. The applicant is also proposing to grade 15,722 square feet of pervious and impervious area to accommodate the home, garage, patio areas, pool/deck area, new gravel driveway,and a 9,733-square-foot building pad.The building pad is proposed at the southeast quadrant of the parcel,slightly off centered and placed between two ridgelines. The project site is designed with one driveway with access from Chuckawalla Way, which is currently connected to the applicant's property. The portion of Chuckwalla Way is currently a dirt road. A. Architecture: The proposed home maintains an architectural style that is characterized as modern.The home is one story high with varying rooflines between 11 feet and 14 feet with an overall building height of 18 feet in height. The varying roofline heights are intended to mimic the different levels of hills to break up the massing. The architectural design utilizes strong horizontal lines broken up with smooth metal panel and tinted glass faces. The home maintains deep overhangs and low-emissivity tinted glass to help control the solar heat gain. The building materials include stucco, metal, tinted glass, and colors that are predominantly desert tones that will blend into the natural terrain, and minimize any glare from Highway 74. B. Landscaping: The landscape design consists of a natural desert theme with native species requiring minimal water usage. The proposed landscape plan provides for 30"box Blue Palo Verde trees and 30" box Ironwood trees around the property. In addition, the plan includes a variety of native perennials, grasses, and accents including Desert Agave, Dye Weed, Brittle Brush, Bladder Pod, Ratany, Deer Grass, Desert Mallow,decomposed granite,and boulders. Preliminary approval from the City's Landscape Specialist has been granted.A condition of approval has been placed on the project stating that all landscape and lighting for the facility will be strictly on site, and will not intrude onto surrounding properties. Other conditions are that the plant selection is in conformance with the City's Desert Floral Palette, and a final landscaping plan must be reviewed and approved by the City's Landscaping Manager and by CVWD before building permits are issued. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\PP HDP 13-198 Mike DeCotis\Final CC Staff Report.dx De Cotiis Hillside Home PP/HDP 13-198 February 27, 2014 Page 7 of 9 Analvsis The purpose of the hillside planned residential district is to encourage minimal grading as it relates to the natural contours of the land, while avoiding extensive cut and fill slopes in the hillside area. The development standards also encourage architecture and landscape design that blends with the natural terrain, and protects undisturbed viewsheds and natural landmarks and features, including vistas and the natural skyline, as integral in development proposals in hillside areas. The H.P.R. development standards allow for a maximum dwelling size of 4,000 square feet, including garage and accessory structures. In addition,the total disturbed area allowed is 10,000 square feet.As proposed,the applicant is requesting two exceptions,both of which are allowed by code, one to the maximum area disturbed by grading, and the second to the maximum home square-footage.The exceptions may be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, by taking into consideration such matters as viewsheds, topography, color, texture, re- naturalization of disturbed areas, and sensitive building design and orientation. The following analysis for the exceptions is in the sections below. A. Height/View Shed: The H.P.R. zone does not have a height limit; it's based on the approved precise plan of design by the Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed residence is single- story,with an overall height of 18 feet. In comparison,other single-family zones in the area allow a maximum building height of 18 to 20 feet. • East and southeast - Indian Springs Mobile Home Park and Silver Spur Mobile Home Park/ Maximum roof height of 18 feet. • South - Bighorn Mountains Development/Maximum roof height of 20 feet. • East side of Highway 74 - single-family homes/Maximum roof height of 18 feet. • West - County/ Roof heights between 15 feet and 20 feet. For this project, a variety of visual studies have been prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project. These studies have included on-site field and photographic studies, and the use of story-poles to illustrate the future building heights on site. Staff required the applicant to provide a viewshed studyfrom distinct areas to illustrate any potential impacts from Highway 74 looking west, as well as from locations within the Cahuilla Hills area. The viewshed studies are attached to the staff report. These studies illustrate the building, materials, and color in context with the natural terrain and the surrounding properties. Staff found that there were four small viewing corridors along Highway 74 in front of Silver Spur Mobile Home Park where a small portion of the home is visible.Also,views to the site from public roads within the County and from residents within Silver Spur and Indian Springs Mobile Home Parks looking west were limited. The proposed height and site location is supported by staff, as it will not adversely impact any viewsheds or diminish property values. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word�PP HDP 13-198 Mike DeCotis\Final CC Staff Report.doc De Cotiis Hillside Home PP/HDP 13-198 February 27, 2014 Page 8 of 9 B. Grading: The proposed project will result in disturbing 15,722 square feet. The area exceeds the allowable amount by 5,722 square feet. The total disturbed grading area is 4 percent of the nine-acre parcel. In comparison, the hillside development standards allow 10,000 square feet of grading on a five-acre property. Based on a five-acre property with 10,000 square feet of disturbed area as allowed,the total disturbed area could be 4.5 percent of the parcel. Below is the breakdown. • Building area (dirt) = 5,299 square feet • Two-car garage are =432 square feet • Concrete deck and pool area= 5,069 square feet • Total disturbed impervious area= 9,542 square feet • Driveway area (dirt) = 5,299 square feet • Landscape area (planter) = 2,144 square feet • 2:1 cut/fill slope area= 5,066 square feet • Total disturbed pervious area= 12,509 square feet • Removed/restored/existing driveway area= (-6,329) square feet • Net disturbed pervious area = 6,180 square feet Total disturbed area (pervious and impervious) = 15,722 square feet Site grading is being kept to a minimum and a portion of an existing dirt road will be abandoned and re-naturalized.The manufactured slope supporting the patio and pool area will be naturalized with boulders and desert native landscaping. The new driveway will consist of gravel,which is permeable and allows rainwater to percolate directly into the soil. C. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed project is zoned H.P.R. and designated Hillside Reserve in the General Plan, which requires a maximum of one unit per five acres. These designations are consistent with the proposed land use and project with the processing and approval of the precise plan of design. The project is located in south Palm Desert, where there is a mix of residential developments.The project does not physically divide an existing community,and does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or regulation outlined in the General Plan. In terms of use, the project is consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance, by providing a single-family home, which complies with one unit per five acres. Other aspects of the project, maximum disturbed grading area,and maximum square-footage,can be approved by the exceptions portion of the H.P.R. development standards. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\PP HDP 13-198 Mike DeCotis\Final CC StaH Report.doc De Cotiis Hillside Home PP/HDP 13-198 February 27, 2014 Page 9 of 9 Conclusion Staff is very cognizant of the sensitivity of developing within the hillside.The applicant is requesting two exceptions which are allowed by code.The exceptions are merited based on architecture and landscaping design that will blend into the natural terrain and protect viewsheds and natural skylines in the hillside areas. The additional square footage and the disturbed grading area of 4 percent of the nine-acre parcel are minimal.The building's architecture incorporates flat roofs with a maximum height of 18 feet, stucco, metal,tinted glass,and colors that are predominantly desert tones that will blend into the natural terrain,and minimize any glare from Highway 74.All disturbed areas will be re-naturalized with native landscaping that will also blend into the natural terrain. Overall, staff supports the two exceptions since the project's site design, architecture, color, materials,and landscaping effectively achieve the HPR's goals of blending development into the natural terrain. Environmental Review According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA,staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt,further environmental review is necessary. Further review from a non-exempt project would result in a Negative Declaration,a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Generally, an EIR must be prepared if a project may have a significant impact on the environment. In this case, the proposed project includes the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to the project, pursuant to section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigation measures required to minimize environmental impact are fully described in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. Submitted By: C��,,,,�,�Ox , �` '. .�, �;�-, � )/_, APPROVED DENTED (•� RECF1VrD OTSER Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner MEE " Department Head: A�s= , � NOE� _ --� -�'� .�---� pBSENh ; ��-� .7 ,, ��: �-- � '�� - / ABs�'AII�Ts �auri A laian, Director of Community evel BY� L_QrI�MiI M F�M w►iti Ciqr '�O�iar Appro . J n M. Wohlmuth, City Manager \Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\PP HDP 13-198 Mike DeCotis\Final CC StaN Report.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND APPROVAL OF A NEW 4,000-SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME INCLUDING A 473-SQUARE-FOOT DETACHED GARAGE ON A HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 72-000 CHUCKAWALLA WAY (APN IS 652-090-001). CASE NO. PP/HDP 13-198 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 27t" day of February 2014, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Mike DeCotis, Pinnacle International Realty Group, for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 21St day of January 2014, hold a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval to the City Council of the request by Mike DeCotiis, Pinnacle International Realty Group, for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further environmental review is necessary. Further review from a non-exempt project would result in a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Generally, an EIR must be prepared if a project may have a significant impact on the environment. The said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2013-16, in the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed project includes the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to the project (Exhibit "A"), pursuant to section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigation measures required to minimize environmental impact are fully described in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons, which are outlined in the staff report reasons to approve the said request: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings for approval of the City Council in this case. 2. That the City Council does hereby approve PP/HDP 13-198. RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 27th day of February 2014, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VAN G. TANNER, MAYOR ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\PP HDP 13-198 Mike DeCotis\Final CC Res RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO: PP/HDP 13-198 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein, which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Building & Safety Department City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Riverside County Transportation Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 4. All conditions of approval shall be recorded with the Riverside County Clerk's office before any building permits are issued. Evidence of recordation shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development/Planning. 5. Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city against any third party legal challenge to these approvals, with counsel chosen by the city at applicant's expense. 6. Any proposed change to the project request will require an amendment, which will result in a new public hearing. 7. The applicant is responsible to obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the County of Riverside to pave the portion of Chuckawalla Way that is currently a dirt road, which provides access to the site. The applicant must submit and improve the dirt road to the County street standards prior to issuance of a permit of occupancy. 8. The proposed project shall be required to abide by the City's outdoor lighting standards. A lighting plan must be submitted as part of the construction plans and approved prior to development. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\PP HDP 13-198 Mike DeCotis\Final CC Res RESOLUTION NO. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: 9. Prior to grading permit issuance the applicant shall submit grading and landscape plans for review and approval by the Public Works Department. 10. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 27.12.056 the applicant shall retain the stormwater from a one hundred year, twenty-four hour, duration storm on site, if proposed developed onsite area is one acre or more. 11. If proposed construction activity disturbs one acre or more, prior to grading permit issuance the applicant shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the State Water Resources Control Board or the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. 12. If proposed development creates 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area, the applicant shall submit a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for approval prior to grading permit issuance. The WQMP shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the Operation and Maintenance Section of the approved final WQMP shall be recorded with County's Recorder Office and a conformed copy shall be provided to the Public Works Department. 13.The applicant shall comply with all provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control. Access drive, the dirt road portion of Chuckawalla Way, and pad parking shall be paved or sealed to conform with PM10 regulations. 14. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.15, all manufactured slopes shall be planted or otherwise protected from the effects of storm water runoff and erosion. 15.The applicant shall submit a landscape plan concurrently with the precise grading plan for review and approval. Applicants are advised to use the City of Palm Desert Design Guide when designing plans. Landscape plans must meet the following criteria: a. Must be water efficient in design and meet the City of Palm Desert's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Chapter 24 section 4. b. Planting plans must show location of proposed and existing utilities. c. Must match approved civil plans. d. All specs and details must be site specific. e. Applicants must have CVWD approval of their irrigation plans prior to City approval. f. Applicants must have a stamp or signature from the County Agricultural Commissioner before City approval. 16.Any deviation from the approved plans shall be reviewed for approval by the City Engineer prior to work commencing. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\PP HDP 13-198 Mike DeCotis\Final CC Res RESOLUTION NO. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY: 17.This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes: A. 2010 California Building Code and its appendices and standards. B. 2010 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards. C. 2010 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards. D. 2010 California Electrical Code. E. 2010 California Energy Code. F. 2010 California Green Building Standards Code G. Title 24, California Code of Regulations. H. 2010 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards. 18.All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 19.All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 20.Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1217 (Palm Desert Municipal Code 15.15. Compliance with Ordinance 1217 regarding street address location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from street, height from grade, height from street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may render the building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review process. You may request a copy of Ordinance 1217 or Municipal Code Section 15.28 from the Department of Building and Safety counter staff. Please contact Cherie Williams, Building and Safety Technician, at the Department of Building and Safety (760-776-6420) regarding the addressing of all buildings and/or suites. 21. Local School District "Square Footage Verification Forms" will be required before permit issuance. For questions regarding applicable school fees, please contact either: • Desert Sands Unified School District: (760) 771-8515 http://web 1.dsusd.k 12.ca.us/BusinessServices/Facilitres/Papes/DeveloperFees.aspx • Palm Springs Unified School District: (760) 416-6159 Palm Sprinqs Unified School District : Developer Fees 22. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) will apply for this project. Please consult Karen Doyle, Permit Specialist II, within the Department of Building and Safety for further information. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\PP HDP 13-198 Mike DeCotis\Final CC Res RESOLUTION NO. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 23. GATES - Gate openings shall be as wide as the minimum 20 foot required width of the access lane(s) entering and exiting the development. Gates shall be located at least 35 feet into the development property to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. (General Condition). 24. CONSTRUCTION ADDRESS - The site address shall be clearly posted at the job site entrance during construction. This will enable incoming emergency equipment and inspectors to locate the job site from the assigned street. Numbers shall be a minimum of 24 inches in height. (General Condition). 25. ROOFING - All buildings shall be constructed with Class B roofing material as per the California Building Code. (General Condition). 26. REVIEW FEE - Building/Tenant Improvement plans have been reviewed; however, a separate plan check fee shall be paid to the City of Palm Desert, at the Building Department counter, at time of pick-up. (Prior to Building Permit Issuance). 27. WATER PLANS - Applicant and/or developer shall separately submit two (2) sets of water system plans to the Palm Desert Fire Marshal's office for review. Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and/or water purveyor prior to Fire Marshal review and approval. Mylar will be signed by the Fire Marshal after review and approval. Two (2) copies of the signed and approved water plans shall be returned to the Fire Marshal's office before release of a building permit. (Prior to Building Permit Issuance): 28. WATER CERTIFICATION - Applicant and/or developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water purveyor noting the location and type of existing fire hydrant(s) and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 1500 gpm fire flow for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system/hydrant(s) currently does not exist, the applicant and/or developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. (Prior to Building Permit Issuance). 29. INSTALL FIRE SPRINKLERS - The fire sprinkler system within the building or tenant space was approved for the original layout and commodities of the original or a past occupancy. The sprinkler system will need to be modified and designed in accordance with adopted standards. A licensed C-16 contractor shall do all sprinkler work and/or certification. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal's office for review and approval prior to installation. (Prior to building final inspection). 30. GATES - Gate(s) shall be automatic or manual operated. Install Knox key operated switches with dust cover, installed mounted as recommended by the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Palm Desert Fire Marshal's office for approval of mounting location/position and/or operating standards. Special forms are available from this office for ordering the Key Switch. (Prior to building final inspection). 31. FIRE LANES - Applicant/developer shall prepare a site plans designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane paintings and/or signs. Plans must be submitted to the Fire G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\PP HDP 13-198 Mike DeCotis\Final CC Res RESOLUTION NO. Marshal's office for review and approval. (Prior to building final inspection). 32. EXISTING FIRE LANES - Existing fire lanes shall be maintained and additional fire lanes may be required. Contact the Fire Marshal's office for guidance and any plan requirements. (Prior to building final inspection). 33. ADDRESS - Display street numbers in a prominent location on the address side of building(s) and rear access if applicable. Numbers and letters shall be in accordance with the Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 15.28 Table 15.28.020A. All addressing must be legible, of a contrasting color with the background and adequately illuminated to be visible from the street at all hours. Alt lettering shall be to Architectural Standards. (Prior to building final inspection). 34. SUBJECT TO FIELD INSPECTION - Nothing in our review shall be construed as encompassing structural integrity. Review of this plan does not authorize or approve any omission or deviation from all applicable regulations. Final approval is subject to field inspection. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\PP HDP 13-198 Mike DeCotis\Final CC Res RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. CASE NO: PP/HDP 13-198 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Consideration of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and approval of a new 4,000-square-foot single-family home including a 473-square-foot detached garage on a hillside residential property located at 72-000 Chuckawalla Way (APN is 652- 090-001). The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to the document with the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\PP HDP 13-198 Mike DeCotis\Final CC Res � .� � � Pi�',. , e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 1 �,�•._.`�..�-"�r, �� = CITY OF PALM DESERT �� r � E �4 73-510 Fred Waring Drive � • Palm Desert, California 92260 Phone: (760) 346-0611 Fax: (760) 341-7098 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Project Title: Mike DeCotiis Hillside Home Case No: PP/HDP 13-198 and Mitigated Negative Declaration Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Phone: (760) 346-0611 Fax: (760) 341-7098 Applicant: Pinnacle International Realty Group II Inc. 300-911 Homer Street Vancouver, BC, Canada Representative: John D. Criste, AICP Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. 42-635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Phone: 760-341-4800 Contact Person: Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, City of Palm Desert And Phone Number: 760-346-0611 Project Location: Chuckawalla Way, Cahuilla Hills Palm Desert, CA 92260 APN: 652-070-001 & 652-090-001 General Plan Designation: Hillside Reserve (1 D«/5 Ac) Zoning Designation: Hillside Planned Residential (H.P.R.) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purpose and Need The project proposes the construction of a single-family residence in an area designated as "Hillside Planned Residential" (HPR). This designation requires a separate "Precise Plan" development approval for projects in the hillside development in order to assure minimal and contoured hillside grading, avoidance of excess cut and fill slopes, building and landscape design that blends with the natural terrain, and retention of scenic vistas, and natural landmarks and features. .� Pi��,_ �1e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 2 The proposed development exceeds the allowed maximum grading area of 10,000 square feet, proposing approximately 15,772 square feet of site disturbance. The total building size exceeds the allowable 4,000 square foot limit by approximately 473 square feet. Project Location and Limits The proposed project is located in the on the border of the City of Palm Desert and the County of Riverside, and is accessed from Highway 74 via Cahuilla Way, Cholla Way, Paisano Road and Chuckawalla Way. The site is located a short distance upslope and northwest of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel and is just south of the Stone Eagle development. The project involves Assessor's Parcel 652-090-001, and lands to the south, southeast and north are under the same ownership. The project site can also be described as a portion of the S 1/2 of the W 1/2 of Government Lot 2, in the NW1/4 of Section 31, T.SS., R.6E. Project Description The project proposes the construction of a single-family residence on a 9-acre parcel. The development site includes access by the westerly extension of Chuckawalla Way. The proposed residence would encompass approximately 4,500 square feet (residence proper is 4,000 s�, including the garage, and would result in a total disturbed area of approximately 15,772 square feet. The residence will be a stepped single story with a maximum height of 18-feet above grade. The landscape plan calls for a xeriscape design with boulders, gravels and native and other draught-tolerant trees, shrubs and groundcovers. The project also involves the abandonment and re-naturalization of an existing dirt road that encompasses approximately 6,329 square feet. A six-foot chain link fence is also proposed to surround and enclose the development portion of the site. Proposed grading will create a 10,000± square foot building pad with the garage and access drive terminating at the upslope portion of the development site, and the pool and landscaped fill area oriented to the south (see Exhibit 2: Preliminary Grading Plan). Surrounding Land Uses & Setting North: Scattered single family residential, Stone Eagle development, vacant foothills South: Vacant foothills, extensive grading, debris basin, Palm Valley Stormwater Channel East: Vacant foothills, Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, multi-family residential West: Scattered single family residential, vacant foothills Other Required Public Agency Approvals None required. Summary of CEQA Findings: This Initial Study has been prepared in conformance with Section 15063 and other applicable sections of the CEQA Guidelines, to determine if the project, as proposed, may have a significant effect upon the environment in general and hillside and viewshed assets in particular. Based upon the findings contained within this report, the Initial Study will be used in support of the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. � .� Pi��e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 8 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and ❑ Air Quality Forestr Resources ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards & ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality Emissions Hazardous Materials ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service ❑ Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance Pi�.;:.�le International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 9 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared. � I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must anal ze onl the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothin fiirther is re uired. Signature: Lauri Aylaian Date: Community Development Director Cit of Palm Desert � Pi►�i.�e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 10 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault nipture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant ImpacY' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiring, program EIR or EIS, or other CEQA or NEPA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or EIS or negative declaration or FONSI. