HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Initial Study Refuge Specific Plan -1-
CITY OF PALM DESERT
CEQA Environmental Checklist & Environmental Assessment
Project Title: Refuge Specific Plan, Case No. SP22-0001//CZ22-0001/TTM 38434
Lead agency name and address: City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Contact persons and phone number: Nick Melloni
Development Services Department
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 346-0611
Project location: Southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Parkway
APNs 694-310-002, -003, and -006; East ½ of Section 32, Township 4 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino
Baseline and Meridian
Project sponsor’s name and address: Refuge Palm Desert, LLC (Contact: Marc Kleiman)
17755 Sky Park East, Suite 101
Irvine, CA 92614
General Plan Designation:
Town Center Neighborhood
Zoning:
Planned Residential – 20 Units Per Acre (P.R.-20)
Description of project:
Specific Plan
The Refuge Specific Plan (“Project”) sets forth a cohesive vision for the Project area by establishing site-
specific development standards, design guidelines, and land use regulations to guide future development of the
Project site. The Project proposes up to 969 single-family and multi-family dwelling units on ±106.4 acres at
the southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Parkway (Exhibits 1 through 3). The Project
facilitates the coordinated development of a residential community with a variety of single- and multi-family
housing products and densities, recreational amenities, open spaces, pedestrian connectors, and a cohesive
design program. Proposed architectural styles include Spanish Colonial, Progressive Spanish, Mid-Century,
and Contemporary.
The Project will require approval of:
• Refuge Specific Plan
• Change of Zone, from Planned Residential to Refuge Specific Plan
• Tentative Tract Map (TTM) to subdivide the Project site into residential, open space, private street lots
(Exhibits 6 and 7)
-2-
Planning Areas
The Project area is divided into 5 Planning Areas, described below and shown on Exhibit 4.
Table 1
Land Use Summary
Planning
Area
Land Use
Acres
Density
Range
(du/ac)
Unit
Range
PA 1* Residential 11.9 up to 22.6 up to 269
PA 2 Residential 16.4 10.0-18.3 165-302
PA 3 Residential 66.3 4.7-6.0 315-398
PA 4 Recreation Amenity 3.9 --- ---
PA 5 Open Space/Buffer 7.9 --- ---
Total: 106.4 7.0-9.1 749-969
* Vitalia (PP/CUP 21-0004), as approved. No changes proposed.
Note: up to 70 units (10% of the combined PA maximum) may be transferred between
PA 2 and PA 3 in response to market conditions.
• Planning Area 1 (Residential, 11.9 acres) is the northernmost Planning Area and covers the Vitalia
project that was approved by the City in 2021 (PP/CUP 21-0004). It will be developed as approved; no
changes are proposed. It is approved for 269 affordable apartment units in 14 two- and three-story
buildings with one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. Onsite amenities include a swimming pool,
playground, dog park, clubhouse with fitness and childcare facilities, surface parking lot, and
stormwater retention basins that can also serve as passive open space. It will be accessed from two
driveways on (future) Vitalia Way, also shown as Street A on the Tentative Tract Map.
• Planning Area 2 (Residential, 16.4 acres) can accommodate up to 302 dwelling units at a density range
of 10.0 to 18.3 du/ac. It includes two retention basins and is accessed by a driveway on Vitalia Way
and a roundabout connecting to Planning Area 3. A variety of housing products are permitted by right
and with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (see Section XI, Land Use and Planning).
• Planning Area 3 (Residential, 66.3 acres) is in the central part of the Specific Plan area and can
accommodate up to 398 dwelling units at densities ranging from 4.7 to 6.0 du/ac. The density in
Planning Area 3 can be “blended” to allow higher density in some areas, as long as total density does
not exceed the density range allowed. It includes three retention basins and is accessed by a roundabout
connecting to Julie Drive (extended) and Planning Area 2. A variety of housing products are permitted
by right and with a CUP (see Section XI, Land Use and Planning).
• Planning Area 4 (Recreational Amenity, 3.9 acres) is designated for recreational uses. Amenities could
include pools, spas, club houses, management offices, barbecues, and other appropriate facilities.
• Planning Area 5 (Open Space/Buffer, 7.9 acres) includes Vitalia Way, a stormwater retention basin,
and a 50-foot-wide landscaped open space buffer with a walking trail along the easterly and southerly
Project perimeters.
-3-
Access
The Project proposes two access points:
1. Primary Access: (proposed) signalized intersection at Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt/Vitalia Way. The
northerly portion of Vitalia Way was approved in 2021 as part of the Vitalia multi-family project (see
Planning Area 1, above).