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of e�ch issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance c) Minimization measures, if any, if mitigation measures are not required � P��:��le International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 11 Environmental Checklist and Discussion: The following checklist evaluates the proposed project's potential adverse impacts. For those environmental topics for which a potential adverse impact may exist, a discussion of the existing site environment related to the topic is presented followed by an analysis of the project's potential adverse impacts. When the project does not have any potential for adverse impacts for an environmental topic, the reasons why there are no potential adverse impacts are described. Potentially Less Than Less Than No 1.AESTHETICS--Would the project: Significant Significant Signiticant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Inco oration a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ � ❑ b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and � ❑ historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ � c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? � � � � d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views ❑ � � � in the area? Source:Project plans and materials;Site surveys;City of Palm Desert Municipal Code;Visualizations,JYOM Architecture, 2013;Site survey. Background: The subject property is located on the border of the City of Palm Desert and the County of Riverside. The area is in the southwest quadrant of the City of Palm Desert in the Coachella Valley area of Riverside County. The areas scenic resources include the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains to the south and west, respectively, and the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the north. The subject property is in the lower foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains west of State Highway 74, with rising terrain to the northwest. The site has been extensively impacted by a network of dirt roads that have somewhat marred the site. Scenic views in the project area include all cardinal points and views from Highway 74 also take in portions of the Cahuilla Hills, although these views are substantially screen by intervening development. Discussion of Impacts: a) The proposed project will result in the grading of a 9,733 square-foot pad and the extension of a private driveway to the home site. The residence will be sited on the southeast-facing slope of the property a short distance north of Chuckawalla Way extended. Lands to the west and northwest are of higher elevations and include scattered single-family development. Lands farther west and northwest are rising terrain forming a more distance backdrop. The project will also remove and re-naturalize 6,328± square feet of existing dirt road on the property. Views to the site from public roads are limited. The site also includes lands closer to Highway 74, which will not be disturbed. As planned for integration into the slope, with rising terrain above and with the use of desert vegetation and boulders, the proposed project should have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas in the area. b-c) The project site is not located in proximity to a scenic highway or historic building and is consistent with surrounding residential development, although State Highway 74 is an Eligible Scenic Highway but has not be so designated by Caltrans. � .;� Pii.:�e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 12 The visual character of the site and area has already been impacted by the surrounding development of formal and informal roads, and scattered and continuing single-family residential development on surrounding lands. The building grading plan, design, color scheme and landscape plan should help integrate the proposed home into the hillside. The development is not expected to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. The affected portion of the site will follow the natural contours of the hillside, resulting in site disturbance substantially conforming to the existing surrounding slope and rock outcroppings. The landscape plan calls for the use of boulders in "desert gold". It is recommended that newly fractured and imported rock should be treated with an oxidation accelerant (Permeon or equivalent) to match the natural desert varnish of the surrounding rock (see mitigation measures below). Also, landscaping will be applied to the affected areas to remain consistent with surrounding properties. With implementation of such measures, impacts to the visual character of site and scenic resources will be less than significant. d) The proposed project will result in the abandonment and re-naturalization of an existing dirt road and the construction of a new gravel driveway, resulting in a modest reduction in on-site road disturbance. A lighting plan was not provided with the project landscape plan and, given the site's prominent location, thoughtfully designed and minimally illuminated lighting should be prescribed (see mitigation measures below). Landscape and security lighting should be minimal and may be associated with driveway illumination, landscaping and the entryway, and should be consistent with the type and intensity of light generated by existing single-family development in the immediate vicinity. The proposed project will be required to abide by the City's outdoor lighting standards, which requires lighting practices that reduce light pollution. A lighting plan must be submitted as a part of the final landscape plan and approved prior to development, and all required conditions of approval will be applied. With implementation of these measures and compliance with City lighting standards, lighting impacts associated with the proposed project are expected to be less than significant Minimization Measures (If any): Minimization measures have been incorporated into the project design and include minimum driveway width and abandonment of a dirt road. Landscaping will enhance and re-naturalize the modified slope and landscape lighting must be shielded to avoid spillage onto the road or adjoining properties. Mitigation l. Grading and rock removal shall be closely monitored, native rock should be stored and used in re-landscaping the site once construction is completed to assure minimal impacts and the creation of a rock surface that mimics natural rock assemblages in the vicinity. 2. Both native and imported fractured rock shall be treated with an oxidation accelerant (Permeon or equivalent) to match the natural desert varnish of the surrounding rock. 3. The detailed landscape and lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by City staff to assure minimal and unobtn►sive lighting in conformance with applicable City standards and guidelines. ( � Pi`t�le International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 13 : Monitoring A. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, City staff shall review and approve a detailed landscaping and lighting plan, which details the type, placement and wattage of landscape and security lighting at the site. Responsible Parties: Project landscape architect, project manager, Community Development Department. 2.AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES--In determining whether impacts to Potentially Less Than Less Than No agricultural resources are significant environmental Significant Signiticant Significant Impact effects, lead agencies may refer to the California lmpact with Mitigation Impact Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Incorporation Model(I 997)prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland,are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land,including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the ro'ect: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California ❑ � � � Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b)Contlict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? � � � � c)Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,forestland(as defined in Public Resources Code ❑ � � � Section 12220(g)),timberland(as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code section 51 104( ))? d)Result in the loss of foresdand or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? � � � � e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which,due to their location or nature,could result in convcrsion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? � � � � Source: City of Palm Desert 2004 General Plan; California Department of Conservation; Farmiand Mapping & Monitoring Program. 2001. Background: The City of Palm Desert is located in a desert environment containing soils that are characterized as sandy and rocky. The project site is located on rocky slopes of decomposed granitic rock with areas of limited, shallow soils, being the extension of the Santa Rosa Mountains foothills. No agricultural activities occur in close proximity to the project site nor are there any identified agricultural lands in the City or the vicinity, the closest such lands being located in the eastern portion of the valley. � � Pii��e International Hi(lside Deve(opment CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 14 Discussion of Impacts: a) The subject property is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, according to the California Department of Conservation, nor is it used for agricultural purposes. Additionally, there are no properties in the immediate area designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance. The project area is designated as "Urban and Built-Up Land" by the State, and has a General Plan designation of"Hillside Reserve". The proposed project will have no impact on farmlands. b) There are no Williamson Act contracts on the subject property or properties in the immediate vicinity. The subject property is currently designated " Hillside Reserve " and is surrounded by scattered very low-density residential development and vacant desert slopes. The Stone Eagle development is located a short distance to the north and higher density residential development occurs east and southeast on the east side of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the surrounding land use pattern. The proposed project will not conflict with surrounding zoning designations. c,d) The subject property is not located in an area designated as forest land and will not conflict with forestland zoning. The project will not result in the loss of forestland. e) As described above, the proposed project is not designated as farmland, or located near areas of existing farmland; therefore, the project will not result in the direct conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses. Minimization Measures (If any): Mitigation: None required Monitoring: None required 3.AIR QUALITY—Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air Potentially Less Than Less Than No quality management or air pollution controi district Significant Significant Significant Impact may be relied upon to make the following Impact with Mitigation Impact determinations. Would the ro'ect: Incor oration a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? � � � � b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? � � � � c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federa(or state ambient air quality standard(including � � � � releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone recursors)? d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial po(lutant concentrations? � � � � e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of eo le? � � � � Sources: CaIEEMod Version 201 l.l.l;Project grading plans;SCAQMD AQMP,2012;Coachella Valley PMio SIP,2003. -� Pi}�. ` e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page l5 Background: The City of Palm Desert is located in the Coachella Valley, which is a low elevation desert environment characterized by low annual rainfall (2 to 6 inches per year) and low humidity, with temperatures ranging from 80° F to 108 °F in July and 40° F to 57° F in Jamiary. The Coachella Valley is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). All development within the SSAB is subject to SCAQMD's 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (2012 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PMio State Implementation Plan (2003 CV PMio SIP). The SCAQMD operates and maintains regional air quality monitoring stations at numerous locations throughout its jurisdiction. The proposed site is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes monitoring stations in Palm Springs and Indio. The Indio site has been operational since 1985 and the Palm Springs site since 1987. Historically, the Coachella Valley has been classified as being in non-attainment for both ozone (03) and PMio. The Federal Clean Air Act has classified the SSAB as a "serious" non-attainment area for the 8- hour state standard. SCAQMD recognizes that neighboring South Coast Air Basins contribute to local ozone levels, which make it difficult for the region to come into compliance with Federal ozone standards by June 2013. Therefore, the SSAB has requested a reclassification of "severe-15" and must achieve attainment by June 15, 2019. In regards to PMio, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) approved the Coachella Valley PM�o Redesignation Request on February 25, 2010. SCAQMD requested redesignation by the US EPA from serious nonattainment to attainment for the PM�o National Ambient Air Quality Standard. According to the EPA, the Coachella Valley is still classified as being in serious nonattainment for PM10 as of July 31, 2013. Discussion of Impacts: a) The project will be developed in accordance with all applicable air quality management plans. The subject property is located within the SSAB, which is governed by the SCAQMD. SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring criteria air pollutant concentrations and establishing management policies for the SSAB. As previously mentioned, all development within the SSAB, including the proposed project, is subject to the 2012 AQMP and the 2003 CVPMio SIP. The 2012 AQMP is a comprehensive plan that establishes control strategies and guidance on regional emission reductions for air pollutants. It was based, in part, on the land use plans of the jurisdictions in the region. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Palm Desert's land use designations assigned to the subject property, and therefore, is consistent with the intent of the 2012 AQMP. b-c) Both constniction and operational phases of the proposed project will result in the release of criteria air pollutants. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) was used to project air quality emissions that will be generated by construction and operation of the proposed residence. Construction Emissions As discussed above, construction activities result in the emission of air quality pollutants from site preparation, grading, building construction, and off gassing from paving and architectural coating. The site is currently vacant and does not contain pre-existing structures or facilities. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that constri.iction will occur over a 6-month period extending from about January 2014 to June 2015.Criteria pollutant emissions from construction activities are short term, and will end once construction is complete. Pi�.��le International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page l6 As shown in Table l, emissions generated by construction activities will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. The data reflect average daily emissions over the 6-month construction period. It should be mentioned that the table below shows the worst- case emission scenario and projected unmitigated emissions. Table 1 Construction Emissions for the Pinnacle Residence (lbs per day) CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 Construction Emissions 17.08 30.30 47.86 0.04 8.52 2.02 SCAQMD Threshold 550.00 100.00 75.00 150 00 150 00 55 00 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: CaIEEMod Version 201 I.l.L Value shown represents the average emissions from summer and winter, unmitigated.See Appendix A. Implementation of standard reduction measures during construction will further reduce emission levels. Applicable reduction measures include, but are not limited to, the implementation of dust control practices in conformance with SCQAMD Rule 403 and proper maintenance and limited idling of heavy equipment. Impacts to air quality from construction of the proposed project for criteria pollutants, therefore, will be less than significant. Operational Emissions Operational emissions are ongoing emissions that will occur over the life of the residential use. The project will result in a new private driveway and the abandonment and re-naturalization of an existing dirt road. Operational emissions will be associated with the use of electricity and natural for lighting, HVAC and other uses. According to the CaIEEMod report (see Appendix A), the project is only expected to emit 0.54 lbs/day of ROG due to the ongoing use of landscaping equipment and general maintenance activities. Table 2 Operational Emissions for the Pinnacle Residence (lbs per day) CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 Operation Emissions 0.88 0.41 0.54 0 00 0 I 3 0 03 SCAQMD Threshold 550.00 100.00 75.00 150 00 150 00 55 00 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: CaIEEMod Version 20l I.I.l. Value shown represents the average emissions from summer and winter. See Appendix A. Non-Attainment Historically, the Coachella Valley, which includes the proposed project site, has been classified as a "non-attainment" area for PMio and Ozone. The proposed project will contribute to a modest incremental increase in regional ozone and PMio emissions. However, this impact is not expected to be cumulatively considerable. Project construction and operation emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for PMio or ozone precursors (NOX), and appropriate standard reduction measures will be implemented that will further reduce emissions. The project will not conflict with any attainment plans and will result in less than significant impacts. c) The nearest sensitive receptors to the subject property are single-family homes located immediately west and northwest of the project site. Medium density residential development occurs across the stormwater channel and approximately 500-feet to the southeast. As discussed above, the proposed project will not result in violations of SCAQMD thresholds during its construction or operation. i� = % Pi�-.�le International Hillside Development CEQA Ini[ial Study/December 2013/Page 17 d) The mass rate LST Look-Up Table was used to determine if the proposed project has the potential to generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. LST for SRA 30 (Coachella Valley) are summarized in the table below for sensitive receptors located 50 meters from the emission source (single-family homes located immediately west and northwest). The area of disturbance onsite will be limited 1-acres. As shown below in Table 3, LST thresholds will not be exceeded during construction of the proposed project. Table 3 Localized Signi�cance Thresholds (lbs/day) CO NOx/NO2 PM10* PM2.5* Construction 17.08 30.30 8.52 2.02 LST 1,387 166 13 5 Exceed? No No No No Operation 0.88 0.41 0.13 0.03 LST 1,387 166 3 2 Exceed? No No No No Emission Source: CaIEEMod Version 201 l.l.L Value shown represents the average unmitigated emissions from summer and winter.See Appendix A. Source:Mass Rate Look-up Table,SCAQMD.Area Source Receptor 30(Coachella Valley)for a l-acre project,sensitive receptor at 50 meters. Potential effects to sensitive receptors will be further reduced through the implementation of effective dust control practices in conformance with SCAQMD Rule 403. These include, but are not limited to, the use of soil stabilizers, routine watering of unpaved roads and disturbed surfaces, reduced vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, routine cleaning of roads, and covering of import/export soils during transport. Air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors will be less than significant. e) The project will result in the development of a 4,000 square foot single-family residence and private driveway, and is not expected to create objectionable odors. Minimization Measures None Mitigation 1. Standard dust control measures, including site watering, soils stabilization and covered hauling of imported and exported materials shall be required as a part of this project. Monitoring A. Rock removal, grading activities and associated dust emissions shall be closely monitored. City staff shall be notified of any excess dust emissions or excess soils remaining and not removed from Chuckawalla Way or other local streets, which could contribute to local dust emissions. Responsible Parties: Grading contractor, project manager, Department of Building & Safety. � Pir. }�e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page l8 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES--Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identitied as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local ❑ ❑ � � or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the ❑ ❑ � � California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to, marsh, ❑ ❑ � � vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal,filling, h drolo ical interru tion,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife ❑ ❑ � � corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Contlict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree ❑ � � � reservation olic or ordinance? t)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat ❑ ❑ � � conservation lan? Sources:Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan,and CEQA/NEPA EIR/EIS,2007;Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2004;Biological Survey of the Crest Development Site,prepared by AMEC Earth&Environmental, 2002. Background: The project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Palm Desert that has been impacted over several decades through the introduction of dirt and paved roadways, introduction of non-native plant species, flood control projects and development of single-family residences. The site is located in the lower foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The nearest Conservation Area as established by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) is the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, which is located approximately one-half miles from the site. An on-foot site survey was conducted to evaluate the value of habitat, including the occurrence of sensitive plant and wildlife species. No sign of Peninsular bighorn sheep (scat, bedding areas, scrapes, etc.) were identified at or in the vicinity of the site, which is consistent with the proximity of the site to existing development, including roads and homes. The nearest recorded historic sheep sighting is approximately three-quarters of a mile to the west. Native vegetation was limited to creosote bush (Larrea tridentata); brittle bush (Encilin f�irinosc�); and desert lavender (Hyptis emori). No sensitive plant species were identified nor are any expected to occur in the vicinity. � Pi�.�e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 19 Discussion of Impacts: a) The project site is located east of identified critical habitat for the federal and state listed Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS), which occupy the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. The subject property is located at the eastern margin of the Cahuilla Hills, an irregular lower area of the Santa Rosa Mountains foothills. The site is surrounded by existing residential development, flood control improvements and vacant desert. Therefore, the site is substantially isolated from occupied sheep habitat, and will not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, on PBS or any other species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. b-c) The proposed project site is not located on or near areas of riparian habitat or wetlands. The project site is located on the rocky lower slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains foothills. The proposed project will have no impact on riparian species or habitat, wetlands or other sensitive natural communities, including marshes or vernal pools, or through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption of a natural drainage. d) The project will have a very limited impact on lands along the margin of the Santa Rosa Mountain foothills, and is bounded on the east by limited vacant lands and a flood control channel. Other development in the area is a deterrent to wildlife movement, although a variety of mammals, reptiles and birds may move through the area. Only a limited portion of the 18+ acre site will be enclosed in a chain link fence, limiting the effect on wildlife movement. Project development and associated site disturbance and proposed improvements will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e- � The subject site lies outside the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area established by the adopted Coachella Valley MSHCP. It does, however, occur within the fee mitigation area established by the plan and a pro rata impact fee will be required prior to the issuance of grading permits or site development. Implementation of mitigation measures set forth below will further reduce impacts to levels that area less than significant. Minimization Measures: None. Mitigation While the subject property is not located adjacent to a CVMSHCP Conservation Area and is expected to have a less than significant impact on sensitive plants or wildlife, the following measures are recommended to further avoid or minimize potential "edge effects." These mitigation measures further minimize potential impacts to biological resources. 1. The following measures shall be implemented by the project to assure minimum impacts to sensitive plants and wildlife. Toxics: No improvements or product that require hazardous or toxic chemicals, or that generate toxic or potentially toxic bioproducts, or may adversely impact native wildlife and plant species, their habitat, or water quality, should be use. . Pi��e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 20 Li,htin� Project lighting, including landscape, roadway and entrance drive lighting, shall be shielded and directed away from adjoining lands. Landscape shielding or other appropriate methods shall be incorporated in project designs to minimize the effects of lighting adjacent lands. Minimal lighting is recommended throughout the project. Noise: Noise generated from project development shall be kept to the lowest level practicable. Rock removal and other construction noise generating activities shall be completed in the most expeditious manner practicable. No blasting is planned as a part of the rock removal process. Invasive Plants: Landscape plans for the project shall avoid the use of invasive, non-native plant species. Ornamental plant species to be avoided include but are not limited to oleander (see Table 4-113 of the CVMSHCP. To the maximum extent feasible, Coachella Valley native plant species (see Table 4-112 of the CVMSHCP) will be incorparated into the project landscape des ign. 2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall pay a pro rata share of developer impact fees as required under the CVMSHCP. The project engineer shall calculate and document the amount of new disturbance associated with the subject project, which shall serve as the basis for the fee mitigation. Monitoring A. Prior to the initiation of rock removal, the required detailed landscaping and lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department for consistency with the above mitigation measures. Responsible Parties: Project landscape architect, project manager, City Community Development Department. B. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the City shall collect the requisite developer impact mitigation fee required under the CVMSHCP. Responsible Parties: Project manager, City Community Development Department. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES--Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Signiticant Signiticant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incor oration a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as detined in ❑ � � � §15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant � � � � to § 15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic � ❑ � ❑ feature? d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? � � � � Sources: Project development plans;Site survey,December 2013;Palm Desert&EIR,2004;Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for the Crest Project,prepared by CRM Tech,April 22,2002. � Pi�'�>.:�e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 2l Background: Cultural and Historic Resources-_Cultural resources in the Coachella Valley are typically found in specific locale associated with habitation sites, lithic workshops, water sources and food gathering and milling sites. Trails and sacred places are also sometimes identified in the valley. The City of Palm Desert is located within the territory ethnographically associated with the Cahuilla people. This language group is within the Cupan subgroup of the Takic family of the Uta-Aztecan stock. The Takic family includes Cupeno, Gabrielino, and the Luiseno people. Prehistorically, a large portion of Cahuilla territory was inundated by Lake Cahuilla, which provided the focus for settlement and resources in the eastern portion of the Coachella Valley. The northwestern-most extension of ancient Lake Cahuilla was at Point happy, today the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111, approximately five miles east of the project site. The first noted European explorers in the Coachella Valley were Jose Romero, Jose Maria Estudillo and Romualdo Pacheco. They traveled through the Coachella Valley on expeditions searching for a route to Yuma, Arizona between 1823 and 1825. In 1862, the Cocomaricopa Trail, an ancient Native American trade route, was "discovered" by William David Bradshaw and subsequently was referred to as the Bradshaw Trail. During the 1860s and 1870s, until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad (now Union Pacific), the Bradshaw Trail was the primary thoroughfare between southern California and the Colorado River. This historic wagon road followed a path similar to present-day Highway 111, located about 1.5 miles north of the project site. In the 1870s, with the establishment of railroad stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad, settlement of the Coachella Valley by peoples of European decent began. The Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws in the 1880s further expanded settlement. Artesian wells served to establish farming as the primary economic activity in the eastern portion of the valley and east of the City. In the project vicinity, there is evidence of food gathering and milling sites associated with the stand of mesquite found in Bnice Creek to the north. Several surveys have been conducted on lands in the vicinity, including near the subject property (CA-Riv-88/578/3138 and 2955). The area lands north of the site appear to harbor the most archaeological resources, including rock cairns, ceramic scatters, milling and lithic work sites, and habitat debris. These sites, which are approximately one-half miles north of the subject property, are thought to be associated with ethno-botanical resources (honey and screw bean mesquite) found in the mouth of Bruce Creek. Most of these resources are comprised of single milling slicks and pottery shards. The proposed project involves the limited grading and site disturbance to provide a new access drive and a 4,500± square foot building pad for a 4,000 square foot home and two-car garage. Total site disturbance will total about 15,700 square feet. The project includes removal of an existing dirt road and the construction of another drive. Neither the project site nor immediate area indicated any current or historic sources of water. Also there were no ethno-botanical resources, such as honey or screw bean mesquite, or desert fan palm on the site nor other ethno-botanical resources. No signs of habitat were identified and no other cultural resources were found. Paleontological Resources- During the site survey, conditions were evaluated for their potential to harbor paleontological resources. Fossil remains are found primarily in the geologic deposits within which they were originally buried. Since there is a direct relationship between fossils and the types of rock formations where they can be found, knowledge of the geology of an area can help in predicting the likelihood of the existence of fossils. � r � Pi�1.-:`� e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 22 Paleontological resources are limited and nonrenewable. The west Coachella Valley has yielded a variety of fossils in the past, but are mainly found in the sedimentary formations typical of lower upland areas. The valley floors in the project area are underlain by deep alluvial, fluvian, and aeolian deposits, mainly sand, silt, and gravel, which in some areas are hundreds of feet thick. These deposits have a low potential for yielding fossils. Record searches from the University of California at Riverside (UCR) revealed no known fossil localities within the boundaries of the City. However, this record also indicates that there is the potential that fossil materials may be located in older alluvium. These potential resources would be expected to occur east of the City near the high water mark of ancient Lake Cahuilla at the vicinity of Highway 111 and Washington Street, which left deposits of freshwater clams. The granitic rock associated with the project site, which is a part of the Palm Springs Complex, has a very low potential to yield paleontological resources and none are expected to occur there. Discussion of Impacts: a-c) The proposed development portion of the project site has been previously disturbed with grading of dirt roads and other disturbance. The site does not appear to harbor ethno-botanical or other resources that might indicate prehistoric occupation or use. There are no historic structures, archaeological resources, or unique paleontological resources on the site. Consequently, no impacts would occur to these resources. d) The proposed site is not located on, or within proximity to a known cemetery or Native American burial grounds. It is not anticipated that any human remains will be encountered during construction of the proposed project because the site and surrounding area have been previously disturbed. In the event of human remains being discovered during project development, the State of California requires a coroner be contacted and all activities cease to assure proper disposal. The proposed project is not expected to disturb human remains. Minimization Measures None. Mitigation 1. In the event of human remains being discovered during project development, the State of California requires a coroner be contacted and all activities cease to assure proper disposal. The proposed project is not expected to disturb human remains. 2. In the event cultural artifacts are uncovered during site grading or rock removal, work in this area shall be immediately halted and a qualified archaeologist will be called in to evaluate and, if necessary recover and document such resources. Monitoring: None required. � Pii�: ��A�� e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 23 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS--Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Signi�cant Significant Signiticant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Inco oration a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, in'ur ,or death involvin : i)Rupture of a known earthquake fau(t,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State ❑ � � � Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geolo S ecial Publication 42. ii)Stron seismic round shakin ? iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including li uefaction? � � � � iv)Landslides? � b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil? � � � � c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off- ❑ � � � site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, li uefaction or cotla se? d)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), ❑ � � � creatin substantial risks to life or ro ert ? e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for ❑ � � � the dis osal of wastewater? Sources: Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2004;Soils Survey for Riverside County-Coachella Valley Area,USDA, 1980; Geotechnical Engineering Report-Cahuilla Golf Club(Crest),Earth Systems Southwest,December 2001. Background: The subject property is located on rocky soils with bedrock outcroppings and shallow depositions of gravelly sands. The soils on this site and surrounding uplands are designated "Rock outcrop" (RO) on the Coachella Valley soils survey and are typically comprised of granite, gneiss, mica shist, and sandstone. Rocks and boulders are coated with desert varnish and vegetation is very scant. These soils frequently occur on slopes that are severely restrictive for shallow excavations, dwellings without basements, and local roads. The depth to bedrock is also restrictive. The RO soil type is also severely restricted with regard to the accommodation of on-lot septic system leach fields. Drainage is excessive and plant rooting depth is restricted. RO soils are poor as roadfill, and are Lmsuitable as a source of sand, gravel or topsoil. The subject property and the entire Coachella Valley are susceptible to strong groundshaking from earthquakes along major regional faults, including the San Andreas Fault Zone. The San Andreas is the major fault in the Coachella Valley, which exposes the region and the City to high amounts of seismic activity. The project site and vicinity are not within or adjacent to any Alquist Priolo Fault Zones, the closest active fault (San Andreas Fault) being located several miles to the northeast. However, this and other regional active faults have the potential to generate strong groundshaking in the valley, including the subject property. � � Pi�.� e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 24 Peak ground acceleration and seismic intensity values generally decrease as distance from the causative fault decreases.� Other factors, including rock and soil deposit attenuations, direction of rupture and type of fault, may cause variability in ground motion within an area. The project area, especially any perched or fractured rock on steep slopes, are subject to rockfalls, and slope stability is an issue that is addressed in the project grading plan. Table 4 lists faults that have the potential to cause strong ground motions in the City of Palm Desert, due to their proximity. Table 4 City of Palm Desert Potential Earthquake Sources Fault Name Distance from Slip Rate Maximum Design Project Site (mm/year) Earthquake (Mmax) San Andreas-Southern 7 miles 24 7.4 Segment (combined) San Andreas-San 9 miles 24 7.2 Bernardino Segment San Andreas-Coachella 9 miles 24 7.0 Segment San Jacinto-Anza 10 miles 12 7.2 Segment Source: "Seismic,Geologic and F(ooding Sections of the Technical Background Report to the Safety Element of the General Plan for the City of Palm Desert,Riverside,County,California,"Earth Consultants International,January 2002;Alquist-Priolo Speciat Studies Zone Maps,California Division of Mines&Geology, 1980. Discussion of Impacts: a)i. Review of official state maps delineating earthquake fault zones indicate there are no known faults currently mapped on or immediately adjacent to the site. No signs of fault rupture are identified on-site; therefore, the risks of nipture are considered low. ii. The site is subject to groundshaking by both local and regional faults that traverse the region. Ground shaking from nearby active faults is expected to produce high ground acceleration during the life of the project. The site could be subjected to ground acceleration on the order of 0.479 percent gravity (%g). The peak ground acceleration at the site is judged to have a 475-year return period and a 10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years. As a performance standard the project shall be designed and constructed to conform to the California Building Code (CBC) requirements for Seismic Zone 4. The implementation of these codes will assure that grading, foundation design and code-compliant building construction will mitigate potential impacts associated with groundshaking. Any perched rock features within the site and with the potential to fall in an earthquake should be removed and remaining rock shall be stabilized and securely anchored to underlying bedrock. Therefore, with appropriate slope modification and adherence to the CBC, potential impacts associated with seismic ground motion will be less than significant. � "Seismic,Geologic and Flooding Sections of the Technical Background Report to the Safety Element of the General Plan for the City of Palm Desert, Riverside,County,California,"prepared by Earth Consultants International,January, 2002. � Pi�.��e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 25 iii. The area in which the proposed site is situated has a very low liquefaction potential. Based on the depth of groundwater (>100 feet) and shallow bedrock conditions on the site, the risk of liquefaction is considered low. iv. No signs of slope instability/landslides were observed on or immediately adjacent to the site. Retaining walls buttressed by boulders are proposed to retain the southerly patio and pool area, which is proposed on the downslope side of the development site. Proper engineering of this slope should avoid or minimize slope failure due to strong groundshaking. While the risk of landslides is considered low and limited by a lack of soils on the subject hillside, the potential for rockfalls from perched and/or highly fractured rock warrants care in cutting back the bedrock and will ensure that potential impacts are less than significant b) Major portions of the City are highly susceptible to wind erodibility. According to the City General Plan geotechnical report, the areas of highest hazard are located in the extreme northern portions of the City; however, all areas within the City could be affected by blowsand. The City will require that the applicant prepare a dust control management plan as part of the grading permit to minimize potential impacts caused by blowing dust and sand during constniction. Procedures set forth in said plan will ensure that potential erosion is controlled during the constniction process; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant c),d) The site is located on a stable geologic unit with shallow sandy soils, and is mapped as occurring in a low subsidence susceptible zone. The site is comprised of exposed bedrock outcroppings and shallow sandy soils. No fissures or other surficial evidence of subsidence were observed at or near the subject site during the site walks. Potential impacts related to subsidence, lateral spreading or landslides are considered less than significant with proper slope and foundation engineering. e) The project proponent proposes to manage waste water collection and treatment by use of an on- lot septic tank and leach field system. As noted above, the site is characterized by rocky substrate and outcroppings, and by shallow sandy soils, which are no conductive to the construction or operation of on-lot septic tanks and leach fields. Special planning and constniction will be needed to assure a safe and effective on-site septic system. Minimization Measures None. Mitigation l. As a performance standard the project shall be designed and constructed to conform to the California Building Code (CBC) requirements for Seismic Zone 4. As warranted by the grading plan, unstable rock outcroppings and/or perched rock shall be assessed and the grading plan shall identify any potentially unstable rock formations, including boulders or outcroppings with the potential to break loose in the event of an earthquake. Identified instabilities shall be mitigated during site grading activities. 2. All fill soil, whether natural on site or imported, shall be approved by the project soils engineer prior to placement as compacted fill. All fill soil shall be free from vegetation, organic material, and cobbles and boulders greater than 3 inches maximum diameter, and other debris. Approved fill soil shall be placed in horizontal lifts of appropriate thickness as prescribed by the soils engineer, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) to obtain near- optimum moisture content. i �� ' Pii`,:.�' e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 26 3. Utility trench excavations within road or public right-of-ways shall be placed in conformance with the requirements of the appropriate governing agency. Utility trench excavations within private property shall be properly backfilled with native soils compacted to a minimum of 90°Io relative compaction. As necessary, backfill operations shall be observed and tested to monitor compliance with governing agency requirements and proper backfill procedures. Monitoring A. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, final grading and building plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City that assure conformance with the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4 and other applicable development regulation. Res onsible Parties: Pro'ect en ineer, Cit Buildin & Safet Potentially Less Than Less Than No 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS--Would Significant Significant Significant Impact the project: Impact with Mitigation Impact Inco oration a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant ❑ � � � impact on the environment? b)Contlict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the ❑ � � � emissions of greenhouse gases? Source: Project development plans;CaIEEMod Version 2011.1.I Background: State legislation, including AB32, aims for the reduction of greenhouse gases in California to 1990 levels by 2020; however, there are currently no state or local thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions. Statewide programs and standards will help reduce GHG emissions generated by the project, including new fuel-efficient standards for cars, and increasing amounts of renewable energy, which will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the fiiture. Discussion of Impacts: a-b) The proposed project will generate greenhouse gas emissions during both construction and operation (use and maintenance of the residence). Construction-related greenhouse gas emissions will be temporary and will end once the project is completed. As such, impacts to air quality resulting from the emissions of greenhouse gases associated with construction activities will be less than significant. Greenhouse gas emissions will be minimized during construction by limiting idling times of construction machinery, adequate maintenance of heavy machinery, and efficient scheduling of construction activities to minimize combustion emissions. Occupation and maintenance of the proposed residence will generate ongoing greenhouse gases through the consumption of electricity and natural gas or propane, moving (travel-related) sources, and transport and pumping of water. Table 4 quantifies constniction emissions and those associated with annual (unmitigated) operational GHG generation. Pii�._;��'� e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 27 Table 5 GHG Emissions from Construction and Operation of the Pinnacle Residence (metric tons per year) CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Construction Activities 96.19 0.01 0.00 96.37 Operational Activities� 25.84 0.08 0.00 27.76 Source:CaIEEMod Version 201 I.1.L Values shown represent unmitigated emissions L Operation GHG emissions include area,energy, mobile,waste,and water source emissions. GHG emissions generated by the proposed project will not be substantial and will not directly or indirectly result in a significant impact to the environment or conflict with applicable GHG plans, policies or regulation. Therefore, impacts to air quality and climate change from the generation of GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project will be less than significant. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: None required. Monitoring: None required. � Pi��e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 28 Potentially Less Than Less Than No 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS-- Significant Significant Signiticant Impact Would the project: Impact with Mitigation Impact Inco oration a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or ❑ ❑ ❑ � dis osal of hazardous materials? b)Create a signiticant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ � materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ ❑ � ❑ d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, ❑ ❑ ❑ � would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ � project result in a safety hazard for people residing or warkin in the ro'ect area? fl 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? g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ � evacuation plan? h)Expose people or structures to a signiticant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where ❑ ❑ ❑ � residences are intermixed with wildlands? Source: Site tield surveys;Project development plans;Palm Desert General Plan&EIR, 2004;Riverside County General Plan, 2004. Background: While a Phase I environmental site assessment(ESA) has not been conducted on this site, the on-foot survey conducted did not uncover any sign of dumping or discharge of hazardous or toxic materials. There were no signs of soil staining that might be associated with the illegal dumping of oil or other petroleum product. Neither were there any substantial signs of dumping of construction materials or domestic trash. In sL►mmary, the site is not known to harbor any potentially hazardous materials and no signs of dumping were evident during site surveys. No known chemical or hazardous waste disposal has been known to occur on the site. There are no known underground tanks or buried materials on site or in the area, The proposed project will extend Chuckawalla Way into the property as a private drive. An existing dirt road will be abandoned and re-naturalized. Site development will include approximately 15,000 square feet of disturbance, which will be limited and compact, focusing on the building pad for the home and ancillary uses. While heavy equipment will be involved in grading, rock removal and hauling, the potential for these activities to result in the accidental release of toxic or hazardous materials is considered low. Temporary constniction power is expected to be secured from SCE. • � Pi�.i�°�� e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 29 Discussion of Impacts: a-b) The proposed residential development and associated improvements will not directly result in the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The single-family residence is expected to use small amounts of chemicals used for household cleaning may be transported on site, but not stored. Impacts associated with transportation, use, storage, or the release of hazardous materials is considered negligible. Therefore, the project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Neither will it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. c) The St. Margaret's Pre-School and Pre-Kindergarten is located approximately 2,800 feet northeast of the project site. Further, the proposed project is not expected to store or use hazardous materials. There will be no impact to schools. d) The project site is not located on or near a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, thus, will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. e-� The proposed project is not located in proximity to an airport or private airstrip. The nearest airport is located in Bermuda Dunes, approximately 5 miles northeast of the project site. Impacts would not occur. g) The proposed project will not physically interfere with local or regional roadway networks, or interfere with implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan. The proposed residence will connect to the existing Chuckawalla Way and emergency access should be assured. No impacts would occur. h) The proposed project is located in the developing area of Cahuilla Hills in the City of palm Desert. The site is located at the base of the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains; however, there is very little vegetative fuel to feed a wildfire. The County of Riverside's hazardous fire area map (1987) does not identify this area as a high risk for wildland fires. The project will not expose people or structures to wildland hazards. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: Not required. Monitoring: Not required. � Pid�-�� e International Hi(Iside Developme�t CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 30 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant with Signiticant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Inco oration a) Violate any water quality standards or waste dischar e re uirements? � � � � b)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(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or lanned uses for which ermits have been ranted)? c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the aheration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would ❑ � � � result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d)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, which would res�llt in tloodin on-or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional ❑ � � � sources of olluted nmoff? t)Otherwise substantiall de rade water ualit ? g)Place housing within a 100-year t7ood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation ❑ [] � � ma ? h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would im ede or redirect tlood t7ows? ❑ � � � i)Expose people or structures to a signiticant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including ❑ � � tloodin as a result of the fail�ire of a levee or dam? � � ') Inundation b seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? � � Source: Site field surveys;Project development plan; USGS Topographic Maps; Background: The proposed project will result in the constniction of approximately 9,542 square feet of impervious surfaces in the form of garage, homes and patio deck and pool area. The project driveway will consist of gravel contained by a concrete curb, and will thus be permeable and allow rainwater to percolate directly into the soil. The ninoff pattern on the site will remain the same as the existing condition, and flows southeast toward the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. Landscaping will be introduced into the disturbed areas, which should stabilize soils and slopes, and reduce the rate of storm runoff. The proposed project would also rely on an on-lot septic tank and leach field system for the treatment of domestic wastewater. Conditions on site may make it challenging to construct and effective on-lot septic system, given the shallow soils and shallow depth to and exposure of bedrock on the site. Wastewater discharge requirements for the Coachella Valley, including the subject property, are administered by the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board. CVWD implements all the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board as they relate to wastewater discharge requirements and water quality standards. The City will need assurances that detailed plans for the on-lot septic system adequately consider and address subsurface conditions at the site when designing this system. � - � Pi. ,`" e International Hillside Development � � CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 3 l Discussion oF Impacts: a) The proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Construction at the site will be subject to all applicable water quality standards for waste discharge requirements of the City. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is not required because there is less than one acre of disturbed area. Compliance with existing regulations and requirements will result in a less than significant impact on water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. The proposed on-lot septic tank and leach field has the potential to generate a plumb of inadequately treated effluent that could eventually affect groundwater in the area. While the proposed system is feasible, additional design and specifications are needed to assure that the system will operate effectively at treating household wastewater generated by the project. b) The proposed project will not generate a substantial demand for water or interfere with groundwater recharge. Water demand will be limited to the household needs of one home, including associated pool and landscaping improvements. The landscaping plan is predominantly native and drought tolerant species. Therefore, water demands of the landscaping are expected to be minimal. The project will not interfere with groundwater recharge programs or result in a lowering of the local groundwater table. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge. c-� As previously mentioned, the proposed project will maintain existing drainage patterns. Any excess ninoff is expected to be retained on site; however, the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel is located southeast of the site and regional runoff is conveyed by this facility to the Whitewater River to the north. The City Engineer will review the final hydrology study to assure that storm flows do not exceed current volumes, and are not polluted. These standard conditions of approval will assure that impacts associated with storm flows and pollution are reduced to less than significant levels. No local or regional flood control facilities are expected to be significantly impacted by project runoff. Constntction and occupancy of this residence is not expected to otherwise degrade water quality. g-h) The proposed project will not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood zone. According to the General Plan, the proposed site is located outside FEMA-mapped flood zones. No impacts would occur. i j) The project site is not in the vicinity of a levee or dam, although it is located approximately 600 to 800 feet northeast of a local flood control debris basin and side channel that discharges into the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. The City is not located in the vicinity of a body of water, which could be subject to either seiche or tsunami. The project site is not subject to hazards associated with mudflows. No impacts are expected. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: Not required. Monitoring: Not required. ( � Pi� „�e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 32 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Signiticant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Inco oration a)Physically divide an established community? ❑ � � � b)Contlict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not ❑ � � � limited to the general plan,specitic plan, (ocal coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Contlict with any applicab(e habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ � � � conservation plan? Source: Project materials;Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2004;Municipal Code Chapter 25.15;CVMSHCP. Background: The project proposes the constniction of a single-family residence in an area designated as "Hillside Planned Residential" (HPR). This designation requires a separate "Precise Plan" development approval for projects within the hillside in order to assure minimal and contoured hillside grading, avoidance of excess cut and fill slopes, building and landscape design that blends with the natural terrain, and retention of scenic vistas, and natural landmarks and features. The proposed development exceeds the allowed maximum grading area of 10,000 square feet, proposing approximately 15,722 feet of site disturbance. The total building size exceeds the allowable 4,000 square foot limit by approximately 473 square feet. Discussion of Impacts: a-b) The proposed project is located within the low-density single-family residential community of the City of Palm Desert. The proposed residence and associated landscaping improvements will occur entirely on the applicant's property and will not divide an existing community. The site is designated for low-density residential uses in the City's General Plan, which requires a minimum of 5-acres per dwelling. The project has the potential to conflict with the City Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 25.15: Hillside Planned Residential Development Standards. The project exceeds maximum site disturbance allowances by approximately 50 percent. Furthermore, the project proposes building coverage of approximately 4,500 square feet, while the Code sets a maximum of 4,000 square feet. The Code makes provision for exceptions to the development standards, taking into consideration such matters as thoughtful/terrain-sensitive driveway design, re-naturalization of disturbed areas, and sensitive building siting, design and orientation. As proposed, the residence will be located on the lower southeast slope of the site with elevated terrain behind that should serve to help obscure the residences and associated site development. Site grading is being kept to a minimum and a portion of an existing dirt road will be abandoned and re-naturalized. The manufactured slope supporting the patio and pool area will be naturalized with boulders and desert vegetation, as will cut and fill areas associated with the new driveway. The building materials for this single story home include stucco and metal, and colors are predominantly desert browns. The proposed design appears to provide a supportable argument for the requested variance from the hillside development standards. ' � ( 1 Pir��e International Hiliside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 33 c) Project compliance with the required CVMSHCP mitigation fee shall ensure that there are no conflicts with the CVMSHCP. Minimization Measures This project sets forth a variety of design features that avoid or minimize impacts to the environment, including and especially the impacts the project may have on the surrounding environment. These features include minimal site grading, re-naturalization of a portion of existing site disturbance, thoughtful building siting and design. Mitigation: None required. Monitoring: None required. 11.MINERAL RESOURCES--Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Inco oration a)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? � � � � b)Result in the loss of availability of a locatly important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land ❑ � � � use lan? Source: Soils Survey of Riverside County,California,Coachella Valley Area,"U.S. Soil Conservation Survey,September, 1980;Mineral Land Classi�cation: Aggregate Materials in the Palm Springs Production-Consumption Region,Special Report l59(Plate 1 S),"California Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology, 1988;Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2004. Background: The California Division of Mines and Geology determines the location of mineral resources of statewide or regional significance. Lands in the City of Palm Desert are located in Mineral Resource Zones 1 and 3 (MRZ-1, MRZ-3). The subject project is located in MRZ-3 and is at the point of contact with bedrock. Mineral resources in the Coachella Valley are largely limited to sand and gravels, and the lack of a fluvial regime and deposition in the area precludes such resources in the project area. Mining of potentially viable sand and gravel resources is also precluded by existing development. Discussion of Impacts: a-b) The proposed project is located in Mineral Resource Zone 3, which is an area where inadequate information is available to determine the significance of mineral deposits present. The City does not consider these areas to contain deposits of significant economic value. It should also be noted that surrounding resort residential development makes the reclamation of such resources infeasible. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: None required Monitoring: None required � Pi�4. `' e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 34 12.NOISE--Would the project resu(t in: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Inco oration a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable ❑ ❑ � � standards of other a encies? b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive roundborne vibration or roundborne noise levels? ❑ ❑ � � c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ ❑ � � existin without the ro'ect? d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existin without the ro'ect? ❑ � � � e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ � � airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? t)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise ❑ ❑ � � levels? Source:Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2004;City Noise Ordinance,Chapter 94.24 of the Municipal Code. Background: The City of Palm Desert Noise Element of the General Plan provides guidelines for community noise impacts per land use designation. According to City standards, residential land uses are considered "noise sensitive" thereby restricting allowable noise levels within the planning area. The Palm Desert Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.24) sets limits on the days and time when noise generating constniction activities may occur. Further more, the allowed weekday times of construction vary with the season Oct. lst to April 30th and May lst to September 30th. Generally, construction activities are permitted between 7 AM and 5:30 PM, with an hour early start during the hot summer months. Saturday construction hours are limited to 8 AM to 5 PM. Section 9.24.030 establishes noise level limits in residential and other land use areas. The lands surrounding the subject property are primarily in residential use. The applicable 10-minute average decibel limit (A-weighted scale) is 55 dBA from 7 AM to 10 PM, and 45 dBA from 10 PM to 7 AM. Interior noise levels are generally not to exceed 45 dBA CNEL in all habitable rooms. Construction work is not permitted on Sundays and major holidays. Ambient Noise Levels The ambient noise level in the project area is quite low, being impacted by normal residential activity, including landscaping maintenance and vehicular traffic from nearby Highway 74. Constniction Noise Implementation of the project will result in temporary and intermittent noise from constniction activities. Although construction related noise will be short-term, activities are likely to produce noise levels that are occasionally excessive and intrusive especially during the grading phase of construction. � � Pi�.�e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 35 Noise impacts associated with other construction activities will result from clearing, grading, hauling and deliveries, pneumatic nailers and other construction equipment, and associated activities. Earth moving equipment, such as bulldozers, backfillers, and front loaders, could generate noise levels between 73 and 96 dBA at 50 feet. Rock removal equipment can generate noise levels between 79 to 89 dBA at 50 feet, with the highest noise levels generally to range from 88 to 96 dBA at 50 feet. Grading is expected to take three to six weeks to complete. No blasting will be associated with this project. Discussion of Impacts: a) Development of the site will result in short term impacts associated with construction noise. These impacts are temporary and will cease when once construction is completed. Construction noise is regulated by the Municipal Code to occur during the least sensitive daytime hours, which helps to lower the potential impacts. The short-tertn nature of construction activity assures that project noise impacts are consistent with City regulations. b) Development of the proposed project will temporarily generate noise and groundbourne vibrations through construction related activities, especially during grading, but will cease once construction is completed. Impacts are therefore expected to be short-term and less than significant. c) The proposed residential project is consistent with the City's existing land use designation for low-density residential use and is not considered a noise generating land use. There will be no substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. d) The construction of the project may generate a substantial but short-term increase in ambient noise levels that would not occur if the project were not constructed. The subject construction noise impacts are anticipated by the City Noise Ordinance. It should be noted that post- construction ambient noise levels will be the same as existing conditions. e,� The Bermuda Dunes Airport is the nearest airport/airstrip located 7 miles northeast of the proposed project, and does not conduct flight operations over the proposed project. No impacts associated with aircraft operational noise levels would occur. Minimization Measures None Mitigation 1. Construction activities shall comply with the hours of operation and noise levels identified in the City Noise Ordinance. Construction activities on-site shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays and the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday to minimize the potential for noise impacts during more sensitive time periods. No constniction will be permitted on Sundays or holidays. 2. All phases of the project shall comply with all relevant development standards and the Municipal Code requirements to ensure that grading and construction activities and site operations do not create unnecessary adverse noise impacts beyond the site boundaries. Construction activities shall incorporate feasible and practical techniques that minimize noise impacts on adjacent uses. 3. As a part of project grading permits, operations regulation shall include but not be limited to the following: a r/'� Pin.z' e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 36 a. The contractor shall comply with all local sound control and noise level niles, regulations and ordinances that apply to any and all work performed pursuant to the contract. b. Internal combustion engines used onsite shall be in proper working order, maintained in a proper state of tune, and equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. No internal combustion engine shall be operated on the project site without said muffler. c. Stationary equipment should be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from noise- sensitive receptors. d. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas should be located as far as practicable from noise- sensitive receptors. Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance possible between noise sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities. e. The construction operations generating the most noise shall be arranged to occur together in the construction program to avoid continuing periods of greater annoyance. f. Parking, refueling and servicing operations for all heavy equipment and on-site construction vehicles shall be located as far as practical from existing homes. Monitoring A. Rock removal activities shall be monitored to assure that they are carried out in the most sensitive and expeditious manner practicable. Monitoring shall ensure that construction operations occur only between the allowed hours prescribed in the City Noise Ordinance. Responsible Parties: General and grading contractors; City Building and Safety 13.POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Inco oration a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirect(y(for example, ❑ ❑ ❑ � through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ � housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ � housing elsewhere? Source: Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2004; U.S.Census Bureau,2000,and 2007-2011 American Community Survey; California dept. of Finance Background: The City of Palm Desert's population increased from 41,155 people in 2000 to 48,445 people in 2011. This represents a 17.7% increase over the ten-year period. The Department of Finance estimated City 2013 population at 49,949. Households in the City increased from 19,184 in 2000 to 23,117 in 2010. The City has an average household size of 2.12 persons per household. Discussion of Impacts: � � Pi�l,�e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 37 a-c) The proposed project will result in the construction of one single-family home of an 18+ acre site, and will have a less than significant impact on City housing and population. The proposed residence will not displace people or housing. There will be no meaningful impact to population or housing. Minimization Measures (If any): Mitigation: Not required. Monitoring: Not required. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES— Potentially Less Than Less Than No Signiticant Significant Signi�cant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Inco oration a)Would the project result in substantial adverse _ physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire rotection? ❑ ❑ � ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ � ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ � ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ � Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ � Source: Project development plans;Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2004. Background: Fire Protection: The City provides fire protection and paramedic services in Palm Desert under contract with Riverside County. First response is expected to be from Station No. 33 located on Towne Center Way approximately four miles north of the subject property and response time should be 5 to 6 minutes. In addition, Station 55 located on Eldorado Drive in Indian Wells and Stations 50 and 69, both in Rancho Mirage, will also be able to respond to a call for service from this are of the City. The City has a dedicated Fire Marshall to review projects and provide guidance. The project will generate a very modest incremental and less than significant demand for fire protection services. Police Protection: Riverside County Sheriff's Department provides police protection under contract with the City. A Sheriff's substation is located on Gerald Ford Drive and a satellite station is located in the City Civic Center complex on Fred Waring Drive. The Sheriff's Department provides protective response, investigatory, and patrol services. A Community Services Officer is assigned to patrol the City on a 24-hour basis. The project will generate a very modest incremental and less than significant demand for police/law enforcement services. � � Pin�r,_= � International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 38 Schools: The City of Palm Desert is part of the Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD). The City is host to elementary, middle and high schools. Nearby St. Margaret's School provided both pre- school and pre-kindergarten. The project will generate a very limited or negligible demand for additional school services. Parks: The City provides a wide array of parks and recreational facilities in the City. It also supports programs of the YMCA and the Coachella valley Parks and Recreation District. In the vicinity of he subject property is the 27-acre Cahuilla Hills Community Park and the 27-acre Homme/Adams Regional Park located near the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. This area of the City is also rick in walking and hiking trails. Medical A number of physicians' offices and urgent care facilities are located within the City of Palm Desert and in the project vicinity. In addition, there are several large health care facilities in the Coachella Valley, all of which serve Palm Desert and are in proximity to the subject property. The 100-acre campus of Eisenhower Medical Center, located in Rancho Mirage, is comprised of a 261-bed, general acute care hospital, the Barbara Sinatra Children's Center, the Betty Ford Center for persons with alcohol and drug dependency, and the Annenberg Center for Health Sciences, a conference and communications facility. The Eisenhower Comprehensive Cancer Center provides several disciplines of cancer management under one roof, offering a comprehensive range of oncology services. Discussion of Impacts: a) The proposed residential project will generate a very modest and less than significant increase in demand for fire and police protective services, and an equally limited demand for medical facilities and services, schools and parks. The project will not significantly increase demand for public services or adversely impact the provision of government facilities. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: Not required. Monitoring: Not required. I 5. RECREATION— Potentially Less Than Less Than No Signiticant Significant Significant Impact Impac[ with Mitigation Impact Inco oration a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical ❑ ❑ � ❑ deterioration of the facility would occur or be acceterated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical ❑ ❑ � ❑ effect on the environment? Sources: Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2004. Background: As noted above, the City provides a wide array of parks and recreational facilities in the City. It also supports programs of the YMCA and the Coachella Valley Parks and Recreation District. In the vicinity of he s�ibject property is the 27-acre Cahuilla Hills Comm�inity Park and the 27-acre f � � Pii..�le International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 39 Homme/Adams Regional Park located near the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. This area of the City is also rick in walking and hiking trails. Discussion of Impacts: a-b) The proposed residence will only very modestly increase population or result in the increase demand for or use of neighborhood or regional parks and facilities. The project will not result in or the need for addition or expansion of recreational facilities. No impact would occur. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: Not required. Monitoring: Not required. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the Potentialty Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Inco oration a)Contlict with an applicable p(an,ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking into ❑ ❑ ❑ � account alt modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,streets,highways and freeways, edestrian and bic cle aths,and mass transit? b)Cont7ict with an applicable congestion management program, including,but not limited to(evel of service standards established by the county congestion ❑ ❑ ❑ � mana ement a enc for desi nated roads or hi hwa s? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traftic levels or a change in ❑ ❑ � � location that results in substantial safet risks? d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or ❑ ❑ ❑ � incom atible uses(e. .,farm e ui ment)? e)Result in inade uate emer enc access? t)Result in inade uate arkin ca acit ? g)Contlict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting alternative transportation(e.g., bus turnouts, ❑ ❑ � � bic cle racks)? Source: Project development plans;Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2004; "Trip Generation, 8th Edition,ITE. Background: The proposed project is a private single-family residence located at the eastern terminus of Chuckawalla Way in the Cahuilla Hills area of the City. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication "Trip Generation (8th Edition)", the single-family house will generate an average of less than 10 vehicle trips per day. Sole access to the site is via Chuckawalla Way access from Paisano Road, Cholla Way, Cat Canyon Road and Cahuilla Way, which provides direct access to State Highway 111. The project will not adversely affect any City or regional transportation plan, the roadway network providing access to the site being long established. It should be noted that access to the site via Paisano � Pif.��e International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 40 Road may be made difficult or even occasionally precluded by flooding in the Cat Creek drainage, which crosses Paisano Road and is contained within a debris basin to the immediate east. Discussion of Impacts: a-g) The proposed project will only very modestly increase population or traffic, and will not affect any transportation plans, ordinances or policies. The project will not conflict with any applicable circulation or congestion management plan, and will not affect air traffic patterns. The project will modestly increase the number of homes in the Cahuilla Hills area that could occasionally be cut off from the larger roadway network due to flooding in the Cat Creek drainage. Therefore, there will be no impact to emergency access but emergency access could on rare occasions be delayed due to flooding. The project does not conflict with any City parking capacity or alternative transportation plans and policies. There will be no adverse impacts to transportation. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: Not required. Monitoring: Not required. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS— Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ � � � b)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? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion or existing facilities, the construction of which could cause ❑ � � � signiticant environmental effects? d)Have sufticient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entidements needed? ❑ � � � e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ � � � projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? t) Be served by a landfil( with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? � � � � g)Comply with federal,state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? � � � � � Pi�_��le International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 42 The Badlands Landfill is located northeast of the City of Moreno Valley is permitted for landfilling and for excavation and stockpiling cover material and other ancillary activities. The landfill is owned and operated by Riverside County, and is permitted to receive 4,000 tons per day and has an overall remaining disposal capacity of approximately 10.2 million tons. The Badlands Landfill is projected to be in operation unti12015 or 2016. Further landfill expansion potential exists at the Badlands Landfill site. In addition, Riverside County Waste Management also operates a successful recycling program, which has substantially diverted recyclables from the waste stream. Landscape maintenance companies operating in the Coachella Valley utilize composting for the disposal of green waste. Several green waste composting facilities are located in the area. Discussion of Impacts: a-g) The proposed residence will not generate wastewater or substantially increase water demands, with very limited increases in landscaping. Water demands will be limited to in-home and landscaping improvements, and will connect to the existing adjoining water lines. The project will retain the existing drainage patterns and will maintain the existing drainage areas. The project will not generate solid waste and will not violate solid waste regulations. Domestic sewage waste will be treated in an on-lot septic tank and leach field. Due to the rocky conditions at the site and the shallow and in some areas non-existent soils, a detailed septic tank and leach field design should be prepared and approved prior to installation. Impacts to utilities and service systems are considered less than significant to negligible. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: Not required. Monitoring: Not required. 18.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Less Than Less Than No SIGNIFICANCE Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incor oration a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or ❑ ❑ � � wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California histor or rehistor ? b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerabie" means that the ❑ � � � incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of robable future ro'ects)? c)Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ � � � i � 1 Pii:.�le International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 4l Source: Project development plans;General Plan&EIR,2004;Sanitary Sewer Management Plan,Coachella Valley Water District,2010. Background: The project site is located within the service boundaries of the following providers: Coachella Valley Water District (water & sewer), Southern California Edison, the Southern California Gas Company, Burrtec (solid waste), Riverside County Sheriff's Department, and the Desert Sands Unified School District. The City of Palm Desert and the subject property are served by three major medical facilities: Eisenhower and Desert Regional Medical Centers, and JFK Memorial Hospital. Sanitary Sewer Coachella Valley Water District provides wastewater collection and treatment services to existing residential and other development in the project vicinity. CVWD has 12-inch sewer mains located within the Highway 74 right-of-way that connect to 8-inch sewer mains located within private streets in existing residential development just east of the subject property and the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. The CVWD sewage treatment plant which treats effluent collected in the project area is located approximately 4 miles northeast of the site on Cook Street in the City of Palm Desert. The plant's treatment capacity is approximately 18 million gallons per day (mgd). The plant also treats and has expanded storage for tertiary treated water; CVWD delivers reclaimed wastewater for irrigation to several projects. Current tertiary water capacity is 15 mgd. The project will not be connecting to the CVWD sanitary sewer system but rather will be constructing an on-lot septic tank and leach field. Domestic Water The subject property is located within the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) service area. CVWD provides domestic water service to the project vicinity. CVWD has 12-inch water mains located in Highway 74, as well as 8-inch and 12-inch mains in private streets within existing condominium, mobile home and apartment residential development immediately east of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. CVWD also has 12-inch and 24-inch mains located in the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel in the project vicinity. The planning area is served by two reservoirs with a total capacity of 1.5 million gallons. Water service is available in the vicinity and the applicant proposes to extend an 8-inch lines north and eastward to the site from an existing 12-inch line in Paisano Road approximately 680 feet southwest of the southwest corner of the subject property. Solid Waste The City of Palm Desert has a contractual agreement with Burrtec for solid waste collection and disposal services. Residential pick up is generally provided once per week, and commercial pick up is offered up to six days a week. Solid waste is hauled to the recycling and transfer center where solid waste enters the Riverside County Waste Management waste stream, is sorted and sent to either the Lambs Canyon landfill in Beaumont, the Badlands landfill in Moreno Valley, or the El Sobrante landfill in Corona. The El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to receive 10,000 tons of refuse per day (tpd), of which 4,000 tpd is reserved for waste generated within Riverside County and is expected to be in operation until approximately 2031. The Lamb Canyon Landfill is located between the City of Beaumont and City of San Jacinto off State Route 79 and is permitted to receive 3,000 tons per day of trash for disposal and has a remaining disposal capacity of approximately 12.9 million tons. The landfill is expected to be in operation until approximately 2023. Further landfill expansion potential exists at the Lamb Canyon Landfill site. i � ( Pir,; �le International Hiilside Deve(opment CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 43 human bein s,either directi or indirectl ? a) Bioloaical and Cultural Resources: The proposed residence is located in proximity to existing residential, flood control and other development, and involves very limited area of grading and other site disturbance, and also includes revegetation of an existing dirt road. There will be no substantial reduction in wildlife habitat nor will it restrict the movement or range of any plant or animal. Neither will be the project impact any important examples of California history or prehistory. b) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and surrounding land uses. The project is a single-family residence on a large lot, and will not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. c) As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the project will not have adverse environmental effects on human beings directly or indirectly. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: None required Monitoring: None required. APPENDICES A. Air Quality Analysis, prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. November 26, 2013. B. Line-of-Sight Survey - Visualizations, JYOM Architecture, 2013 LIST OF EXHIBIT5 1. Vicinity Map 2. Preliminary Grading Plan 3. Preliminary Site Plan 4. Aerial View 5. Palm Desert General Plan Land Use Map LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED • Preliminary Grading Plans, prepared by Fomotor Engineering, August 7, 2013. • City of Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan, adopted 2004. • City of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.15, Noise Ordinance. • "Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Palm Springs Production-Consumption Region, Special Report 159," California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1988. Pii..�le International Hillside Development CEQA Initial Study/December 2013/Page 44 • Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics, U.S. Census, 2010. • California Scenic Highway Mapping System, 2009. • Field and Photographic Surveys, 2013. • Soils Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area," U.S. Soil Conservation Survey, September, 1980. • California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2001. • 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, SCAQMD, 2007. • State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards, California Air Resources Board, March 2008. • 2008 Air Quality Significance Thresholds, SCAQMD, March 2009. • "Final 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan," South Coast Air Quality Management District, ALlgL1St 1, 2003 • "Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan and Associated Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain Trails Plan," prepared by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 2007. • John G. Rau and David C. Wooten, "Environmental Impact Analysis Handbook," 1980. • California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map, 2001. APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod), Version 2011.1.1 Pinnacle International Cahuilla Hills Residence (Palm Desert Case No.: PP/HDP 13-198) City of Palm Desert Riverside, California Prepared for: Pinnacle International Reality Group II Inc. #300-911 Homer Street Vancouver, BC V6B 2W6 And City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 � � Prepared by: ,� ,, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 341-4800 November 26, 2013 CaIEEMod Version:CaIEEMod.2011.1.1 Date:11/25/2013 Pinnacle,Palm Desert Salton Sea Air Basin,Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage �ana Uses Sae Memc Single Family Housing 1 Dwelling Unit --------------'--------"--"�---..-.-..---'-"--'-------"�--'---'--_..----"------'-'-- Recreational Swimming Pool 1 1000sqft --••----•-•-•-••-------•-•••-�-----•----•-------•-•------•-�-------•---•---•q•----------- OtherNon-AsphaltSurfaces 9.34 1000s ft 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(mis) 3.4 Utility Company Southem California Edison Climate Zone 15 Precipitation Freq(Days)20 1.3 User Entered Comments Project Characteristics- Land Use-Source:Project site plan Lot Coverage Table. 22,051 SF/0.5AC total disturbed area. Construction Phase-Assumes a 6 month construction period. Grading-Source:Site grading plan.cut=90 cy;fill=2,012 cy On-road Fugitive Dust-Paved roads will be used to/from the site. 1 of 18 Vehicle Trips-The swimming pool is for private use and will not generate additional vehicle trips. Road Dust-All roads will be paved/gravel. Landscape Equipment-Located in desert climate with low annual rainfall. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation-Apply standard dust control measures and oxidation catalysts on contruction equipment. 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction(Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction � � "�'.R06 �'�..' NOx CO.�� 502' Fugihve '�.Exhaust� PM70 Fugitive. .Exfiaust. PM25.- BiaCO2 NBio- TMaI:W2 CH4'�' '.��N20 CO2e'�.�� PM10 GpMtU:��.. � Totel PM2�:5.�:� PM2.5 Total - �.0O2 � Year � � Ib/day ��.'. Iblday... . � 2014 � 47.86 � 30.13 � 16.80 � 0.04 � 6.91 � 1.61 � 8.51 � 0.48 � 1.55 � 2.01 � 0.00 �4,574.07� 0.00 � 024 � 0.00 �4,579.03 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Mitigated Construction ''��R06.�'�. NOz CO.'�'� .� 502 '.�� Fugibve.�.��Exhaust ...�PM10�� .Fupitiva Exhaust � PM2.5 Bio-0O2 'NBio- Total'CO2 .CH4 N20 � CO2e PM7Q �.sPM10 �..�Totel PM2.$ PM2.5�. 7Ma1 � `�CO2 � :Xear � Ib/day fWday � 2014 • 47.41 � 17.17 ' 7.45 0.04 6.41� 0.67 7.08 � 020 0.62 0.82 0.00 �4,574.07� 0.00 024 O.OD �4,579.03 To[al NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2of18 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Onerational ��:�.RpG �.� NOx CO��.'�. 502-� '�Fugitive� ExhausE ',PM10 Fugitiue ExheusE�� PM?5 �6faCO2 ��N6fo- ToteI.0O2 CH4�: N20 '�� CO2e� � PM16�..'.PM10 'Tota4 . .�PM2.5 .PM2S � Total �CO2 �..�.Category Ib/daY . .. IWday�; . . .. .. Area � 0.45 � 0.00 � 0.18 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.02 � � 0.00 � 0.02 � 2.12 � 77.09 � � 0.01 � 0.00 � 19.50 ""'.9Y"':"'"":"""�"""�"""�'"""�"""'�"""'�""' ' "' ""' '}""";""":"""}""""�"""}"""�' ' Ener 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 13.06 0.00 0.00 � 13.14 """""':"""�""'"''.""";"""''."""�"""'�"""�"""�" " """ "" '"":"""p"""¢"""�"""'}"" :' '�"' Mobile 0.09 0.39 0.73 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.01 � 0.01 ' 115.22 0.01 ' 115.34 Total 0.54 0.40 0.91 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.07 2.12 145.�7 0.02 0.00 147.98 Mitigated Onerational �.ROG��' NO�c CO.:�. S02�.'�.� FugiEive .��Exheust PMW Fugitive Ezhaua4� PM2S'�� .&a G02 :.�.N&a TWeI CO2 CH4�:' ` N20 CO2e'�� . PM10��. ��.�..PM10 ��ToWY PMZ:S PM2S�� Totai ��COx Catepory Ihlday . � �.'. IWtlay Area � 0.45 � 0.00 � 0.18 � 0.00�� 0.00 � 0.02 � � 0.00 � 0.02 � 2.12 � 17.09 � � 0.01 � 0.00 � 19.50 """�"':"""�"""}"""�"""�."""}"""�""_'�"""�"""y""'"y"_"'*""" ""'�"""�"" ""' Ener 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 13.08 ' 0.00 0.00 ' 13.14 "'-'----";"'---�--""}"'---�-""'.'---'-�"'-".---'-""'---�-""'S -'---5'-""i'-----i""'-�------F""--*- --- Mobile 0.09 0.39 0.73 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 ' 71522 � 0.01 � 115.34 Total 0.54 0.40 0.91 0.00 0.10 0.01 O.iJ 0.00 0.01 0.09 2.12 745.37 0.02 0.00 147.98 3.0 Construction Detail 3of18 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Oxidation Catalyst for Construction Equipment Water Exposed Area 3.2 Site Preparation-2014 Unmitigated Construction On-Site � ROG .NOx CO��.. SQ� ';�.Fugitive�-��.�Exhaust -PM10 Fugitive Exhaust: PM25�.. �.BiaCO2 .�.NBio- TotaVCO2 CH4'=� N20 �� CO2e '.' PM16��1'PM10 Totak PM2��,5 PM2.S� Total ��CO2 � �� -0ategory .... Iblday . '� IWday Fugitive Dust � � � � � � 0.53 � 0.00 � 0.53 �� 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � � � � � � 0.00 """""':"""�"""�"""�"""�"""}"""�"""�"""�" "" ".. ."" """ ""�"""p""":"""�" : "�' � Ofl-Road 1.61 1179 8.65 0.07 O73 � 0.73 � � 0.73 � 073 • �1,402.64� 0.14 � �1,405.68 To[al 1.61 11.79 8.65 0.01 0.5J 0.73 1.26 0.00 0.73 0.73 1,402.64 0.14 7,405.68 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site '�.��ROG.�7 � .NOz. CO��... � .502 �. Fug�tive ��.�EzBaueE .�PM10 � >Fugi4ve Exhaust� �PM2.5 Bia CO2�. N&o-�'�TMaI CO2 CH4 N2q.��.. CO2e�� PMtO'��PMtU �.�.'��TotaE 'PM2�.5 PM2S.`I Total' �..�..CO2 Calegary �. ...Ib/day �: IWday�� ... Hauling � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � �0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 """""':"""*"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�""" "' "" ' ' ' }"""'p_""'¢"""F"""�' "}' '�" ' ' Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 """""';..""}"""'�"""F"""�"""}"""�"""�"""�"""�"""'""";""": ""'}""":""'"�""" Worker 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 4969 � 0.00 � 4976 Total 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.69 0.00 49.76 4of18 3.2 Site Preparation-2014 Mitigated Construction On-Site ��iROG. . �... NOx CO� 502 I..�Fup�tive �.Exhaust PM7Q: ��Fugitive Exhauat PM25�� BiaCO2 N6iw TotaICO2 CH4 � N20� CO2e�:.. � PMtU :.�PM10 '-Total PM2.5 PM2.5.... Total .0O2 . Category Jti/day '�. Ib/day Fugitive Dust � � � � � 021. .. � 0.00 ...021 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � � � � � � 0.00 "'""'"""':"'""T'"""�"""'�""'"'�"""�""";"""�'"""*"""}""' " ""' "'"' "}"""y"""':"""�'"""'�' Off-Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 �1,402.64� 0.14 �1,405.68 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,402.64 0.14 1,405.68 Mitigated Construction Off-Site � ROG �..NOx ��.�.�CO 502 t�� Fugitive�� .�:.Exheusf ;�PM19 �. Fugittve:�� Exheust PM25 .8io-0O2 �.�NDf6 .To(aICO2 CH4�� N20� .0O2e � � PM16 ..�..PM10 �.Total PM2:5'. ..PM2.5 TMaI CO2 .... .Category lb/day . � � '.� Ib/day .. .. . �Hauling � �0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00� � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 �� 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 """""';"""�"""�"""�"""�"""'}"""}"""�"""�""'"y"""p"'""�"'""y."""�""""�"""�""" Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 """""";"""}"""�"""�.""'"�"""�"""�""" "' 'y."'""� " " 'p"""T""" ""'}"'""� ""' "" Worker 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 � 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 4969 e 0.00 r 49.76 Total 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.69 0.00 49.76 5of18 3.3 Grading-2014 Unmitigated Construction On-Site '.ROG�� NOz ��CO'�� =�..�S02 Fugrtive .�Exheust PMiQ�. ��Fugitive ExheusQ: PM25 l9io-C42' NBio- ToteI�.G02 .CH4' N20 `��. CO2e �. PMt6 `.�PM10 ��Totat PM2.5 PM2S�:�' Total �. CO2 Category .. � Itilday � .. IWday Fugitive Dust � � � � � � 0.81 � 0.00 � 0.81 � 0.42 � 0.00 � 0.42 � � � ; � ..� ..0.00 """""':"""�""'.�_.."';"""'�"'""�"""�"""�"""�"""�" " " "' ""' """' OH-Road 1B5 13.02 9.35 0.02 � 0.94 � 0.94 � 0.94 � 0.94 ! �1,476.12� � 0.16 ' �1,479.58 Total 1.85 13.02 9.75 0.02 0.81 0.94 1.75 0.42 0.94 1.96 1,476.12 0.16 1,479.58 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site '��ROG ��.�. NOz ��CO'�� 502��.��, Fugitive[�. ��Exheust� �� PM70 . Fugitiva Exheust PM2.5 �Hio-0O2 N&o-� Total G02 . CH4'� �N20��. CO2e� �. PM40��..�� PM10. Total PM2'.5 PM2S��.'�. Total ..0O2 Categ4ry .. Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 1.35 � 17.02 � 6.57 �0.03 5.98 0.67 6.63 0.03 061 0.65 �2,998.57� 0.06 �2,999.92 """"'"'�"""T"""�"""�"""'y."""y"""'�"" "" '�.""""� ' ' '�"""y.""'_�""'"} ""'�"'""�""" Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ""...""':"""�..""}"""}""";"""�"""}"'"'"�"""}'"""¢"" 'y"""'�."""y "'" ""'�.""'"� .." Worker 0.09 0.09 0.88 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01 ' 99.38 � r 0.01 ' 99.53 Total 1.44 17.11 7.45 0.07 6.09 0.67 6.76 0.03 0.61 0.66 J,097.95 0.07 J,099.45 60f18 3.3 Grading-2014 II�''gated Construction On-Site �.��.RpG '.'NOx � � CO� 502�..�.. FuQdrve�.��.Ezhaust PM16 �,FugitlYe Exheuat:��. PM2.5 Bio-0O2 N6fo- Total��.Gd2<��CH4 N2Q �'� CO2e �� PM1Q '.PM10 �� TotaE '�.PM2.5 PM2S�'�. TNaI CO2 ��Catego7 Ib(daY . . .' Ib/day Fugitive Dust � � � � � 0.32 � 0.00 � 0.32 � 0.16 ....:0.00 � 0.18 � � : � � � 0.00 """""':"""�"""�""";"""�"""."""�"""�"""�"""�" "' "" """ . ""%"""y"""}"""C.. _�. _� Ofl-Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 �1,476.12� 0.16 �1,479.58 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.32 0.18 0.00 0.16 0.00 7,476.12 0.16 1,479.58 Mitigated Construction Off-Site .� ��..RpG ,��.N6x,..�. CQ' S02;�..��. Fugitive �,�zfiaust � PM70 �.FugiWe Exheust. PM2S Bio•CO2 '��NQb-.�. ToleICO2 CHb��: N2Q�;� �� CO2e� PM40 .`PM10� . Totai �PM2.5 PM2S'�.' Totak ��CO2 < Category IWday . .. Ib/day .. . Hauling 1.35 � 17.02 � 6.57 0.03 5.9fi 0.67 6.63 0.03 � 0.61 0.65 �2,998.57� 0.06 '2.999.92 ""'"""'a"'"'"�"""�"""'}"""}"""�'"""}"""'� "' "' "' 'y"""*" ' '�"""'} "" "" ""' Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 • ' 0.00 0.00 ' � 0.00 """""';"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"" '�"""y "' 'y"""*" ' ' ""' ""' ' ' ' "'_}"""�"' " � '�' Worker 0.09 0.09 0.88 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 � 0.01 ' 99.38 ' ' 0.01 ' 99.53 Total 1.44 17.11 7.45 0.03 6.09 0.67 6.76 O.OJ 0.61 0.66 3,097.95 0.07 3,099.45 7of18 3.4 Building Construction-2014 Unmitiaated Construction On-Site � �`ROG��' NOx CO'� SO2 <�Fugitive Ezhaust '.pM1p Fiigitive Ezheust'��. PM2�.5. 6iaCO2 '.�,NBfo- ToteVCO2 CH4'- ��'�N20 CO2e'.� . . . ' PM10 '.��PM10 �"��ToW4 �:PM2.5 PM2.5:: Totai ��CO2 . �. Category Iblday .. �b/day . Off-Road � 2.02 � 15.03 � 10.68 ��..�..0.02 � ��0.92 � 0.92 � � 0.92 � 0.92 � �1,945.40� � 0.18 � .....�..1,949.18 Total 2.02 15.03 10.68 0.02 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1,945.40 0.18 7,949.18 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site �� ROG ' NOx .��CO� S02�_�.. Fugdive�-..Exhaust ��PM10 �.'.Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 . �.8ia CO2 N6io-��-�Total CO2 CH4'�'�. N20 .'�. ��.CO2e PM10 �.��'PM10'�.� Totai PM2.5 PM2.5-�� Tota� COF �. CategaY Ib/day ..� Ib/day. .� Hauling � 0.00 � 0.00 � O.W� � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 �� 0.00 � 0.00 �� 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 """""";""'"�"""}"'""y."""�"""}"""'�"""�"""'�"""}"""p"""'T"""�"""}"""�."""�""' Vendor 0.03 0.31 0.18 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 ' S5.03 � 0.00 � 55.08 ----••-----�---•-------•-+-•----+�--••---------�--••-•_----••+�------}-•---•_---- -a•-----+----••+ ----- • • ------+-•---- Worker 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 49.69 � � 0.00 ' 49.76 To[al 0.07 0.35 0.60 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 104.72 0.00 104.82 80f18 3.4 Building Construction-2014 Mitigated Construction On-Site .'�HOG ��Nfhr CO.�� S02 ,,.�Fug�tive `�Exhaust ��PM10 FugiM1ve Ezheustr�� PM2S ;BIo-C42 NBfo- TotelCp2 eH4�� N20 Co2e�.�. � 'r PMiD'�' � PM10 Total � PM2.5 PM2S - Total CO2 CategorY .. . ID/day� � � IWdaY OH-Road � 0.00 � 0.00 � �0.00 � 0.02 � � 0.00 � �0.00 � �� 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 �1,945.40� � 0.18 � �7,949.18 ToWI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,945.40 0.18 1,949.18 Mitigated Construction Off-Site �'�ROG ��NOx GO '>'. 502..�� FugiUve== �Exheusl PM70 FugiqYe Exhaust�..� PM2.5 Bia-0O2�.' NBio- ToteI.0O2 CH4 N20�� CO2e - P6110 ��..�..PM10 Toql PM2:.S PM2.5�` Total .��CO2 � Cafegory . . IbJdsf� :.� IWday �. Hauling � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 �� 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 �� 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 ""'"""';"""}"""�"""y.'"'""y"""'�'"""�"""}""'"�"""}"""p"""*" ""' "" "" ""' Vendor 0.03 0.31 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 � 55.03 � ' 0.00 � 55.06 .""""";'"""'T"""�"""';"""}"""�"""�"""}"""�"""�'." '{"""'T'.""}"""} ' ' _"" ""' Worker 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 49.69 � 0.00 ' 49.76 Total 0.07 0.95 0.60 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 104.72 0.00 104.82 9of18 3.5 Paving-2014 Unmitigated Construction On-Site �'�RdG �.�NOz CO?� S02 i.'�Fugitive��.Ezheust PM10 Fugitiva Ezheust PM2 5'.'� �Bia CO2 - NBio- Total CO2 GN4'.- N20��,�' CO2e�. .. � PM16 >�:PM10 Totak PM2:5 PM2.S Total :�� CO2 Cate9ory.. � IbPozY ��: IWday OH-Road�.. 2.18 .13.77 � 9.69 � 0.02.�� :..�� 1.10 � 1.10 � � i.10 � 1.10 .. �1,408.52� � 020 � �1.412.63 """'9"':"""�""""�"""�""":"""�""";"""�"""�" ""' """ """ ""�"'""p"""'T""'"�"""�' }' "� Pavin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2.18 1�.77 9.69 0.02 1.10 1.70 7.10 1.10 1,408.52 0.20 1,412.63 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site � ROG.�`. NOx CO'�� 502��. Fug�6v8 �.-Exheuet .��'PMiQ � Fugitive Exheust PM2S �.BiaCO2 ��,NBfo- Yote6CO2 GH4', �N20'.� . CO2e � PM10�. ��.'.�PM00.� '.-Total. � PM2.5 PM2��.,5�� Total.�� 'CO2 � .��Catego�Y `IWday .. �� Ib/day . . Hauling � 000 � 0.00 � 0.00� � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 -""""";'_""y."""�"""y"""}"""F"""�"""�"""F"""�""":""";" ' ' ""' ' " ""p"""�"' ' } '�' ' ' Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 """'----�"""�'----'�""--�--""�.""--�---"'�""--�.-""'f------i"""7-----'}"""�..----F"""3 '--- -"' Worker 0.16 0.16 1.58 0.00 023 0.01 024 0.00 0.01 0.01 ' 778.88 � 0.01 ' 179.15 Total 0.76 0.16 1.58 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.01 178.88 0.01 179.15 10 of 18 3.5 Paving-2014 Mitigated Construction On-Site � .��ftOG ....Npz CO '�'� S02-�� 'Fug�tive Ezheusf �.�.�pM70 Fugitive Exhaus8: PM2,5. �Bio-0O2 NBio- TWeI�CO2 GH4,��. N20. CO2e � �: PM10 ��.'PM1D �.��Totak PM2�:5 PM25.'�.�. Total ��CO2 Category Ib/day�.. �..��IWday . Off-Road � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.02 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 �� 0.00 �1,408.52� � 0.20 � �1,412.63 """'9"':"""�"""�"""."_"'�"""�"""�"""�"""�"" "' ' "" "" "" "" """ "' Pavin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,408.52 0.20 1,412.63 Mitigated Construction Off-Site -�.��ROG �NOX -�-CO. SO2.�.�. Fug�trve..��.Exheusf PMiQ Fugifive �xheuSt.. PM2:5 Bio-0O2 ��NBfp- ToteI.CQ2 CH4�'�. . N20 CO2e �.'. PM16 .-PM10 Total PM2��.5 PM2.5'��' Total. CO2 . �Catagory . , IG1dsN . '�. IWday . Hauling � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 """""'�"""y"""}"""y"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""}"""�..""}"""}"""�"" Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ""'"""";"""}""'"';"""�""";"'."'y.""";"""";"""�"""; "' 'y"""}"""'� ""'�'""'_� ""'}...'"' Worker 0.16 0.18 1.58 0.00 023 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.01 ' 178.88 � 0.01 � 179.15 Total 0.16 0.16 1.58 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.01 178.88 0.01 179.15 11 of 18 3.6 Architectural Coating-2014 Unmitigated Construction On-Site �.��R6G � ��'��NOz CO��'� S02.�.��.� Fugihve ��..Ezhausf. PMiQ FugiSve Exheust�,� PM25.. IBiwCO2 N�o- TotelCO2 _ CH4�� N20 CO2e� � PM10 ��-PMtB:. Total PM2'�.S PM2.5'" Tatal CO2 �� .Category ... IWday ...'� IWday ArchitCoating • 47.41 ' ' ' � � � O.W � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 • ' ' ' ' ' 0.00 """""':"""�"""�"""�"""�""""""'�"""�•""'�"""�" Off-Road 0.45 2.77 1.92 0.00 � � 024 024 � 024 � 024 •"""* 281 19'�"""'"0.04 '�"""� 282.03 Total 47.86 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 T81.19 0.04 282.OJ Unmitigated Construction Off-Site � �.�.�.R4G�. -�� NOx CQ-�.�� 502�'�.' FugRrvs ��'�zfieus� PM1U Fugitive. Exfieust� PM25'� �Bfo-0O2 �N�o- Totet:CO2 CH4�� N20 CO2a � PM10 `-PM10 ��Total PM2.5 PM2.5�� Total '� CO2 �� .�. Category IWday . . Ib/day Hauling � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 """""';"""�"""�"""�."""}"""„""'�"""�."""�."""�"""�"""T"""y"_"'a"""„""' " ' Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 """""";"""�"""�"""�""";"""�"""}""" ' ' ' "" '}""'"""""}"""} ""'�"""y"""F"'"'" Worker 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 � 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 9.94 0.00 9.95 Total 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.94 0.00 9.95 12 of 18 3.6 Architectural Coating-2014 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG �� NOx CQ -�� .'�502 .�Fugitive .��.Exhaus[ PM1U��.� FugiUve Exhaust.'�.. PMZ.5 8faCO2 . NBio- ToleICO2 CH4 N2p�� CO2e.�� . PM10 .PM10 Totak PM2.5 PM2.�a��' TMaI CO2 � ��Category INday�. . INday . Archit.Coating � 47.47 � � � � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � � � � � 0.00 """""':'"""�"""�"""�"'""�"""�"""�"""�""":"""�"""""" ... ':' "}"""}'""'"."""�""" OH-Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 � 281.19 � 0.04 ' 282.03 Total 47.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 281.19 0.04 282.03 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG �NOx CO..�� 502 :s�Fugitive. �Exheust PM10 ,.F�gitive ExhauB[� PM2,5 '.BiaCQ2 '�.N6Ia�� ToleIG42 CN4��..�� : N20 CO2e�� .:.PM1U�� PM70 Totak �.PM25 PM2.5'.'.� To[� �i CO2 Category '�IWday � � Ib/day � � Hauling D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 """""'a"""�"""'�"""�"""�'"""'�'"""}"""�""'"�'"""y"""i"""}""""y"""�"""�"""�""" Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 """""';"""y"""}"""}"""�."""�"""}"""}""'"�"""}"""y"""}"""y"""�"""y"""�""" Worker 0.01 0.01 0.09 O.OD 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.94 0.00 9.95 Total 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.94 0.00 9.95 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 13 of 18 [�AOG'�� NOx Cp��,�.., ��.�502 ,Eug�tive ��.IEzheusE �� PM76:.��. Fugitive Exheusb PM2.5: �.HiaCO2� N&o- Totel CO2 CW4'�'�. N2Q�.�. '. CO2e�� :. PM1D ".PM10 Total PM2:.5 PM2S� To[al �CO2 ��Cate9ory � Iblday�. �IWday ... Mitigated 0.09 0.39 0.73 � 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 � 17522 � 0.01 � 115.34 """'9""'�"""T"""'�"""}"""*""";""" "" "' ' "" '"' 'y"""T"""; "' "" ""' _ ••�- - _• ••.- - ------+- •-,- Unmiti ated 0.09 0.39 0.73 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.07 ' 11522 � 0.01 ' 715.34 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.2 Trip Summary Information 'Avera e Dail Tri Rate UrrmiN ated Miti ated Land Use ' Weekday' Saturcfay Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Other Non-As hall Surfaces ' 0 00 ' 0.00 ' 0.00 ' ' ...... . P ..... .i--- ---�•-- --- --- -- ----•---------•----•-- ----•-•-••----------•-••-- ........... ' -� . .... ...... . -•••--- •--•-' . -"-'- �- Recreational Swimmin Pool ' 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 ' ' ........................�............1---'--"---'-T-----...---%--------- �--------...-_.-------.-.y-_.----------'---'------'- Sin le Famil Housin 9.57 10.08 8.77 27,062 27,062 Total 9.57 10.08 8.77 27,062 27,062 4.3 Trip Type Information . ` . ��.Miles ��. Tnp% . � ' �� Land Use ��'�� H-W or C•W H-S or C-C <��H•0 or G-NW H-W or GW �HS orC-C"� H-O orC-NW Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ; 9.50 ; 7.30 ; � 7.30 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ........................9.............-"-----"---�'-----------•-'-----'-'-:----'----'--(--'-'-------�-----"---- Recreational Swimmin Pool 9.50 7,30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 14 of 18 Miles � Tnp°to '�'�. LsndrUse: ��.H�W or GW .H�-S.or C-G :N-p or C-NW H-W ot C-W H-S flrC-C ��:�. H-d or GNW'� Single Family Housing ; � 10.80 ; 7.30 ; 7.50 ; 4020 ; 1920 ; 40.60 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy `. ROO ��NOz CO.�� 502��.'�� Fugidve Exhaust� .�PM10 Fugitive� Exhaust PM2S�� Bfo-0O2 NBio- TMaI��.0O2� CH4� N20 ��.��. CO2e�. PM10 -PM10 ". Totel� PM2�.5 PM25��.. Tatal ' CO2 � Category .. . Ib/day' . . '�. IWday . NaturalGas 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 13.06 ' 0.00 0.00 � 13.14 Mitiga[ed_ . . � � � � . . � � _ "'.."""r"""�""""."""�"""�"""�"""�"..."�"""'�""": '*""" �"""�"""�""""'"" NaturalGas 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 13.06 � 0.00 0.00 13.14 Unmi[igated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15of18 5.2 Energy by Land Use-NaturalGas Unmitiaated � ..� NaturalGes Use��: R6G : NOx'.'� � CO �� S02 fugitive Exhaust �.�PM10 Fugifiva. EzhausE .:.PM2.5' 6iw CO2� N9iw Total CO2'' �CH4 N20 ' CO2e � PMi6' PM70 '..:Total �.PM2.5 �PM3�S �.�Total �. CQ2 LandUse `��= kBTU Ibtday � . IWday.. .- OlherNon-Asphak� 0 �� 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � �0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 SurNaces , . � � � � . � � -- --' ----- "'-- - ' --- """""'.�""""":"""*"""�"""."""�"""�"""."'._.�_.."'�"""." ""•"' '�' "�' �' .' ' ".' " Recreational 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • � 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 0.00 Swimming Pool � . � � � � � �� "" """ ""' "" "' "" "'9.."'Y'T..""""."""r"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""*"""�" ""�"""•" '*' .' '. "�' Sin le Famil 111.027 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 13.06 � 0.00 0.00 � 13.14 Housing Total 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 73.06 0.00 0.00 13.14 Mii .'� NaturalGas Use ROG �.�''NO�� .��C� �..��502 Fugitive�� EzhausF.: PMt� .��.fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bw CO2�.��. NBm� Total CO2 �CN4 ��.N2Q.� CO2e ��PM16�� PM10 r��. Total '�.PM2 5 �PM2 5 Total'�� CO2 �-�land Use��-� kBTll ;�Iblday Ib/day..�. . � OlherNon-Asphalt� 0 � 0.00 � �0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 Surtaces . . � � � � � � """ "'"' "" ""' ' " """""'Y"""""•"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�""";"""'T" ""�"""'•"'""'T �' � '"� '�' ' Recreatlonal 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SwimmingPool � . � � : � � ""' ""' """ "" ""' "'9""'Y'?"""""'.""'.�_.."'�""";"""�"""�""";"""�"""�" ""."""•'"""r' '�' .' ' ""' Sin Ie Famil 0.111027 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 13.06 0.00 0.00 � 13.14 Housing Total 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.08 0.00 0.00 1J.14 6.0 Area Detail 16 of 18 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area � �<.�ROG'�� .� NOz CQ �''. `�502�.'� Fugitive�� ,Exhausf PM10 Fugifive Exhaust:'. PM2.5 Bio-0O2 ��'NBiu� Totaf�:CO2 .CH4�� .N20�� CO2e � PM10 - PM W ��Tot81 PM2.5 PM2.5<�. Tote1 �CO2 � Category � :lWtlay.. � !��IWday �� . Mitigated 0.45 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 • 2.12 ' 17.09 � 0.01 0.00 � 19.50 """9""':"""?"""�"""�"""�""'"�"""'�"""';""' "" "' '"'" ""' ""' "' ' "' "'" Unmiti ated 0.45 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 ' 0.00 � 0.02 • 2.12 � 17.09 � � 0.01 � 0.00 � 19.50 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated � ROG�� .� .NOx ��CQ�� S02.��. �Fugitive�. �Exhaust �PM10 ��.�<�.Fugitive Exhaust'� ��PM2.6� Bio�CO2 �N&a��. Total CO2 CH4�� N20�� CO2e� . -� � PM10 ��.�.PM10 7ota1 .