2. Secondary Access: (existing) signalized intersection at Portola Avenue and Julie Drive, via a proposed
westerly extension of Julie Drive to be completed as part of an adjacent single family home project,
currently under construction.
Phasing
Project buildout is expected to occur over 6 years, from 2023 to 2029; however, the phasing plan is conceptual
and subject to change based on final engineering design and market conditions. Planning Area 1 (Vitalia) will
be developed independently of the rest of the Project, as per PP/CUP 21-0004. Buildout of Planning Areas 2
through 5 will occur in 8 phases (Exhibit 5).
Utilities and Service Providers
The following agencies and companies will provide services to the Project:
1. Sewer: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
2. Water: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
3. Electricity: Southern California Edison (SCE)
4. Gas: Southern California Gas Company
5. Telephone/Cable: Frontier Communications/Spectrum
6. Storm Drains: City of Palm Desert
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Gerald Ford Drive, single-family residential
South: single-family residential
East: single-family residential, vacant land
West: Marriott Shadow Ridge Golf Course, Riverside County Sheriff Department station
Other public agencies whose approval is or may be required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
Coachella Valley Water District
Regional Water Quality Control Board
-4-
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
Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water
Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
-5-
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 prepared.
✓
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 prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
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 analyze only 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, nothing further
is required.
Nick Melloni
City of Palm Desert
Date
9/2/2022
-6-
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 rupture 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 Impact” 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 (mitigation measures
from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. 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 each 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 impacts to less than significance.
Exhibit
1
Source: Google Maps, 2022 04.22.22
Refuge Specific PlanRegional Location MapPalm Desert, California
Project Site
Exhibit
2Refuge Specific PlanProject Vicinity MapPalm Desert, California
Source: Google Earth, 2022 04.22.22
Project Site
Portola Ave.
Cook St.
Monterey Ave.
Bob Hope Ave.
Country Club Dr.
Frank Sinatra Dr.
Gerald Ford Dr.
Dinah Shore Dr.
Exhibit
3Refuge Specific PlanProject Location MapPalm Desert, California
Source: Google Earth, 2022 04.22.22
Project Site
Portola Ave.
Shepherd Ln.
Shepherd Ln.
Gerald Ford Dr.
Exhibit
4Refuge Specific PlanConceptual Land Use PlanPalm Desert, California
Source: MSA Consulting, Inc., 5.2022 05.17.22
Exhibit
5Refuge Specific PlanPhasing PlanPalm Desert, California
Source: MSA Consulting, Inc., 5.2022 05.19.22
Exhibit
6Refuge Specific PlanTentative Tract Map - Sheet 1Palm Desert, California
Source: MSA Consulting, Inc., 5.2022 05.31.22
Exhibit
7Refuge Specific PlanTentative Tract Map - Sheet 2Palm Desert, California
Source: MSA Consulting, Inc., 5.2022 05.31.22
-14-
I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? ✓
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
✓
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
✓
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
✓
Setting
The subject property is in the central part of the Coachella Valley, a low-lying and relatively flat desert
valley surrounded by the San Bernardino, Little San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa
Mountains. The mountains rise significantly above the valley floor with peak elevations up to 11,503
feet above sea level. The mountains are of high aesthetic value across the Coachella Valley, including
the City of Palm Desert. The City regulates new development to ensure that it does not conflict with or
adversely impact scenic resources. State Route 74 is a state-designated scenic highway, and Highway
111 west of State Route 74 is an eligible state scenic highway. Both are ±3 miles south of the Project
site.
The Project area is urbanized, and the subject property is surrounded by residential, golf course, and
institutional (sheriff station) development. The Project site occurs on the east slope of the Palm Springs
sand ridge, and is therefore somewhat elevated compared to the rest of the valley floor. The nearest
scenic resources to the subject property are the Santa Rosa Mountains, approximately 3 miles to the
southwest.
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The primary scenic resources in the Project area are the Santa
Rosa Mountains approximately 3 miles southwest of the Project site. However, due to distance
and intervening development, the visual impact of the mountains from the Project site is
diminished. The Indio Hills are somewhat visible to the northeast but do not provide significant
-15-
viewsheds because of their low topography and distance. There are no scenic vistas to the east.
Intervening development between the Project site and scenic resources includes Gerald Ford
Drive and single-family development to the north, and a golf course and County sheriff station to
the west. Existing 6- to 8-foot concrete walls extend along the shared boundary between the
Project site and adjacent development, including single-family residential development to the
east and south, time shares and golf course to the west, and Riverside County Sheriff Station to
the west.