�.PM2.5 PM2.5,� Total Ca2 � . �- SubCategory .. �� INday. �� 16ldey � Amhitectural � 0.10 � � � � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � � � � � 0.00 Coating . � � � � � � � � � . • � � � � """""';"""."""�"""�"""�"""�"""'�"""�"""�"""�"'"":"""�""' "" ""' "'" ' " Cansumer 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Producis """"""':""_'r"""�"""�"'""�"""�"""�"""�"""�'"""'�""":""' "" "" "'" "' ' """ Hearih 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 2.12 ? 76.94 � ' 0.01 � 0.00 � 19.35 """'�'g';"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�""" "" ""' "" "' "" "' ""' "" ' Landsca n 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 � 0.00 • � 0.15 � � 0.00 � � 0.15 To�al 0.45 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 2.12 77.09 0.01 0.00 19.50 17of18 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mii ��ROG .�N(hc CO". 502;�� Fugitive Exhaugt PAA7O Fug�flve Exheust�� PM2.5.�� BiaCO2 �.NBio- TotelG(?2 CH4- `�N20�. �CO2e '�s PM10-�� . PM70 Tota4 PM2�:5 PM2.5"�. Tat� CO2 . �SubCategory Ib/day'�. . - :��.Ibhiay�� . . Architeclurel 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating "'."""':"""�..."'�"""�"""�"""�""";"""�"""�"""�""":"""�"""�"""�"""�""' "' Consumer 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 Products """""':"""T'"'""'�"""�"'""�"""�"""�'""'"�"""�"""�"""•""' "" "'" "' "' ' """ Hearth 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 2.12 � 16.94 � � 0.01 ' 0.00 � 19.35 """""';"""}"""."""�"""�"""F"""�"""S"""�"""y."""y"""}"""}"""S'•""}"""�„""' Landscaping � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.09 � 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 • � 0.15 0.00 � 0.15 Total 0.45 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 2.12 17.09 0.01 0.00 19.50 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Vegetation 18 of 18 CaIEEMod Version:CaIEEMod.2011.1.1 Date:11/25/2013 Pinnacle,Palm Desert Salton Sea Air Basin,Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage �. LandUses � Srze�:��. Metrfc ... Singte Family Housing 1 Dwelling Unit ---------------•------__...-'�----'-'--..--.-..-...--"----"--'-'--'-'------------------ Recreational Swimming Pool 1 10005qft '--'---------'--'-'-'-'--'---�-----------------------------�----•-....-•.-•-'---"-'--'-- Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.34 1000sqft 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(Ms) 3.4 Utility Company Southem California Edison Climate Zone 15 PrecipiWtion Freq(Days�20 1.3 User Entered Comments Project Characteristics- Land Use-Source:Project site plan Lot Coverage Table. 22,051 SF/0.5AC totai disturbed area. Construction Phase-Assumes a 6 month construction period. Grading-Source:Site grading plan.cut=90 cy;fill=2,012 cy On-road Fugitive Dust-Paved roads will be used to/from the site. 1 of 1 S Vehicle Trips-The swimming pool is for private use and will not generate additional vehicle trips. Road Dust-All roads will be pavedlgravel. Landscape Equipment-Located in desert climate with low annual rainfall. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation-Apply standard dust control measures and oxidation catalysts on contruction equipment. 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction(Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction �'��ROO NOz � .�-�.CO� S02��.��'Fugitive�� -Exhaust PM10 .Fugi6ve Exhaust ��PM2.5 8iaCO2 �NBio- �� TotaI�G02 ��CH4� N20'�'� CO2e��:�... .. �� PM70.��.�.. PM10...-�Total SPM2.5 PM2.5'�. Totel ��.0O2 .. . Year � Ib/day�, �. IWday � � 2014 � 47.86 � 30.46 � 17.36 � 0.04� � 6.91 � 1.62 � 8.52 � 0.46 � 1.56 � 2.02 � 0.00 �4,543.48� 0.00 � 024 � 0.00 �4,548.45 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Mitig�ted Construction � � � R06��'. .�NOz '...�CO�� .�.502 �Fugitive '��Exhaust PM10 �,�Fugitive Exhaust PMZ 5I� Biw CO2�. ..N&a Total CQ2 CH4 �.. N2Q Cd2e � " PM70��. �r�PM70�.... � Totel PM2:5 PM2Sr��. Yotel '�...C42 . �. .-.Year Ib/day �.'�� IWday .. 2014 � 47.41 � 17.43 � 8.00 � 0.04 � 6.41 � 0.68 � 7.09 � 020 � 0.63 � 0.83 � 0.00 �4,543.46� 0.00 � 024 � 0.00 �4 548.45 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2of18 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated O�erational �� 'ROG..� �- NOX CC) S02 :�.��FugitiYe�� EXhaust �.-PM74 Fug�dve Ex6aast.. P#A25 �. �.Bio-CQ2 „'NBio- TotaICO2 CH4�." N2d '�� CO2e . ' .�: PMtO PM10 �.Tqtal PM2:5 PM2S��.�..� Total '..-002 :. � . �pategory ��., Ib/daY�. ... IWday Area � 0.45 � 0.00 � 0.18 � 0.00 � � �0.00 � 0.02 � � 0.00 �� 0.02 � 2.12 �� 17.09 � � 0.01 � 0.00 � 19.50 """9Y"':"""�"""�"""."""�"""*"""�"•"'�.."' "" ""' '�"""�""":"""r"'""�"""p"""�' '� Ener 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 13.06 0.00 0.00 ' 13.14 """'"""':"""'r'"""'�"""�"""'„""'�"""�"""'."""�" ' "' ""�""""""'}"""�'""""}"""�"""'. ' ' Mo6ile 0.08 0.40 0.67 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 ' 108.34 0.01 ' 108.44 Total 0.53 0.41 0.85 0.00 0.70 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.01 O.OJ 2.12 138.49 0.02 0.00 141.08 Mitigated Operational '>� ROG=� �� NOx CQ ��:��. S02��.� '�.Fusptive..Exhaust ��.�PM1Q F�itive Exheust�'�� PM2.5 6+aCO2 �.MBio= TotalCO2 CH4.'�: N20�.�. � CO2e��... �: PM70 -�:PM10 �.�Totai PM2:5.�� - PM2S... Totai .-C62 �Category Ibltlay' � . [�. Ib/day Area � 045 � 0.00 � 0.18 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.02 � � 0.00 � 0.02 � 2.72 � 17.09 � � 0.01 � 0.00 � 19.50 """9Y"'3""";""","""�.""";""","""}"""�"""�."'""�"""y""";"""�"""}"" "' ""' Ener 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.06 0.00 0.00 ' 13.14 """""';"""r"""�"""}"""'�"""}"""*""'"�" " "" """ ""�"'""�""""p"""}"""�"""�."' "y." '�' Mobile 0.08 0.40 0.67 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 � 108.34 0.01 � 108.44 Total 0.59 0.47 0.85 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.03 2.12 198.49 0.02 0.00 141.08 3.0 Construction Detail 3of18 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Oxidation Catalyst for Construction Equipment Water Exposed Area 3.2 Site Preparation-2014 Unmitigated Construction On-Site �.�.�.�.ROG .�.��INOz CO.: ��.,502� FugRive Exhaust �.��.PM10 Fugitive Ezhaost� PM2.5�� &aCO2 �.N610- TMafCO2 CH4:' N26.� ��..�CO2e PM10 �.��PM10�.'�� Total PMZ:S Ptv42.S: Total C42 Catepary IWday :�.�. IWday....� . FugitiveDust � �� 0.53 ��0.00 � 0.53 � 0.00 � 0.00 �� 0.00 � � � � � � 0.00 """""':"""'�"""""""'�""";"""'}""";"'"'"':"""y"" ""' •--------%----••-------+---•--.•••------------ Off-Road 1.61 11.79 8.65 0.01 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 �7,402.84� 0.14 �1,405.68 ToUI 1.81 17.79 8.65 0.01 0.53 0.73 1.28 0.00 0.7� 0.7J 1,602.64 0.14 1,405.68 Unmitiaated Construction Off-Site � .. RQ6 NCTfc ��.��GO�� SQ2 ��.��.�.Fugitive Exhaust .��PM10 Pugi¢ve Exhaust PM2 S �. �B?wCO2 '��NBio- TotaI�.G02 -0H4'. NZO.'��CO2e . . . . �� PM1U. .�.�PM10 .��Total PM2�.5 PM2S<�. 7otal ��CO2 � . � Category � Iblday �' IWday.. Hauling � � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 �� 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 """""';"""�"""�"""„""'�"'"";"•"'y""";"""�"""y"""y"""�"""�"""�"""}""' ' " Vendar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 """""';'"""�."""�"""}"'""�'"""�."""'�"""'�""'"�"" "" '�""...}"""}"'""�"""�.""""�""" Worker 0.04 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 ' 44.77 � 0.00 � 44.84 Total 0.04 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.77 0.00 44.84 4of18 3.2 Site Preparation-2014 Mitigated Construction On-Site �`ROG�:r� NOx CO�r.� .. S02'.�� FugNve-��'�Exheust..�.PM7Q Fugitive Exhauat'��. PM2S ��Bip-0O2 NBio- ToIeI.0O2 CH4�.'�. N20�. �� -002e� PM40 "PM10'.' � Total �PM2�.5 PM2 5�.I'. Total CO2 � Dategory � Iblday. .. IWday . Fugitive Dust 021 0.00 021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 """""':"""�"""'�""";"'""�"""}"""�"""�"""�"""�"" "' """ ""' " ""' 'r }' 'y'"""�"""�""' Off-Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 �1,402.64� 0.14 �1,405.68 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.27 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,402.64 0.14 1,405.68 Mitigated Construction Off-Site � ROG NOz � CO�� So2�.'.' Fugitive, ..Exhausf �PM70 Pugitive -Exhaust .�.PM2.5 Bla CO2 .N6ia- ToteI�,G02 CH4=.�. N20 ��..'..CO2e � . PM10� �'��PM10 Total.�. PM2.5 PM2.5��.�. Total ��.902 Cafegory �. INday .�. IWtlay - Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 0.00 �0.00 0.00 0.00 """""':"""y"""r"""�""""�"""y."""�""' ' "' " ' ' ' 'p"""}.." "'" ""'�"'""� ""' Vendor 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 ' 0.00 ' 0.00 r 0.00 0.00 � r 0.00 0.00 """'""';""'"�"""}"""�"""}"""�"""�"'""�'"""�"""�"'""�"'""T'_""}"""� "' ""'�"""' Worker 0.04 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 44.77 ' 0.00 � 44.84 Total 0.04 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.77 0.00 44.84 5of18 3.3 Grading-2014 Unmitigated Construction On-Site � �.�ROG '.`NOx CO�.. S02-.� Fugitive ��ExHeus! PM10 FugiHve Exhaust PM2S.� �BiaCO2 N&o- TWeI�.0O2 -0H4 N20 ��' �� COZa � PM16 .��PM10 Totak . PM2.5 PM2.5�:�.. .?olal�� .0O2 � � Category,.�.. � Iblday, �� Iblday Fugitive Dust � � � � � 0.87 � 0.00 � 0.81 � 0.42 � 0.00 � 0.42 �� 0.00 """""':"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�""".""' "" "' ';' '* "'�"""�"""�"""�""" Ofl-Road 1.85 13.02 9.35 0.02 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 �1,476.12� 0.16 �1,479.58 Total 7.85 13.02 9.J5 0.02 0.81 0.94 1.75 0.42 0.94 1.76 1,d76.12 0.16 1,478.58 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site �� ROG t�NOx ...CO. S02 .��'�Fugdrve�`Exhaust �PPo110 �.Fugitive Exheustr'. pM2.5`�.B�a CO2 NEio- 7oteI.0O2 CH4-�= McQ'.�. :�CO2e � � . . � .: PM10 �.PM10 Total PM2�:.S PM2S.'. Tat� CO2 Category�.�.: .. IWday . . ��. 1Wday . Hauling 1.39 � 17.34 � 7.27 0.03 5.96 0.68 6.64 0.03 0.62 0.68 '2,977.79' 0.07 �2,979.18 ""_""";"""T"""�"'""�"""�"""y"".';"""�""' ' "" '�"""p""' "" '}"'""�."""} ""'}""" Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 """""';'"""r"""y.""";'."";"""�.'"""�""";'"" ""_'y'"""y"""T"""�."""} "."�."""} ""' Worker 0.08 0.09 0.73 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 ' 0.00 0.01 ' 89.55 � 0.01 � 89.68 Total 1.47 17.43 8.00 0.03 6.09 0.68 6.77 0.01 0.62 0.67 3,067.34 0.08 9,068.86 6of18 3.3 Grading-2014 Mitigated Construction On-Site <.ROG� �NOx CO '�.. 502�.��.. Fugitive��Exheust PMiQ Fugidye �xheust: PM2.5�.. Bfa CO2 .�.NBiw Totel�>CO2 :�CH4. N20 �'�� CO2e��.�� PM10 ��:�PM10 Tota4 PM2'.5 PM25�: Totai '�`�CO2 .CategaY Ib/daY � � ��.��. Iblday�� . . Fugitive Dust � � � � � 0.32 � 0.00 � 0.32 � 0.16 � 0.00 � 0.16 � � � � � � 0.00 """""':"""�"""�"""�"""'�"""}"""�"""�"""}"""�""' "' ' """" '} ""'�"""�""'"�"""".""" Off-Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 �1,476.12� 0.16 �1,479.58 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.32 0.00 O.J2 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 1,476.12 0.16 1,479.58 Mitigated Construction Off-Site � '��ROG� ��'.�NOx ��CO.��.�� "S02 Fugitive...��Ezhaust � PM70 ,�Eugidve. Ekheuat PM25�,'� �6io-0O2� �� NBIo- ToteICO2 CH4�.��. N20�� .��..G02e PM10 .��PM70 ToWI PM2.5 PM2.5 Total '� '- �CO2:�. � �� Category � Iblday ... IWday � .. . Hauling.�.. .. � 1.39 � 1734 � 727 � 0.03...�.�� 5.96 � 0.68 � 6.64 � 0.03 � 0.62 � 068 � �2,97779� � 0.07�.. �2.979.18 ' " '}' ' ' 'F' '}' '�.' 'y""' "" '}""' - ---•-• •;----- , --•--�--•---� -----� ---- , --•--,•---- , -••• , •-•••:---- --- Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 * 0.00 � ' 0.00 � 0.00 """""';"""�""'.�..."'}"""�"'""�...."F"""�"""}"""}"""y'"""*"""�"""}"""�"""}""" Worker • 0.08 � 0.09 � 0.73 � 0.00 � 0.13 � 0.00 � 0.13 � 0.00 � 0.00 ' 0.01 � 89.55 � 0.07 � 89.68 � To[al 1.47 17.43 8.00 0.03 6.09 0.68 6.77 0.03 0.62 0.67 9,067.94 0.08 3,068.86 7of18 3.4 Building Construction-2014 Unmitiaated Construction On-Site '.ROG �.NOx CO'�� S02 '�'� �.�fugitive Exheust -PMiQ Fugitve �xhausE PM2.5. .BiaCO2 N6fo-'� ToteLG02 CH4. N2d �� CO2e.'.� . .. . PM10 ��PM10 .Total PM2:5 PM2.SS� Total.� CO2 c��yon i�ra�r iwam Off-Road � 2.02 � 15.03 � 10.68 � 0.02 � � 0.92 � 0.92 � � 0.92 .. 0.92 . �1,945.40� � 0.18 � �1,949.18 Total 2.02 15.03 10.68 0.02 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1,945.40 0.18 1,949.18 Unmitic�ated Construction Off-Site ��ROG..� NOx CO'�.'. S02::. Fug�tive ��Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 � ��8iaCO2 ��.NBio- Total CO2 CH4��.�.�.�.��. N20 �CO2e � PMYD +PM10� Total PM2�.5 PM2:5 Tota� �.CO2 � Category Ib/day � �: Ib/day .' � .. Hauling � 0,00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0,00 � � 0.00 """"""';"""*"""}"""�"....'�"""y."'...�"""�"""r'"" "' 'p""'"T" "' ""' "�' ' ""�"_"'}"""�"' � ' Vendor 0.03 0.32 0.18 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 � 54.45 0.00 ' S4.48 """""';"""}"'•"}""";"""}""'"�"""}'_"";""","""}"""y"""}"""�"""}"""}""'_}""" Worker 0.04 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 44.77 � 0.00 ' 44.84 Total 0.07 0.36 0.55 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 99.22 0.00 99.32 8of18 3.4 Building Construction-2014 Mitig�ed Construction On-Site . ��ROG �N6rt GO.'�' S02 .�:Fugitive Ezheust PM1Q ,Fugifive Exheust:�. PM2,5.. Bio-Gp2 �,NBio- TotaI:G02 CH4�� N20 �CO2e� .. ;, ... '.:� PM10.. ,.. PM10 Totak PM2.S PM2.5��.�'. Total ��:CO2 . . . Cakegory IWday �.�� IWday Off-Road � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.02 �� 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 �1,945.40� � 0.18 � �1,949.18 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,945.40 0.18 1,949.18 Mitigated Construction Off-Site �`'ROG .NOz ' �CO. S02.'�.- FugBive ��Ezhaust ��PM1U Fugitive Exhaust��. PM2.5 BIaCO2 ��..N6fo- tatalCO2 CN4�� N20:�' .0O2e� � PAMO ��..�.PM70 TqfaR P�v12�.5 PM2.5.� Totat�, �.�G02 ��..Category'..� � Ib1daY �:��. Ib/day . Hauling � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00� � 0.00 � 0,00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 """""":"""�"""'}"""�"""�"'_"�"""�""";"""�"""'�"" ""' ""'}"""}"'""y ""'}"""" Vendor 0.03 0.32 0.18 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 * 54.45 � 0.00 ' S4.48 """""";'"""�"""}"'""�"".'}""""�"'."}"""�""."�"""}"'""p""' ""'y'"""y."""}"""'}""" Worker 0.04 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 ? 44.77 � 0.00 � 44.84 Total 0.07 0.36 0.55 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 99.22 0.00 99.32 9of18 3.5 Pavi�g-2014 Unmitigated Construction On-Site �'�ROG Nqx CO�- �.S02 �� Fugitive r�xheust .PMiQ :Fugitive Exhauak PM2,5 .&o-0O2 N9fo- Tutel:CO2 ..,CH4� N2p `. CO2e��.' . PM16 `�..PM10 TotaE ��.�PM2.5 PM2.5:��' Total CO2 � � �beEegory Iblday '�. IWday Oft-Road • 2.18 � 13.77 � 9.69 � 0.02 � � 1.10 � 1.10 � � 1.10 � 1.10 � �1,408.52� � 020 � �1,412.63 """"9"':"""�"""�""'"'}""";."""}'"""�"""'"�""";."" "' ' "" "" ""' ""' ""' "" Pavin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2.18 1377 9.89 0.02 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1,408.52 0.20 1,412.69 Unmiti�ated Construction Off-Site � ROG ��'��NOz CQ'�� 502 Fugitive.�.,.Ezheust '��.�PM70 �..Fugitive�� Exltauat PM25.�.'Bio-G02 �.NBio- Yotel CO2 CH4�.�' N20 CO2e�� PM10 �.��PM10 ��TotaE PM2.5 PM2S-. Total �CO2 Category � Ib/day ':� Ib/day � .. � ' Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OAO 0.00 """""';"""�""._,..."';"""�."""�."""}"""}"""}"""�"""y"""}"""�"""�"""}"""�."""' Vendor • 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 0.00 """""';"""�"""�"""*"""�"""�"""}"""�"""'�"""F"""p""";"""�"""�"""�."""�""" Worker 0.14 0.16 1.32 0.00 023 0.01 024 0.00 0.01 0.01 ' 161.18 � 0.01 � 161.43 To[al 0.74 0.16 1.32 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.07 0.01 161.18 0.01 161.43 10 of 18 3.5 Paving-2074 Mitigated Construction On-Site �.'��ROG N(Sz CO�". 502-.�..Fugitive. EzhausE ��,�PMiQ Fugitive .�Exhausf �PM2.5 Bio-0O2 ��NBio- ToteFCO2 CH4� N2d��- CO2e�� PM10 .PM10 ...'.Total PM2:5 PM2.S�: Tatal�.. . � CO2 Category � � IWday < Ib/day - OR-Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 �1,408.52� 020 �7,412.63 """'9"':"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"" "' "" "" ""' ""' "" ' ' Pavin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,408.52 0.20 1,412.67 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ��.��'ROG� NOx CO:I Sp2�.��'� FugiEiva� Exhaust �',pM70. Fugidye Exhauat< .PM2S� �8io-0O2 ..��.NBio- ToteICO2 CH4 N20�.�.� .�CO2e � PM10.��PM70 �..Total PM2:5 PM2S.� Tolal � -.CO2�� Cafegory . . . . � Ib/day . . .�� IWday�� . . Hauling �0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' "';' 'y' '}' '}' 'y.' ' ' ' ' "" "'" ""' ' ' ' """ . "" ""'�"""}"'""�""' "" "" "" } ""'� "' "' ' ' "" Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • T 0.00 � � 0.00 r ' 0.00 """""';'"""�"""�"""y."•"'}"""�"""�."""*"""�."""�"""i"""*"""*"""}"""�"""�""" Worker 0.14 0.16 1.32 0.00 023 0.01 024 0.00 0.01 0.01 � 161.18 � 0.01 ' 161.43 ToUI 0.14 0.16 1.92 0.00 0.25 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.01 161.18 0.01 161.4J 11 of 18 3.6 Architectural Coating-2014 Unmitigated Construction On-Site � ��.ROG '�NOx GO�.�. S02 '.� Fugdive '.Exhaust PMiQ Fugillve Ex6quat. PM2S�. '�.Bio-0O2 N6fiy- Tot0)CO2 �CH4��. '.N20 � CO2e PM16 ":PM10� Totat PM2�:S PM2,5. Total G02 . ��'Category � IWday . . �rl IWdey Archit.Coating � 47.41 � ' � � � 0.00� � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � � � � � 0.00 """""':""";..""�"""'�"""�""'"�"""�"""�""'"�"""';""" ""' ""' ""' ""' "" ""' OH-Road 0.45 2.77 1.92 0.00 024 024 024 024 • � 281.19 � � 0.04 � ' 282.03 Total 47.86 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 281.19 0.04 282.03 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site _ .. ROG .��NOx ��CO��: ��502.�� Fug�tive.� �.Exheusf-- PM1Q '.�Fugitive Exheuet. PM2.5'��. Qio-CO2 �NBio- ?oteI.0O2 CN4�� `�N20 � CO2e PM16 ��-PM10 Total �.��PM2.5 PM2.5'�: Total-.. `CO2 � � Category �. � IWday � �.'�. Ib/day . Hauling • 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 • � 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 """""'3"""}""";"""}"'_"}""";"""�.'__"'}"""�"""�"""y""";"""}"""�"""}"""�""" Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 "'""""'�"""�"""�"""}"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�."""�"""�"""�"""}"""�."""�"""�""" Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 895 0.00 8.97 Total 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01� 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.95 0.00 8.97 12 of 18 3.6 Architectural Coating-2074 Mitigated Construction On-Site '.�ROG �'��Ndz CQ�.` S02 ��.� Fugdive '.ExheuBt PM76 FugiBve E%heueY�:��. PM2.5 ��8io-CO2 ��.NBio- Tolef CO2`�CH4 N20� ��. G02e-� � � PM16 ''PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2S'�.��. total CO2 -0ategory . �. Ib/day: ' IWday�--. .. Archit Coating � 47.41 � ' � � ' � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � � � � � 0.00 """""":"""�"'""�"'""�..."':"""�'""'"�"""�""'"}""""}""'"' ""' _"' "" "" "'" ' Ofl-Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 ' 281.19 � ' 0.04 T 282.03 Total 47.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 287.19 0.04 282.03 Mitigated Construction Off-Site � � ROG�.�. �..NOx GO��.��. � S02 Fugitrve �.�zNeusf ��PM10 Fugitive Exheust.�. PM2.5-�� &aCO2 .' NBfa,�. TotaICO2 ��.'GH4� N20.��.�� CO2e�' PM10 ��PM10 "Total PM2.S PM2S'�'�. TMaI �CO2 .� Category Iti/tlay �.� Ib/day . � - Hauling � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 �� 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 """""';"""y"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�."""}"""�"""%"""}"""�"""}"""�'•""}' Vendor • 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.0� � 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 • � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 """""';"""�"""�'.""}"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""%"""}"""�"""�'•""�"""}""" Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.95 0.00 8.97 Total 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.95 0.00 8.97 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 13 of 18 � -.� ROG ' '..NOz CO�,I ..502. FugdiYe��"Exhaust PMi� FugiHve Exhauat�'� PM2,5,- @o-0O2 .NBio-�.� TolaI��GO2 GH4.� �N20 CP2e��. � PM�U -�.'PM10 �?otal PM2lS PM2.5.� Total ��'�'CO2�.�.. .��:.Category IWday � INday Mitigated 0.08 040 0.67 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 � 108.34 � �0.01 ' 108.44 """""';"""y."""�"""�"""}"""�"""F"""*"" '}"""} "' '�"""T"""}"""�"""�"""� ' Unmitigated 0.08 0.40 0.87 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.01 0,01 ' 708.34 � 0.01 ' 108.44 To[al NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.2 Trip Summary Information Avera eDatl Tri 'Rate ' Unmitl'ated Miti ated f Land Use Weakday 'Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annuat VMT Other Non-As halt Surfaces • 0 00 ' 0.00 ' 0.00 ' ' ..................?..................i------�----.••}-••-•-•----�---•-•-•---�-----------•---•--------�-------•-••--•-•...------- Recreational Swimmin Pool ' 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 ' ' ........ .�.......... .i-'-- --- -- - - --- - '-'-'-- ----'-' -------- -----"-- . .............. . """ T """' ' � """ ':' """" 'p' """" Sin le Famil Housin 9.57 10.08 8.77 27,062 27,062 Total 9.57 10.08 8.77 27,062 27,062 4.3 Trip Type Information .. � � Miles . '��.��...��Tnp% � LantlUse � � H-WnrC-W H-SorGC :'��H•Oo�C-NW ��- H-WorGW '�HSorC-G'�� H-O�orC-NW OtherNon-AsphaltSurfaces�� ; 9.50 ; 7.30 ; 7.30 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ........................9.............---"""""r----'-""'-•.------"-':"""""",'-•-----'-";"""""- Recreational Swimmin Pool 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 14 ot 18 Miles ' Tnp! Land Usa I�'� H-W or GW H-S or GC '�.H-O or GNUU H•W or C-W ��H$or C-C"� H-O or G-NW:�� Single Family Housing ; 10.80 ; 7.30 ; 7.50 ; 40.20 ; 1920 ; 40.60 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy �� :ROG NOz GO". SOZ '�'�. Fug�tive ��.Exhaust '�PM16 FugiUve Exhaust� PM25 '�BiaCO2 .�NBfo- Totaf�.0O2 CH4'� N2�'' `�CO2e� Pfv110 �-.PM10 �.Totek PM7:.5 PM2S��'� Totel �.0O2 Category .. �..Ib/day �. IWday . �. .. .. NaturalGas • 0.00 � 0.01 0.00 � 0.00� � 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 • � 13.06 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 13.14 " Mitigated : � � � � : � � � � . � -"' ' "„"'"'�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�'"""�"""�"'""'.""_':""'""'""'�" NaturalGas 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 13.06 � � 0.00 � 0.00 ' 13.14 Unmitigated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15 of 18 5.2 Energy by Land Use-NaturalGas Unmitigated � �� . NaturelGesWe�I ROG �.�:NOx '�. CO SO?I .Fugttiva�.. ��Ezhaust �.PM10 Fugitive Ezhpusl.� PM2.5 6w-C�2 .: N&o-..�TotaICO2 CH4 �N20 CO2e�. � PM10.. PM70 :::Total �PM2S PM2.5 Totat�. '�. CO2 . � ..Land Use � �� kBTU '�:Ih+dey IWday.". OtherNon-Asphalt� 0 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 Surfaces """""'_„"""":"""�"""�"""�""",."""�"""�"""�'..."„""'�""":"""�"""�""' "' ' " Recreational 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 ' 0.00 ' 0.00 � � . � � . � . � . � � � � � . . Swimming Pool � � � "'9..."Y'?""""'�"""*"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�""" "" "' "" ""' "" �' '�' "�' '• '*' '�"""�"""�"""�"' Sin Ie Famil 111.027 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 13.06 0.00 0.00 13.74 Housing Total 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7J.06 0.00 0.00 13.14 Mii NaturalGas'.Use� ROG � ��NOx GO -��502 Fugftrve" Ezha�st "�.PM1Q ��.Fugitive Exfiaust PM2S.'�: Bio=G02 NBio- TotaICO2;.CH4 �'N20 .�CO2e�. -PM70'�.� PM1Q �,TWaI :PM2.5 PM25 Totei: G02 LanC Use ,.� kBTU� �� .' Itilday � . � Ib/day . .. . OtherNon-Asphak� 0 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 Sur(aces � . � � � � � � � � � . � � � � � """""'T"""""':"""�"""*"""�"'""�"""�"""�"'...';"""�"""�""":""" "" "" ' ' ' "" ' ' Recreational 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 ' 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 � � � . � � � � � � � � Swimming Pool . � ._ _ _ _ "'9"'"'Y'T'"'""""":"'"".""'"�'"""'�'""""""""�"'""�""" """ "" "' "'" ""' "' "' Sin le Famil 0.111027 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 13.08 � 0.00 0.00 ' 13.14 Housing Total 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.06 0.00 0.00 11.14 6.0 Area Detail 16 of 18 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area �.'�ROG NOu CO.'. �'� S02 � Fogitive`� Exhaust 'PM16 Fugitive Exhaosf';� PM25�� SiaCO2 �=.NBio- TotaICO2 CH4�- ��N20 CO2e� `� PM1p PMiO Tatal PM2�.5 PM2S;'� Totai CO2 �.. Category. IWday.', �' Ib/day Mitigated 0.45 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 2.12 � 17.09 � 0.01 0.00 • 19.50 """9""':'"'"'"�"'""�"""�"""'."""':""";"""�""" "" "' "'"' ""'" "" "" "' """ Unmiti ated 0.45 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 � 0.00 � 0.02 • 2.12 � 17.09 � ' 0.01 � 0.00 � 19.50 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated . . �. ROG NOz CO,�� :�.�502 . Fugitive�� Exhaust PM16 Fugitive Exhauat�'� PM25�� 'BiaCO2 �.NBi+r TotaI�.0O2 CH4��. �� N20 �. CO2e � . . �� PM16 -�' PM10 Total F�vt2.5 PMZ<5; Total -CQ2 � SubCetegary�� IWdep��, ��Ibldey Architectural • 0.10 � � � � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 • � � � � � 0.00 Coating """""':'"""r"""�""'"�"""�"""'�"""."""�"""�"""�"""�"'"""*"""*'""'"�"""�""'".""" Consumer 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products """""':"""r"""�""'"�"'"""�""""'�"""�"""�"""�"""�""":""""*"""�"""'�"""�"""�""" HeaRh 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 2.12 16.94 0.01 0.00 � 19.35 """'p'9':"""r"'""�"""}"""�""""'."'"'".""";""' "' '"' ""' "' "'" '"' ' "" ""' Landsca n 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 r 0.00 � 0.15 ' 0.00 � 0.15 Total 0.45 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 2.12 17.09 0.01 0.00 19.50 17 of 18 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mi' �� ROG� �� NOx Cp'.�. S02�� Fugdrve�.��Exhaust .��PM76 .fugitive Exheuat�. �.��PM2S � �9fa CO2 .�..NBiry.; ?otel CO2 �CH4.�' �� N20 CO28.� � � PM10 �'-.PM10 �Tota4 ��PM2.5 PM25�.�. ��.?otal '��.0O2 . SubCatepory_. ��Itilday �� . � �' Ib/day � � � Amhitedural • 0.10 � 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 • 0.00 Coating ""'"""'".�"""�"""�'...",."""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�""":"""'r"""�"""�"""'�"""�""" Consumer • 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products """""':"""�"""."""'�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�'"""'�"'"'":"""'*"""�"'""�"""�"""'�"'"" Hearth 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 2.12 16.94 0.01 0.00 � 79.35 "'"'"""";"""'�""":"""}"""�"'_"�"""y."""�."""�."""y"""i"""}"""}"""�.""..�..""�""" Landscaping � 0.00 • 0.00 � 0.09 � 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 • • 0.15 • 0.00 � 0.15 Total 0.45 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 2.12 17.09 0.01 0.00 19.50 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Vegetation 18 of 18 CaIEEMod Version:CaIEEMod2011.1.1 Date:11/25/2013 Pinnacle,Palm Desert Salton Sea Air Basin,Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage LanH Uses S�ze' Metnc Single Family Housing 1 Dwelling Unit --•-----•-•-•-••----••-•-•-••�-•-•••-----•••---•------•----�•-••-----•••-----•-•-•••----- Recreational Swimming Pool 1 t000sqft -••-•---•-•---•---•-••-•.....�---•-•-------•---•-----------�----------------••-•-•••----- Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.34 1000sqft 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed�mis) 3.4 Utility Company Southem California Edison Climate Zone 15 PrecipiWtlon Freq(Days)20 1.3 User Entered Comments Project Characteristics- Land Use-Source:Project site plan Lot Coverage Table. 22,051 SFI O.SAC total disturbed area. Construction Phase-Assumes a 6 month construction period. Grading-Source:Site grading plan.cut=90 cy;fill=2,012 cy On-road Fugitive Dust-Paved roads will be used to/from the site. 1 of 24 Vehicle Trips-The swimming pool is for private use and will not generate additional vehicle trips. Road Dust-All roads will be paved/gravel. Landscape Equipment-Located in desert climate with low annual rainfall. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigatio�-Apply standard dust control measures and oxidation catalysts on contruction equipment. 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction '�R06 NRu'.�- � CO �S02 �. FugRive r.�F�cheust PM10 ��.Fugitive�.Exhaust a.PM2.5 Bio-CO2 :"N&o- Total CO2�� AH4�� ' N20 ��-0O2e � PM10 �.�.PM70-�� Totet pM2S ��PM2.5 Tota1�- '.��CO2 .� � � .Year � . . tonsly� �� . ....�MTryr.� . . 2014 • 0.30 � 0.79 � 0.57 � 0.00 � 0.03 � 0.05 � 0.08 � 0.00 ' 0.05 ' 0.05 • 0.00 � 98.19 ' 96.19 � 0.01 � 0.00 ' 96.37 Total 0.30 0.79 0.57 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 96.79 96.19 0.01 0.00 96.37 Mitigated Construction . .R06 �NOz CO�.�� 502.. Fugitive�. Exhausf .'��PM10 Pugifiva Exhaust PM2 5�,. �Biw CO2 'N&o-��. Total:CQ2 CH4<: N20��:��.��COZa � � PMtO ��.PMtU Totel '.�PM2�.5 PM2.5 Totel�� 'CO2 Year � tonslyr �. MT/yr 2014 • Q20 � 0.07 � 0.06 � 0.00 � 0.03 � 0.00 � 0.03 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 • 0.00 � 96.19 � 96.19 � 0.01� � 0.00 � 98.37 Total 0.20 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 96.79 98.19 0.01 0.00 96.97 2 of 24 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational .��.�.ROG Nfh� Ctlt. S02:.-. Fugihve��...Exhausl 'rPAA10 Fugitlue Exheust�< PAA2.5��.�� .&aCO2 '.��NBfo- Total��GQ2 CH4�.� N20'... . CO28 � PM10 ��.��PM10 Total PM2',S PM2.5'�. Tatal CO2 � CateqoN ronslyr �� MTtyc Area 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.91 2.02 0.00 0.00 2.04 """9Y"':"""�"'.._�._...':"""�"""�"""�"""�""" "" ' ""' "' "' "' "' ' """ " ' Ener 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 • 0.00 � 4.26 � 4.26 ' 0.00 ' 0.00 � 4.28 """""':"""�"""�"""�""":"""�"""�"""�""•'�"""."" ' ""' """ "" "' ""' """ Mobile 0.01 0.07 � 0.12 � O.Oa 0.02 0.00 0.02 ' 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 � 17.43 � 17.43 � 0,00 � 0.00 � 17.45 """""':"""*"""�"""�"""."""�"""�"""�"""."""�"""�"""r""' ""' "' "' ""' Was�e 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.41 0.00 � 1.41 � 0.08 � 0.00 � 3.15 """""':"""T"""�""":"""�"""�"""�""""':""":"" "" "" "' "' "' ""' " "' Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.84 Total 0.09 0.07 0.14 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.51 24.32 25.84 0.08 0.00 27.76 3 of 24 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational '''ROG ��.Ntlx .�GO�� 502 '.��FUgitive <��.gxheust PM76��.FOgitive Exhaust� ��.PM2.5 Bio-0O2 �.�NBio-� ��Totel CO2 CH4�� N20 .''�. CO2e��.. �� PM16 �PM10 Totak PM2S PM2.5.'�.�. '��Total -��.-CA2 ��Cetegory tonslyt . . �.'�, MTryr . Area • 0.08 � 0.00 � 0.02 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00� � 0.00 • 0.10 � 1.91 � 2.02 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 2.04 """9Y"':"""�"""�"""�"""�"""p"""�"""�""" " ' "' "" "' ' ' ' � ' "�' "p' '}' "�' ""�"""�"""�"' Ener 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 • 0.00 � 426 � 428 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 4.28 ""...""„""'�"""�"•"'�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"" "" "" "" "' "' "" Mobile 0.01 0.07 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 � 17.43 � 17.43 � 0.00 ' 0.00 � 17.45 ""'..."':"'"'"�"""�"""}"""�"""�""".'"""�"""'.""'"'�""":"""}""' "" "" ' ' ' "' Waste 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 1.41 � 0.00 � 1.41 � 0.08 ' 0.00 � 3.15 """""":"""�"""�"""�"""'�""""}"""�'"""�"""p""";"""�""":"" "'" ' ' " ' ' Waler 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 072 � 072 � 0.00 ' 0.00 � 0.84 Total 0.09 0.07 0.74 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.51 24.32 25.84 0.08 0.00 27.76 3.0 Construction Detail 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Oxidation Catalyst for Construction Equipment Water Exposed Area 4 of 24 3.2 Site Preparation-2014 Unmitigated Construction On-Site '.,ROG �NOit .�CO"� 502 '.,Fugitive :Ezheust ��PM74 Fugitive Exhaust� PM2:5� Bio-0O2 ��N�o- ToteICO2 CH4 N2Q '� CO2e�� : PM10 PM90 'Total PM2.� PM2S��.�r Total �CO2 r Catepary �� tonstyr�. ��:��.MTtyr '�� . �. Fugitive Dust • � � � � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 """""':""""""'�"""�"""�""";."""�"""�"""}"""�" ' ' """ "' "' ' ' ' ; *' "�' ".' ""�"""�""" Off-Road 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.64 To[al 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.64 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site <�RpG.�` .NOz CO�� 502 k fugdive.'.�Exheust PM10. Fugitive .Exhaust PM25��- Bfo-CO2 "NBio- Tota1��.G02 CH4"' N20''r � G02e 'r PM10 ��.PM10 �Total PM2�.5 PM2S.�� Tatal ��CO2 � Category tonsJy� . � � ..��MTtyr . Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 """""';"""';"""�"""}"'""";'""";"""}"""�."""}'"""}"""y"""}'"'""}'""""}"""}"""}""" Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 '"""""';"""}"""�"""�"""�"""}"""y.'"""'}"""'�"""y'"""""""y"""�."""�"""}"'"'"}""" Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 5 of 24 3.2 Site Preparation-2014 Mitigated Construction On-Site ��ROG ��NOx Cp'�,'. 502.�<. Fugitive Ezheust � PM10 Fugitiva �xhaust: PM2.5�� BfaCO2� �-N&o- ToIaI�CO2 CH4��. N20 '� CO2a�.�� PM16 �.PM10. �.Total PM2:.5 PM2S" Totai��. ��..CO2 � Category tonslyr � � MTy� Fugitive Dust • 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 """""':"'""}"'""':"""�"""�"""}"""�""'"y"""�"""p"'" '"' " "p" ':"""}"""�"""�"""�"" Off-Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.64 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.6d 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.64 Mitigated Co�struction Off-Site �� ROG �NOx �.CO�.�� 502' FugRive.-�Exhaust�� PM70 Eugipve Exheust PM2.5�� 810-0O2 �:NBio- TWeI�,CO2 GN4r'�. N20. �..CO2e � � PM10 .�.�PM70�' -��Total PM2.5'� PM2.5 Totel �CO2 Category tonsryr MTtyr Hauling � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 """""';"'""�"""}""'"}"""}"""}""'"� � :"'""'� '"""}"""�"'""� �"""�""" �..."'*""" *"""'. � � """' Vendor • 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 """""';"""�"""�."""}"""�"""�"""�"""}"""�"""y"""y"""}"""y'_""�"""�"""� ' Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 60f24 3.3 Grading-2014 Unmitigated Construction On-Site BOG NOX. �� CO� 502 l.��Eugitive Exheust .'�PAA1Q FugiMYe �xhaust' PM2.5 ',Bfa CO2 =NBiO- Tota0CO2 CHA.�� NZf7 '�'� CO2e l. � '� PM10 �.�.PM10 ��Totak PM2��.5 PM2S� Total CO2 Category tonsFyt �:�� MTyr Fugitive Dust � � � � � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 """""":"""�""""�"""�"""�""'"�"""�"""�"""�"""�" ' ' ""' "'" ' ' ' ' '}' ":"""�"""�""""�""" Off-Road 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.69 4.69 0.00 0.00 4.70 Total 0.07 0.05 O.OS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.69 4.69 0.00 0.00 4.70 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site �. � ��.�ROG NOz �GQ�:�� S02� Fug�[ive-;�Exhaust PM1Q FugiBve ExhausY PM2.5�' �Bio-CO2�. �..�NBIo- TotefCO2 GH4-� N20 '.CO2e PMi4.�� '...PM10. � Total �PM2.5 PM2.5�.��. Tatal- ..�.�CO2 ..Category 'tons/yr � .. .��. MTtyr Hauling • 0.00 0.06 � 0.02 � 0.00 ' 0.02 0.00 � 0.02 ' 0.00 � 0.00 ' 0.00 • 0.00 9.49 � 9.49 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 9.50 """""';"""}"""}"""}"""„""'}""";""";"""}"""�"""y"""�"'_"}"""�."""„""'}""" Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 """""';"""r..""�'"""}"""�"""�"""}"""y.'"""�"""}"""�"""y"'""y."""�"""*"""y""" Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.30 Total 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.79 9.79 0.00 0.00 9.80 7 of 24 3.3 Grading-2014 Mitig�ted Construction On-Site �. .�. ROG -�.�.NOx � �.CO� ��502 ��.Fugitive �EzheusF PM1Q �Fugitive Exheust��. PPA2.5 BIo-0O2 .N�o- Total CO2 CH4.'�.' N20 .�.�. CO2e�� .� PM10 'PM10 ��.TotaF-� PM2.5 PM2.5 '�.'� Total . C62 .Category � tonslyr, '�.�MT/yr �. Fugitive Dust • 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 """""':"""r"""�"""�"""'�"""'."""*"""�"""�"""�"""""" ""' "' "' ' _"' ' ' Ofl-Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 � 4.69 � 4.69 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 4.70 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.69 4.69 0.00 0.00 4.70 Mitigated Construction Off-Site � ROG �NOz CO f9 S02 .�::Fugdive�� Exheust PM70 Figidv9� ,Ekheqat PM2 5��.r �@io-CO2 NBio- ToteI�.0O2��CH4 N20.. � ��CO2e�.� `. PM1U :�:PM10� ..TotaE PM2::5 PM2..5 Total CO2 � Category . � ton�yi �� MTryr Hauling 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.49 9.49 0.00 0.00 9.50 """""'�"""*"""}"""�."'""}"""�'"""}"""�"""¢"""}"""p"""}"""}"""'�"""'"}"""y.""" Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 """""'„""'�"""}"""�"""}"""�"'""'�""'"�"""}"""*"""�"""*"""�"""y...""'�'"""y.""" Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.30 To[al 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.79 9.79 0.00 0.00 9.80 8 of 24 3.4 Building Construction-2014 Unmitigated Construction On-Site .�.R4G NOz CO��.�< 502��'FupiUve IEkheust �.�PM70 FUgltive Exhaust'�. PM2.5�... BIo-Gp2 �.N6fa TotaI��CO2 CH4�,: fy20 � CO2e '. PM10 ��PM10 Total PM2;5 PM2.5 i Totai CO2 Cafegory rons/yr ��-'MTryr � Off-Road � 0.08 � 0.60 � 0.43 � 0.00 � � 0.04 � 0.04 � � 0.04 � 0.04 � 0.00 � 70.57 � 70.57 � �.07 � 0.00 � 70.71 Total 0.08 0.60 0.49 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 70.57 70.57 0.01 0.00 70.71 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ".�ROG N4z GO.. S02' Fugihve ��Ezhausl .'.�PM10 �.Fugitive� Exheust�� PM25 $faCO2 NBfo- ToteICO2 CH4'' N20��'� CQ2e. s PM1� =.�PM10 ��Tota! PM2S �.PM2.5�� Totel CO2 Cafegory tonsJyr '+�.MT/yr Haulirg � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 """""';"".'T""";"""�."""�""'"�.""".;"""}"""�."""'�"""'y"""*""";"""�."""�.""'"'�""" Vendor 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 1.99 1.99 0.00 0.00 1.99 -•--••••-•-�------+•---•-�-•----�-••--•_------�--•-•-+�--•••--------�------�------+----••+-•----�------+------}-•----+-•-•-- Worker 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 1.71 1.71 0.00 0.00 1.71 Total 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.70 1.70 0.00 0.00 9.70 9 of 24 3.4 Building Construction-2014 Mitigated Construction On-Site �'��ROG ��'��N07r CO '�.'�. S02 ��:�Fugdrve'.'.Exheust ��PM70 Fugitive 'Exhauat PM2.5 �.BIa CO2'.'��N6fa TnteI�CO2 CH4�'�� NZO �.�.'��Cd2e '�: PMtO�'�� PM10 ��Totat PM2�.5 PM2.5 Tot� -:�CO2 � Category � donslyr '�. MT/yr� Off-Road � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 �� 0.00 � 70.57 � 70.57 � 0.01 � 0.00 � 70.71 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.57 70.57 0.01 0.00 70.77 Mitiaated Construction Off-Site :ROG �.��:.NOz CO �: S02 ��.��Fugitive '�-Ezhaust �. PM70 Fugit(ve ..Ezhaust PM2S� 8io-0O2 NBIo- Totel CO2 CHA�.'�. N20 ��.'. �CO2e�� .�'. PMtO �.��PM70.� .� Totat PM2.S PM2.S� ��-Ta[al .C62 Category :�ronsJyr �� MT/yr . Hauling � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 �� 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 """""";'"""y"""'}"""�."""y."""�"""'�"""�."""�""'"'}.""'p"""T"""}"""}"""f""'_}""'" Vendor 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.99 1.99 0.00 0.00 1.99 """""';"""}"""'�"""}"""*"""�."""}"""�"""}"""}""""""'T"""�'"""�.'"""}..""f""" Worker 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 1.77 1.71 0.00 0.00 1.71 7ota1 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.70 3.70 0.00 0.00 9.70 �o or za 3.5 Paving-2014 Unmitigated Construction On-Site . . � �ROG ��.��.Nflx CO'�- S02 :'.�Fugdive.".Ezhaust�� PM10 Pugitiye Exhsust: PM2.5� �.9ia CO2 ��.�NBia-��-Totel CQ2 ..CHA N2Q��.�. � CO2e � � PM10 .�PM10 ..��Totaf PM2'i5 PM2.5:` Tara1 �.�`CO2 Category tonstyr � �� MTryr . Off-Road • 0.01 � 0.06 � 0.04 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 •� 0.00 � 5.11 � 5.17 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 5.12 . . � � � . � � . � . . � � . � """"'9"':"""�"""*"""�"""�"""}'"'""'�"'""�"""'*'""' "' ""' "" "' "" "' ' "' Pavin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.71 5.1t 0.00 0.00 5.12 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site . . ��ROG �� NOx CO s��: ��.502�� .Fugitive Exheust� �.�PM1Q��, FugiAve Exheuat< PM2.5>� �8faCO2 '�N6f0- TotaI��CO2 CH4'�.�:�. ��. N20 � CO2e .. � PMtO` '.�PM10 ��Total.�. ��PM2.5 PM2S': Total '� �CO2 . Category .. ��lonslyr �� MTtyr�'� Hauling • 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 • 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 ._._..""'�"""T"""�."""�""""�""'"�"""�""_'}"""y."'...F""'"y""'"�"""'�' � � ""'}"""�"""�"' ' Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 """""'�"""}"""�"""�"""}"""}"""�"""�"""�"""�"""p"•"'}"""�"""}"""}"""�.""" Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.62 Total 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.62 11 of 24 3.5 Paving-2014 Mi igated Construction On-Site '�..�R6G�:. �NOX : CO.'� ��502 Fugitive. ��Exheust ��'PM10 FugidYe Exhaust�.'� PM2.5 �6ta-.0O2 ��NBiO- Total CO2 ��CH4� N20 C�26.��.� PMt6: �,PM10 ri?otat PM2':.5 PM2.5'� Total ��CO2 � ��y9a(y tonslY[ i�. MT/yr OH-Road � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � O.W �� 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 5.11 � 5.11 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 5.12 "'„""'*""'_�"""�"""�"""�"""."""."""�"" "" "" "' "' "' ""' "" ": "p' 'r' "y' " Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.11 5.11 0.00 0.00 5.12 Mitigated Construction Off-Site .�� ROG�..� NOx CO��'�' �.�502 Fugdive�� Ezhausf '.PM10 Fugidve Exhauat PM25' �$iaCO2 NBfo- TotaICO2 CH4'� N20� CO2e� � PM10 ��.�..�PM10 '�Total .�PM2:5 PM2.5`'�. Total �' '.Co2 .. � �Category tonslyr "�. MTtyr Hauling � 0.00 � �0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 �� 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 �� 0.00 � 0.00 "'""""';"""�"""�..""}"""�"""�"""}"""�"""}"""""""{'"""T"""'} ""'}"""�."'""}""' Vendor • 0.00 � 0.00 ' 0.00 • 0.00 ' 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 � 0.00 • 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 """""';"""}"""y"""�"""�"""�"""�"""F"""�" " "' "' "' "" -"'}"""p"""}"' '�' "}" "}" "�" Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.62 Total 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.62 12 of 24 ,. 3.6 Architectural Coating-2014 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ....ROG NpX CO.�� S02 . ��ugitive .'�Exheust�� PM10 .Fugitive Exheustt�. PM2S��&o-CO2 ��N6fo- Totel CO2 GH4", N20 ��' CO2e:�. '�. PM'10 .PMlO��.� ToWt PM2.5 PM2.5��'�. 7otal �CO2 � . �.Category � ronslyr � ',MTtyr �... . Archit.Coating � 0.19 � � � � � 0.00 � 0.00 � � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 """""':"""}"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"" ' "" "' ' ' " ' ;' ';' "S"""�"""�""' . ' " Off-Road 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 ' 1.02 1.02 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 1.02 Total 0.19 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 1.02 0.00 0.00 1.02 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site � �.ROG .��.:NOx GC)�.�� .'S02 Fugi6v0r��.Exhaust '.��PM70 � .FugiWe ExheusY ' PM2.5�... Bio-Cp2 �.-�NBfo-��.:.TWeICO2 CH4�.�. N20��CO2e� � � PM10 �PM10� �. ToWI PM2��.S PM2:5�. Total ,��G02 .. Category - tons/yY � � � '��'MTlyr � � Hauling � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 """""';"""�"""}"""�.""","""�."""}"""y"""„""'}"""�"""*""" """�."""�"""�.""" Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 """""':"""�"""'�."""�"""}"""�"""}"""'� "' '�""'"� "' '_"""}"""�"""'�"" '�"""� ' ' ' Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01 13 of 24 3.6 Architectural Coating-2014 Mitiqated Construction On-Site � � ��ROG ��.NOx CO :�r S02��Fug�tive��. Ezh�ust 'PPA76 Fugitive Exhauat� �PM2.5: Bio-0O2 .NBio- TotaICO2 CH4��.'�. NZO�� CO28.��' �� r PM1D� ��. PM10 ��Tota4 PM2;5 PM2.5:.. Total �.0O2 Gategoq' tonsly� �� MTryr Archit Coating � 0.19 �0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _.""""':"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""'�"""�""" "" ""' ""' "' �""""""'}"'"": "}' : '"�"' Off-Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 1.02 0.00 D.00 1.02 Total 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 1.02 0.00 0.00 1.02 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ��...�ROG ��< NOx CO��"�� 562'��'Fugitive��. ��EaheusE ��PM10 Fugitive�:...Exhaust PAA25'�� Bio-0O2 ��..NBia Totel�,G�2 CH4'�-�� N20��'� CO2s'.. ' PM1U '-=AM10 7otal PM25 �PM2,5 TMaI��. �.�.CO2 Category .� tonslyr '�. MTtyr Hauling � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 """""';"""�"""�"""�"""�"""}"""�'"""¢"""y.'"""}"""�"""}"""'}"""y."""'�"" ' ' ' Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 """""';"""f"""'y."""�"""�"""'�"""�"""'�"" "�'"'""}"'""""'_'}'"""�"""�"""�"'""� ' "' Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 0.03 0.03 � 0.00 ' 0.00 � 0.03 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 14 of 24 � �..�.ROG NOX CO�� S02.�� FugltiYO Ezheust PMiQ- Pugidve E%heuat PM2;5�.� �Bio-0O2 .�N�a Tolef.G02 CH4� N20�.� CO2e�. �� PM4U PM10 Total��- PM2.5 PM2S��< Total CO2 �.Calegory �-. tonsryr '�-MTryr �:�. . � .. Mitigated � 0.01 � 0.07 � 0.12 � 0.00 �� 0.02 � 0.00 � 0.02 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 17.43 � 17.43 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 17.45 ';' ' ' ' '}' ' ' '}' '�' '}' """"" . "" �""' � "" ""'}"""�"""� "" �"""�"" "' "' "" "" "' '"' ""' Unrtntigated 0.01 0.07 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 • 0.00 T 17.43 � 17.43 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 17.45 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.2 Trip Summary Information Avera eDai� Tri Rate'r' ' Unmiti ated 'MiG ated ` Land lJse ' Weekday; Saturday Sunday '' AnnuaCVMT '' Annuat VMT Other Non-As halt Surfaces ' 0 00 ; 0.00 0.00 ' • ..... . P ..... .�•" -- " ' -'- - -------'---""""'-" "---•------------------- . ..... ...... ........... . "----- -T- """ 'i ----'- -� '�' Recreational Swimmin Pool 0 00 ' 0.00 ' 0.00 ' ' ........ .�.......... .f•--' -- '- --- -- --;----'-" --------�'--.-....- -'--"-•- . .............. . "'"" '}' ------ F' """ . '------- """" Sin le Famil Housin 9.57 10.08 8.77 27,062 27,062 Total 9.57 10.08 8.77 27,062 27,062 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles ° Tnp% .'�:��Land Use. ��.��H-W or C�:-W�� .�. H-S or C-C '��H-O or C-NW ��.H-W or C-W ��H-S orG-C"��. H-Q or C-NW. Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ; 9.50 ; 7.30 ; 7.30 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ........................9.............--•-••------�------------^-•-•-•-----;------------;------------�---•••--•'• Recreational Swimmin Pool 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 of 24 �- Miles.�.. � � �'� Tnp°Jo�. �.� LandUse��. � ��H-WorC�-W , �H-SorC-C-.��H•OorC-NW H-WorC-W-�� HSoeC-G H-OorC-NW� Single Family Housing 10.80 7.30 7.50 4020 1920 40.60 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy "��ROG �NOz CO�:�� S02 .��.Fugifire Exheus! Ptv110.. ..FugiHve 'Exhaust PM25.��.� �Bio-0O2 :�.N@ia Total��:G�2 .�AH4� N20.'.�'��'CO2e� ' PM10 :PM10 Totaf PM2:.5 PM2.5'�� Tafal ��CO2 � � � Categary tons/yt c� MTlyr��-� Eledriuty 0.00 ' 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 � 2.09 � 2.09 � 0,00 � 0.00 � 2.11 Mitigated -------ry--:•-----�-•---•�-•.--•�-••---�---••-'--...-�------�------�------ -- • ---• --- - - • - • - - - • - --�• -*• -•�• • --,• • --•- - Elechici 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.09 2.09 0.00 0.00 2.11 Unmitigated """""':"""�"""�"""�"'"""�""'"�"""�"""�"""�"""�""":"""r"""�"""�"" '"' "' NaturalGas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.76 2.16 0.00 0.00 2.18 Mitigated """""':"""�"""�"""."""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""'�"""':"""""' "' ' "' ""' """ Na�uralGas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.16 � 2.16 ' 0.00 � 0.00 � 2.18 Unmitigated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 16 of 24 5.2 Energy by Land Use-NaturalGas Unmitig� NataralGes Use: ROG � �-�.�NOx ��.�C� SO?'�. PugAive. Exhaust >'�.PM10 Fugitive Exhaug( PM2S�.� 6iw.G07��.[c.�NBia� ToNaFCO2��. CH4:� N20 � CO2e PM1Q`�- PMi� 'rTWal PM2.5 PM25 7ota1.��: '� CO2 . LandUse '.'�. kBTU �: '.� :tonsyr MT/yr ,'.'�. � OtherNoo-Asphatt� 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surtaces """"'""'.r"'"""'":"""�"""�"""'�""'""�"""'�"""'�"""'�"""�"""�""":"""r"""."""�"""�"""'�""" Recreatlonal 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Swimming Pool ""9""y'?"""'""':""'"�""'"'�"""�""'""�""'"�"""�"""'�"""�"" ' ""' "" "' "' "' "' ' ' Sin le Famil 40524.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 2.18 � 2.76 � 0.00 � 0.00 ' 2.18 Housing Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.16 2.16 0.00 0.00 2.18 Mitigated NaturalGas Use'�. ROG �.'.�NOz ��`CO � ��SOZ Fugitne��.'>. Ezhaust `��PM10�.: �Fugitive ExhausE.�� Ph12S� B�o-0O2�:� NB�o- ?ota�CO2��:' CH4 N20'�. 'CO2e PM10'��' PM10 �:Total � �1 PM2.5 PMZ 5 �.�,Totai "�. COZ � Land Use ��'. kBTl1 . tonslyr �� - MTryr �. � OtherNon-Asphatt• 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00�� 0.00 0.00 0.00� 0.00 Surfaces """"""?""""'"':"""'T'"'"'"�"""*"""�'"""�"""�"'""'�"""'�"""�"""�"""�"""'�"""�"""�"""�"""' Recreatlonal 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 • 0.00 • 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 Swimming Pool "'9"'"y'?"'"""":"""'�""""�'""'"�"""�'"""�'""'""�'"""�"""�""' "" ""' "" "' ' " "' "' Sin le Famil 40524.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 2.16 � 2.16 � 0.00 ' 0.00 � 2.18 Housin rowi o.00 a.ao o.00 o.00 o.00 o.00 a.00 a.ao o.00 z.�s z.is o.00 o.00 z.�s 17 of 24 5.3 Energy by Land Use-Electricity Unmitigated �.��Electnaty Use��;�.ROG .,.NOx.� ..CO - �� 502�: Total CO2 CH4 �:'�N2C7 .CO2e�.` Land Use ". k4Vh . tonstyr ��'�. MTYyf OtherNon-Asphalt� 0 • � � � � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 Surfaces """"""".�"""""•"""�"""�"""�""".."""�'"""�"""'•""" Recreational 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Swimming Pool "'9"".Y.-.-.."""':"""'"�'"""'�"'""�"""�""";"""�"""�""" Sin le Famil 7199.82 2.09 0.00 0.00 2.11 Housing Total 2.09 0.00 0.00 2.11 Mitigated �� EleclricityUse � ROG �.'NOx �. C6 &02��. Tota1CO2 �.�CH4 . N20 ��CO2e �,�� land Use I�� kWh . ronsyr . �'.MTyr . OtherNon-Asphalt� 0 � � � � � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 Surhaces """"""�""""":"""T""_'*"""'�""'"�"""'�""""'�"""�"""' Recreational 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Swimming Pool "'9""'y"'""""":"""�""'.._.."'."'""'�"""'�"""�'"'"";""" Sin le Famil 7199.82 2.09 0.00 0.00 2.11 Housing Total 2.09 0.00 0.00 2.11 6.0 Area Detail 18 of 24 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area . �. ��ROG NOx � CO�� 502�. Fugitive Exhaust ��PM10 Fugi6ve Exhaost PM25��.��. '&a CO2 NBiw��Totel CO2 CH4��. N20 I�.� CO2e.:� � � PMtO �-'.PM7o .� Totai PM2:5 PM2:5`- Total�: �CO2 Catepory tonslyr '.�MTtyr Mitigated 0.08 0.00 0.02 �0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.91 2.02 0.00 0.00 2.04 '"""9"":"""T"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�""";.""' "' "" "" ""' """ "' ' ""' "'" Unmiti ated 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.10 � 1.91 � 2.02 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 2.04 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated � � ROG NOx CO�.'��.�' �S02�� Fugitive��. �Exhaust .��PM10 Fugitive Exhaus[.. PM2�.5� Bio�C92 �.NBio- TotaI.0O2 CH4��. �. N20��. CO2e � � PM14.� ��...PM10 TMaI PM2�.5 PM25 '�.�� Total G02 SubCetegory, �� tonslyr �.�'��M7tyf Archi[ectural • 0.02 ' 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 • 0.00 � 0.00 ' 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 Coating """""':"""'.""'".""""'�""""""'*"""�"""�"""�"""�""":"" "' "' "' "' "" ' Consumer 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 Products """"'"":"""T"""�"'"";"""�"""�"""�""".""""."""�'""'":"""*"""'�"""�""" ' ' "" Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.89 1.99 0.00 � 0.00 � 2.01 """'q'9':"""'�'""""}""""�"""�""'"}"""'�"""�""" "' ' ' "" "" '"' "' ' ' "' "" ' Landsca n 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 � 0.00 • 0.00 T 0.02 � 0.02 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.03 Total 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.91 2.01 0.00 0.00 2.04 19 of 24 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mii r�.��ROG �NOx CO-. S02 ''�.FugM1ive�-.ExNaust PM10 .'FugiHve -Exheust �. PM2S' Bio-0O2 '��...NBfo- Total��602 CH4 c N20�.. '. �CO2e ��. PM10 �:PM10 TotaE ;PM2.5 PM2.5 Total. ��.C07 SubCategary � .. tanafY� .. ... .�. MT/yf :� Architec[ural 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.00 o.00 o.00 o.00 Coating """""""'„""'�"""'�""""�'"'""'�"""'�"""�"""�"""�"""�""":"""'*'"""*""" "' ""' ""' Consumer 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 Products """""':"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""."_"'�""".""•'."""�"" "' "' ' ' HeaRh 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.01 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.89 1.99 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 2.01 """""';"""}"""�."""�"""�"""�"""�""•'�"""�"""�"""�"""r"""�"""'}"""�"""�.""" Landscaqng � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.02 � 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 � 0.02 � 0.02 � 0.00 • 0.00 � 0.03 To[al 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.91 2.01 0.00 0.00 2.04 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 20 of 24 �ROG NOx CO ; 502 �TotelCd2 .-.��CH4 N20 CO28'.�.. �..�Category '�'�.tonslyr MTryr��' Mitigated � � � � � 072 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.84 ""'"9""':""'"�"""''.""'"}"""'�"""'�""""�'"""'"}"""' Unmiti ated 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.84 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated � IndoodOutdoor ' ROG .��.NOx. . �CO S02.I'' �TotaICO2 GH4 �.'.�.N20 CO2e � LandLse '.;Mgal�.�� Eons/yr.- MTryr � O[her Non-Asphatt• 0/0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surtaces """""'_„""""'•"""r"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�""" Recreatlonal � 0.0591431/ • 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.40 Swimming Pool 0.036249 ""'•""•?"""•"'."""."'.",..'.""„""'�"""�"""�"""�""" Single Family 0.065154/ 0.38 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.44 Housin 0.0410754 Total 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.84 21 of 24 7.2 Water by Land Use Mii IndoorlOuldoor ��: ROG �.�.NOx Gd 502��'� TotakCO2 CH4 ';N2O � CO2e�' Use � LendUse ..��, Mgat tons/yr ��: � MT/yr O[her Non-Asphatt� 0/0 � � � � � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 Surfaces """"""'T"""""�"""�"""�""""�"""'�"""�""_'�"""�'"'"" Recrea[ional � 0.0591431/ • 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.40 Swimming Pool � 0.036249 "'9""'y'?""'""":"""r'_""*"""�"""'�'""'"�"""'.""".""" Sin le Famil 0.065154/ 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.44 Housing 0.0410754 ToWI 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.84 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 22 of 24 Categorv/Year ROG� �.`�NOX CO+�� 502��.-..Tote1CO2 CH4 �N20�.�� . CO2e� � � � � �� tonslYr Miryr':��.�. Mitigated � � � � � � 1.41 � 0.08 � 0.00 � 3.15 """9"":"""'�..""}"""�"""}"""'}"""�"""}"""" Unmiti ated 1.41 0.08 0.00 3.15 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitic�ated � Waste �. Rpfi �...NOx .....Cd S02`�. Tota{CO2 CH4.. .� N20 . ��.��CO2e- .oisaosad.� .. � land Use �- toris tonslyr '' .�� MT/yr OtherNon-Asphalt� 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces """""'�"""""."'"'"�"""�"""�""'"�"""�"""�""""�"'""' Recreational 5.7 � 1.16 0.07 0.00 2.59 Swimming Pool ""9""'"y'�""""":'"""�"""�"""�""""""'�"""�"""•""" Sin le Famil 123 0.25 0.07 0.00 0.56 Housing Total 1.41 0.08 0.00 3.15 23 of 24 8.2 Waste by Land Use Mii ,��'.��Waste� ROG ��'�' NOx CO S02', Total CO2 CHA �>N20 '.. CO2e..� �� .6isposad� Land�Use S Mre tans/yr :��: MTty� .. ' OtherNon-Asphalt� 0 � � � � � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 Surfaces """""'�""""".""'"."'""."""'."""'�""'"�"""'�""""�"._.. Recreational 5.7 1.16 0.07 0.00 2.59 Swimming Pool "'9""'Y'�"""•"':"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�"""�""" Sin le Famil 123 0.25 0.01 0.00 0.56 Housing Total 1.47 0.08 0.00 3.15 9.0 Vegetation 24 of 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2014 Chair Dash commented that he hopes he is able to perform in a manner that reaches the Planning Commission's expectations. He also thanked the former chair. B. APPOINTMENT of Commission Liaisons for Art in Public Places and Parks and Recreation Commissions. Commissioner Campbell moved, by Minute Motion, to nominate Vice Chair Stendell for the Art in Public Places Liaison for the year 2014. Motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: Campbell, Dash, DeLuna, Greenwood, and Stendell; NOES: None). Commissioner Campbell moved, by Minute Motion, to nominate Chair Dash for the Parks and Recreation Liaison for the year 2014. Motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: Campbellt Dash, DeLuna, Greenwood, and Stendell; NOES: None). IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS � A. REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION to the City Council for consideration of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and a new 4,000-square-foot single-family home including a 473-square-foot detached garage on a hillside residential property located at 72-000 Chuckawalla Way (APN 652-090-001). Case No. PP/HDP 13-198 (Mr. Mike De Cotis, Pinnacle International Realty Group, #300-911 Homer Street, Vancouver, BC V662W6, Applicant). Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, stated that there were two letters submitted prior to the meeting. One letter is from Mr. Paul Bowie, who will address the Planning Commission when the public hearing is opened for testimony. He reported that the nine-acre parcel is located within the hillside on the border of the City and the County of Riverside. He presented a photo to show the location of the parcel, and adjacent parcels that are also owned by the applicant for a total of approximately 34 acres. Mr. Swartz said access to the site is provided from Highway 74 through Riverside County roads. He reported that the proposed 4,000-square-foot home consists of a great room, dining room, kitchen, den/office, five bedrooms, six bathrooms, a casita, and wine storage room. The applicant is also proposing to grade 15,722 square feet of pervious and impervious area to accommodate the home, patio and pool areas, a new gravel driveway, and a 9,733-square-foot building pad. He noted that the applicant is not proposing a wall around the property. He provided a brief description of the home architecture and landscaping. Mr. Swartz mentioned that story poles were used to demonstrate the building heights. The proposed height and site location is supported by staff, as it will not adversely impact any viewsheds or diminish property values. He stated that the applicant is requesting two exceptions which are allowed by code. Staff supports the two exceptions since the project's site design effectively achieves the Hillside Planned Residential goals of blending development into the natural terrain. He stated that the applicant has requested 3 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2014\Minutes\t•27•74 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2014 modifications to three Conditions of Approval under Department of Public Works (Conditions No. 10, 11, and 12). Mr. Swartz said that staff accepted the modifications, and recommended approval of the proposed project. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the proposed pool is an infiniry pool. Mr. Swartz replied yes. Commissioner DeLuna commented that she has a concern with the reflection coming from an infinity pool. She asked if it would be an issue for adjacent neighbors, residents across the desert, or people driving on Highway 74. Mr. Swartz responded that he did not believe so. He said the pool sits lower than the home. Vice Chair Ken Stendell asked if the rock under the edge of the pool is part of the re-naturalization area. Mr. Swartz replied yes. , "----:� Y Vice Chair Stendell asked if there is a re-naturalization standard adopted by the City or does staff work with the applicant to re-naturalize areas to the best of their ability. Mr. Swartz responded that there is not a set standard, and that staff works with the applicant. Chair Dash declared the public hearing open and asked for any public testimony IN FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. MIKE DE COTIS, #300-911 Homer Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B2W6, offered to answer any questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner DeLuna asked the applicant if they have any concerns paving the road according to Riverside County standards. MR. DE COTIS answered that they do not. Commissioner Greenwood asked the applicant where they intend to locate the condensing units. MR. DE COTIS responded that the units will be located on the ground on the east side of the house. Commissioner Greenwood mentioned that he walked the site, and that to the north there seems to be a water shed area where there is a higher topography. 4 G:\Planning\Monica OReilty\Planning Commission�2014\Minutes\t-21-14 min.docx � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2014 He asked where the main run-off to the home is going to be located, and asked if it has been addressed or looked at by their engineer. MR. PHILIP FOMOTOR, 225 South Civic Drive, Suite I-5, Palm Springs, California, 92262, responded that most of the drainage goes to the east. He said whatever drainage goes to the south will be conveyed to the west side of the home. Commissioner Greenwood commented that it appeared that the location of the leaching pond by the septic is in an existing flood basin. MR. FOMOTOR stated that they would address drainage during final design. Commissioner Greenwood asked if the Public Works Department would also take a look at the drainage. Mr. Swartz replied yes. Commissioner DeLuna mentioned that the applicant owns approximately 34 acres. She asked the applicant if he has plans to build more residences. MR. DE COTIS replied no. Commissioner Greenwood commented that he really likes the design. He asked that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) take a look at the detail in the construction documents. For instance the fascias, he is not seeing any parapet conditions, and it seems to be a flat roof with a minimum quarter inch per foot slope shutting water off. Vice Chair Stendell asked the applicant where he plans on using roof tiles on the house. MR. DE COTIS responded that he was not certain, and thought they were deleted. Vice Chair Stendell reiterated that the ARC takes a good look at the details of the final drawings. He stated if the roof tiles are a stricken item that they are taken out. MR. PAUL BOWIE, 71-774 Chuckawalla Way, Palm Desert, California 92260, read his letter dated January 21, 2014, which was given to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. In the letter, he said the project should be conditioned to meet Riverside County standards of street improvement, and meet all requirements prior to issuing a permit of occupancy. With no further testimony offered, Chair Dash declared the public hearing closed. 5 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2014\Minutes\t-21-14 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2014 Commissioner DeLuna commented that she would move for approval. She stated that the applicant has worked well with the City, and he has been sensitive in addressing the hillside requirements. Vice Chair Stendell seconded the motion. Commissioner Greenwood added that in final development and review from the ARC that they pay attention to detail of the construction documents, and the screening of condensing units. Ms. Aylaian confirmed that motion includes the revisions to the three conditions that were verbally noted during the presentation of the staff report. Commissioner DeLuna and Vice Chair Stendell agreed to amend the motion to include the revisions. Commissioner DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, recommending to the City Council for consideration of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, and a 4,000-square-foot single-family home including a 473- square-foot detached garage on a hillside residential property located at 72-000 Chuckawalla Way (APN 652-090-001). In addition, the Planning Commission requested that the ARC look at the details of the final construction drawings, and they also approved revising three of the Conditions of Approval. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Stendell and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: Campbell, Dash, DeLuna, Greenwood, and Stendell; NOES: None). Commissioner DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2615, subject to the revised conditions. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Stendell and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: Campbell, Dash, DeLuna, Greenwood, and Stendell; NOES: None). Commissioner Greenwood congratulated the applicant. Commissioner DeLuna commented that it is a beautiful site, and thanked the applicant for choosing to live in Palm Desert. B. REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION to the City Council for consideration to approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to modify Section 25.40.050 Accessory Structures to refine placement and development standards, and Section 25.99 Definitions to combine and make definitions consistent for accessory buildings and structures. Case No. ZOA 13-357 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, reported that recently some residents were cited by Code Compliance for the placement of accessory structures in their side yard. In October 2013, City Council directed staff to review the zoning ordinance that addresses accessory and temporary structures, and the definitions for consistency. He provided a PowerPoint presentation to list the proposed code 6 G:\Planning\Monlca OReilty\Planning Commission�2014\Minutes\t-21-14 min.docx ARCHITECTURAL F7 �EW COMMISSION ( � MINUTES November 12, 2013 Commissioner Vuksic and the applicant discussed recessing the punch details about 12", shifting the mechanical units down a few feet, concealing the roof access and not cut into cornice detail, and the north parapet element shall return back 2/3 of the width of the element. He stated the standard is having the units no higher than the parapets, but if it means those parapet heights will go up quite a bit, they will need to inform the Commission because that could change the way the building looks. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to preliminary approve subject to: 1) mechanical unit height shall be lower than parapet height; 2) punch detail in architecture shall be recessed 12"; 3) roof access from enclosure shall remain concealed and not cut into cornice detail; 4) north parapet element shall return back 2/3 of the width of the element; and 5) preliminary approval of landscape design. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by a 7-0-1-0 vote, with Commissioner Lambell abstaining. 2. CASE Np; PP/HDP 13-198 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PINNACLE INTERNATIONAL REALTY GROUP, Attn: Mike De Cotiis, 911 Homer Street, #300, Vancouver, BC, Canada V662W6 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of single family residence 5 acres within the hillside. LOCATION: 72-000 Chuckawalla ZONE: HPR Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this proposal is for a 4,000 square foot single family home including a 473 square foot detached garage on the hillside. The hillside ordinance allows no more than 4,000 square feet for houses, including garages and accessory structures so the applicant is asking for an exception for the additional 473 square feet. Also they are only allowed to grade about 10,000 square feet but they are requesting about 15,000 square feet. These two exceptions will go to public hearing with the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval. He presented a PowerPoint presentation of the property along with story poles indicating the position of the home; up to 18'. He described the home and landscape plans that will blend in with the hillside landscape and presented a materials board for review. Staff is recommending preliminary approval of the single-family residence. MR. PETER KREUK, Landscape Architect, discussed the retaining walt, the control of water run-off and erosion control. He referred to the materials board and said the materials were carefully chosen so the house blends into the desert. It was located very carefully on the existing G:\PlanninglJanineJudy\ARC11Minutes\20131131112min.docx Page 13 of 16 ARCHITECTURAL Rd ��W COMMISSION � �� MINUTES November 12, 2013 plateau and below the ridgeline behind it. The building is very simple, modern, with open glass to the site with large overhangs in order to provide a lot of shading in the summer to keep it cool. They worked with staff to get a glass that would not be highly reflective with a high insulation value. The pool deck blends in with the desert around it with warm toned colored concrete. They are working with staff on adjusting the landscape plan to take off the DG around the driveway for a much more natural look and incorporating a few more trees around the building itself to soften as it transitions to the desert. The building itself sta�ts at 10', 14', and then 18' in the center so it is a fairly low slung building that sits comfortably on the plateau. Commissioner Clark asked if there were hillside interest groups interested in this project. Mr. Swartz stated there is one individuat who is opposed to the access way, but not the architecture. Commissioner Clark was referring to groups within the City regarding hillside development. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, said there have been at times interested people, but not necessarily a formal group. We have changed the ordinance several times and this will be one of the first houses in the past six years that we have seen going forward for consideration. People within 4,000' of this property will be notified for the public hearing and we'll see if there are any concerns at that time. The Commission and the applicant discussed the roof material, the HVAC units and the ducting. MR. KREUK said the approach they want to make is to have the A/C units on the ground, but they haven't gone on to the next stage regarding the ducting. Commissioner Colombini said they need to take a good look at the system. Commissioner Vuksic said as they get into the details of the HVAC equipment that it doesn't change the look of the house. The Commission and the applicant discussed the south facing windows, solar exposure, and the grading footprint to protect the rock outcroppings, as well as ridgelines in the area. They requested the applicant to bring to staff any deviations to the plans before the final drawings. They also suggested maintaining as much of the natural rock outcroppings as they can. The Commission and the applicant discussed the plant material on the property, as well as desert scrub and native trees. They asked if there was landscaping areas around the house. MR. KREUK stated there is a fair amount of planting in certain areas, but right now there is nothing planned for the pool or deck area. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to preliminary approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by an 8-0 vote. G:1PlanninglJanineJudylARCllMinutes12013N31112mindocx Page 14 of 16 . • � ( �-�s��e,��v e�� .� City of Palm Desert Community Development RE: HPD 13-198 Paul Bowie AUG 4 � 2013 71 774 Chuckawalla Way Palm Desert, CA 92260 August 8, 2013 (951) 659 4468/(760) 346 8593 Planning Director City of Palm Desert 73 510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Deaz Director Aylaian: I recently spoke with you at the counter regarding the referenced submitted proposal. While the Staff Report and recommendations have yet to be formulated it is believed to be worthwhile in bringing forward my issue and the basis for making it a formal request. In the event a successful resolution can be achieved now it may save time and trouble at a convened hearing. I do not represent any other person or persons in this matter. A resolution herein will equally benefit all property owners in Cahuilla Hills. The only issue presented bears solely on ingress/egress to the parcel in the proposal. All other matters of zoning, land use, density,plan designation, etc. rests exclusively with the City. Recently, and by random chance, I met the owner of the parcel in the application. He indicated the possibility of using Chuckawalla Way for ingress/egress. This would route vehicular activity through streets in Cahuilla Hills for eventual linkage to Highway 74. It is believed to be improper for this routing to be established. Using Chuckawalla Way is not a natural traffic link. Geography and the single route via Cahuilla Way is further impacted with traffic entering and leaving Bighorn community. Some hazardous conditions already exist on Cahuilla Way with Highway 74, Bighorn and Cahuilla Hills. Reasonable resolution to the condition does not appear to reveal itself. Retaining traffic to the city domain in this proposal will eliminate magnification of present and future traffic problems. There are approximately 38 acres of city domain consisting of several separate parcels believed to be in private holding surrounding the proposed plan. So far as is known no or no proposed traffic overlay exists for the approximately 38 acres. There is no reason to believe only one project will ever be approved for this area. And also no reason is believed to exist that the area will be only Hillside Planned Development zoning for the unlimited future. At any time the City possess an option to rezone and possibly permit a substantially larger number of units. It appears, therefore, that the City is either lawfully bound or duty directed to establish a traffic overlay beginning with the Project application. A valid circulation plan is possible by extending Thrush Road south along the storm channel with appropriate traffic laterals. Doing so would not impact any present or future gated community. '` M` � � � It seems that supporting the applicant with a traffic design will reinforce wide respect held for the City in matters of good planning, good engineering, good innovation and good sense. Remaining silent on the traffic issue will reveal the City's willingness to accept fees from the developer(approved or disapproved) and turn its back on future property owners of similar development wishes. Cahuilla Hills is a community which has developed itself, respectfully, over the course of time. It deserves and demands honor from all quarters. In conclusion it is asked that any Commission or Council action taken in the referenced application specifically prohibit use of Chuckawalla Way for ingress/egress and that an approved City traffic overlay be approved for this project. Sincere y yours, � ; �G�� .___. Paul Bowie' M � ' .� r RE:HPD 13-198 Paul Bowie 71 774 Chuckawalla Way Palm Desert, CA 92260 S F�t�m b�•2�20, 2013 (951) 659 4468/(760) 346 8593 Planning Director City of Palm Desert 73 510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Director Aylaian: Please find attached a copy of a recorded pedestrian and vehicular right-of-way (access road) dated Apri122, 1986. This right-of-way lies on the west side of Palm Valley Storm Channel beginning at Thrush Road and terminating at the line of Section 36 (Cahuilla Hills) and the city of Palm Desert. This fact automatically disqualifies any consideration of using Chuckawalla Way and other community streets of Cahuilla Hills for ingress/egress to the property described in the above application. In addition to previously submitted objections to using Cahuilla Hills for ingress/egress it is submitted that Cahuilla Hills is subject to storm water flows of substantial magnitude. Such flooding again occurred on August 20, 2013. This resulted in complete closure of Paisano Road between Chuckawalla Way and Cholla Road. Subjecting city property owners to use Chuckawalla Way would appear to create a city liability during times of road closure due to flooding. The mentioned flooding is only one of which happen from time to time. It is clearly evident that the presence of the debris basin on the east side of Paisano Road is testament to the fact of voluminous flows. On August 20�'the basin filled to only a few feet of flowing over the spillway. There is no reasonable mitigation to the flooding across Paisano Road. To do so would most probably require a bridge of about 1,000 feet which is beyond economic consideration. Since ely yours, i � �/ '� � Paul Bowi i � attachment . _ , �-� ( _� . RECORDIP7G REQUESTED BY: 1/2/86 0 . COACBELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT � a� NO RECORDING FEE WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: � � � �� quired Pursuant � � � � o Government �`� � �� ode Section 27383 0 p Coachella valley water District � � � �� c� t� a a - � � � � . ��v �.373� A�q�AJ JT cS'uiTc !-o�rJ t' � /4►�ers C' 9a,yzi � ��\�� t LICENSE AGREEMENT Preamble THIS AGREEMENT is made this �Z-Z�day of f'1 �1 ,, 1986, by and between COAHCELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ("DISTRICT") and FREDERICR C. WHITMAN ("WHjTMANn) . RECITALS: � A. The DISTRICT is the owner of certain real property , commonly known as the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, the relevant portion of which is situated in a � af Riverside county, State o� California, as more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; H. WHITMAN (and E. L. Mulliner, as Co-trustees) is the owner of certain real property situated in the unincorporated area of Riverside County, California, as more particularly 7 �-� � �(�3��-O'�C� _. . . �... � - . described on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein � by th3.s reference; i� � � C- WHITMAN desires to obtain . permissio•n to use the DISTRICT's real property (Exhibit "A") as a pedestrian and vehicular right-of-way to WHITMAN� s property (Exhibit "B") . AGREE1r1ENT N�W, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS; . l. Subject to the terms, conditions and covenants hereinafter set forth, the DISTRICT hereby grants to WiiITMAN a revocable license to use the DISTRICT's real property as a pedestrian and vehicular right-of-way which right-of-way is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" incorporated herein by this reference_ Z. The parties hereto mutually agree that this license is granted on the express condition that the• DISTRICT is to be free from any and all liability or loss by reason of any injury or damage to any person or any property (real or personal) from whatever cause, which is in any way related to the use of the . above-described right-of-way, except that injury or damage which is caused by the sole negliqence of the DISTRICT. -2- ' • � ( ,� - � 3. The exercise of the privileges granted in this License � C� Agreement shall be done in such a manner that the same will not interefere with the DISTRICT's use of its property for its purposes. The DISTRICT reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to relocate or revoke the right-of-way if, in the opinion of the DISTRICT, the right-of-way or its use interferes with its operation and maintenance activities "of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. 4. The rights, duties and obligations described in this - License Agreement may not be assigned or otherwise transferred by WHITMAN. 5. In the event WHITMAN obtains, from anyone and under any circumstances, an alternative pedestrian and vehicular right-of-way in an easterly and southeasterly direction from WI3ITMAN's property that provides the same or better accessibility as that granted herein, or �.n the event the County of Riverside or any city therein assumes jurisdiction over the said right-of-way, then this License Agreement shall thereupon terminate without further notice and without further compensation to WHITMAN. -3- 1 �� __ � ` �� • � 6. This License Agreement contains an entire agreement � �y between the parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligations herebin assumed. Any oral representations or modifications concerning this License Agreement shall be of no force or effect, excepting a subsequent modification in writing, signed by the party to be charged. 7. No privilege granted in this Agreement shall be constrned as constituting a conveyance of an interest in the DISTRICT's property, but rather, a revocable license under the terms herein set £orth. IN WITNESS WFIEREOF, the parties hereto: have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. COAIiCELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT By Lowel O, Weeks, General Manager- Chief Engineer �/�LG�Lit.�.cC C, • FREDERICR C. WH MAD7 � -4- J I '_- • � ..�� , . � � � ACKNOWLEDGMENTS STATE pF CAI,IFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE � ss_ �" . �9 , be�ore me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared LOWELL �• WEEKs� personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed the within instrument as the General Manager-Chief Engineer of COACHELLA VALLEy WATER DISTRICT, a public agency of the State of California, that executed the within instrument and acknolwedged to me that said pubiic agency executed the within instrument pursuant to a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal_ Notary Public in and for said County and State STATE OF CALIFO A ) COUNTY ��E � J . On �_ -P �� , 19�� , befbre me, the undersigned, a Notary Pu ic in and for said State, personally appeared FREDERICR C_ WHITMAN, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfatory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within fnstrument and acknowledgec] that he executed the same_ WITNESS my hand and official seal. � _ � • . Notaty Public in and for said OFriCiAL SEAL County and State S, �� DON A DAVIS t' m • N�TAR7 PUBUC -CAUFORNIA SAN FRII�tCISCO COUNTY My oomm. acpires JUL 21, 198A —5• � � - , � , � ' - „� E.��l�T_�' �r��t � . � �ESC_�I�TION OF W'NI'r_'rr_�( p_ � � � . �.RC:.L The following descrined real property in t:�e City of Palm Desert, Co�;nty of R:versid�, State of Calif ornia: That por�ion of the North half of Gove�nme*�t LoL 2 ot the Southwest quarter of Section 31, Towns:zic 5 South, Range 6 East, San 3eraardino Base and Meridian, ±ying Northerly and west�rly oi �:e Southe�ste=Iy bOt2I1Q2*'y of the r�gnt-oi-way conveyed to the. Coachell� Valley CoLnty Water Dis�ric� bv Deed recorded May ?1, 1962, in Book 3137, page 387 af Ofiicial Records, Riverside County Re�ords,-" -�- "'��' " � . � - _ � � • � any city therein assumes �urisdiction over the said right-of-way, then this � License A�reement shall thereupon terminate without further notice and withc � further compensation to WHITMAN. � 6• This License Agreement contains an entire agreement between the parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligationa herein assumed. Anq oral representationa or modifications concerning this License Agreement shall be of no force or effect, excepting a subsequent modificatio; writing, signed bq the partq to be charged. 7. No privilege granted in this Agreement ahall be construed as constituting a conveyance of an interest in the DISTRICT's property, but ratt a revocable license under the terms herein aet forth. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on t day and year first above written. COACHELLA VpI,LEy WATER DISTRICT By � Gt�✓`� Tom Levy , General Manager-Chief En eer FREDERICR C. WHITMAN -�- f. � _- Y� � M1� • � ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS � � STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDg � ss. On ---------__April 22-----__�__ , 1986, before me, the undersi Notary Public in and for said State, gned, a known to me or personallq appeared To� Levq, personally proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed the within instrument as the General Manager-Chief Engineer of COACAELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a public ageacq of the State of Califomia, that execnted the within instrument and acknowledged to me that said public agency executed the within instrument pursuant to a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. !i��s*�#�i+�l�RilttOiRR*�R�akiRwl�*+!A ry*�,�f M } OFJ+[CtAL SBAL � # Q ROCHE�LE SCOTT G�ti��.� # NaTARY pUBUC—CAtIFORNIA * +� � HQTaftY 6WVD FILED!N � Notarq blic in an for said County ,�i RtVERS10E COUNTY � and S t at e �Y Commiasion Expi�es May 17� 1989 1�Rr*�s��rM��!*+it+MF#rti*�►��►�ik�s*�eji, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) � , 19 , before me, the undersi Notary Public in atid for said State gned, a peraonally known to me or proved to�meeon�thelbasiaeofesatisfacto yCevidenceNto be the peraon whoae name is subscribad to the within inatrument and acknowledged that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said County and State -'e�— � l � l CASE #PPlHDP/MND 13-198 Paul Bowie 71 774 Chuckawalla Way Palm Desert, CA 92260 January 21,2014 Members of the Palm Desert Planning Commission: You are informed of the matters of concem which have been forwarded to you. First and foremost, elements regarding the use of the county streets previously described viz., PM-10, flooding and trafFc congestion are founded and rea1. It is still maintained that another suitable ingress/egress to the building site be embraced. As a resident of Cahuilla Hills I am interested in its integrity,proper development pleasing profile. However, in the event the Commission elects to pursue the aspect of using county roads, that segment of Chuckawalla Way under consideration should be conditioned to meet county standards of improvement. It is understood that an offer of dedication exists 33 feet in width lying on the north segment of the 660 foot distance. This 33 foot se should be engineered and improved to meet street standards of 4 inch thick asph�ent material overlying a 6 inch base of graded road base, an asphalt street width of 24 feet and slope grading on the north side of the asphalt surface. This improvement would meet and connect to community street standards in Cahuilla Hills. Making this improvement a requirement prior to city issuance of a permit of occupancy would meet overall compliance. Elements of the aforementioned street improvement standards is affirmed by Mr. Majeed Farshad(see the attached business card). Thank you, ��i�1 j��--, Paul Bowie COUNTY pF RNERSIDE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (Transportatio�and Land ManagementAgency) �tV�wy� � °e 3 �� MAJEED FARSHAD $�,��* � PERMITENGINEERlfECHNICAL ENGINEERING UNIT SUPERVISOR CELL: �760)qp8�767 OFFICE: (760)863-7045 FAX: (760)863-7040 E-Mq�l: mfarshad�rctlma.org 77588 EL DUNA COURT,SUITE H Y+ww rctima ora/tran � PAIM DESERT,CA 92211