Table 2 describes the maximum building heights allowed by the Specific Plan. The heights for
Planning Area 1, Vitalia (PP/CUP 21-0004), have already been approved by the City. Two-story
buildings would be a maximum height of 26 feet and 2 inches, and three-story buildings would
be a maximum height of 36 feet and 3 inches. The visual impacts of Planning Area 1 were
previously analyzed in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and found to be less than
significant.
Table 2
Proposed Maximum Building Heights
Planning
Area
Housing Type
Maximum
Height
Maximum
Stories
1 Multi-family (Vitalia) 26 ft. 2 in.
36 ft. 3 in.
2
3
2 Detached
Attached
25 ft.
35 ft.
2
3
3 Single-family, conventionally loaded
Single-family, alley loaded
25 ft.
25 ft.
2*
2*
* Limited to 1 story when adjacent to existing single-family residential neighborhood.
Buildout of Planning Area 2 could result in up to 302 two-story (maximum height 25 feet) and
three-story (maximum height 35 feet) units. Buildings would be taller than the adjacent Sheriff
Station but consistent with approved heights in Planning Area 1 (Vitalia). Planning Area 2 would
have no impact on scenic vistas viewed from the adjacent golf course because no scenic vistas
exist to the east. Scenic vistas seen from Gerald Ford Drive and residences to the north would not
be impacted because Planning Area 2 would be 1,000+ feet south of Gerald Ford Drive and
largely shielded from view by Planning Area 1. Scenic vistas seen from vacant land (under
construction for single-family residential) to the immediate east would be somewhat blocked by
Planning Area 2, but the impacts would be diminished by the 50+-foot open space/buffer
provided by Planning Area 5 and Vitalia Way. Project buildings would be further shielded with
trees and landscaping.
Buildout of Planning Area 3 could result in up to 398 two-story single-family units with
maximum heights of 25 feet. However, heights are limited to one-story in the Specific Plan when
adjacent to existing single-family residential neighborhoods to the east and south. Therefore,
along the southerly and easterly perimeter lots of Planning Area 3, building heights would be
one-story, and consistent with the heights of existing dwelling units to the south and east. Visual
impacts to scenic vistas as viewed from the east would be reduced due to the single-story height
restriction, the separation provided by a 50-foot landscaped open space buffer (Planning Area 5)
around the easterly and southerly Project perimeter, and existing 6- to 8-foot concrete walls
along the shared property boundary between existing residential development and the Project.
-16-
Planning Area 3 would have no impact on scenic vistas viewed from the golf course because no
scenic vistas exist to the east, and it would have no impact on scenic vistas viewed from the
south because no notable scenic vistas exist to the north. Planning Area 3 would have no impact
on scenic vistas viewed from Gerald Ford Drive and residences to the north (The Gallery)
because it would be blocked from view by Planning Areas 1 and 2 and would be 1,600+ south of
Gerald Ford Drive.
As regards Planning Area 4 (Recreation Amenity), the Project requires the colors, massing, roof
pitch, and materials of a future clubhouse or amenity to be compatible with residential buildings
and with the Project theme. Development plans would be subject to City review to assure
potential impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. Planning Area 4 is in the central
part of the Specific Plan area, and future improvements would be largely blocked from view
from adjacent properties by dwelling units in Planning Area 3. Therefore, impacts of Planning
Area 4 to scenic vistas would be less than significant.
Building and site design on the Project site would be guided by the Refuge Specific Plan.
Proposed architectural styles allow a range of architectural styles, consistent with styles in the
city and region. Color palettes and building materials would be compatible with the desert
environment and existing development in the Project vicinity. Buildings would be somewhat
shielded with landscaping that will further soften visual impacts. Mechanical equipment, utility
boxes, and trash receptacles would be screened from street view. Therefore, Project impacts to
scenic vistas would be less than significant.
b) No Impact. The Project site is not located near an existing or proposed state scenic highway (the
only designated scenic highway in the City is Highway 74, south of the Project area), and there
are no scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historical buildings onsite. No impact
will occur.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is in an urban setting. According to the General
Plan (p. 30), the intended physical character of the Town Center Neighborhood land use
designation includes formal street tree arrangements, public open spaces, housing units up to
three stories, and buildings that are set back from the sidewalk to provide small to moderate front
yards, all of which are characteristics of the proposed Project. The Project will be consistent with
applicable General Plan policies governing scenic quality, which require preservation of view
corridors of the hills and mountains and limited light pollution to maintain darkness for night sky
viewing (General Plan Environmental Resources Element Policies 2.1 and 2.5). The Project will
be designed in accordance with the development standards and design guidelines of the Refuge
Specific Plan, which will supersede those of the Zoning Code. However, the Specific Plan’s
development standards do no significantly deviate from the Zoning Code, and proposed
architectural styles, finishes, colors, materials, and landscaping palettes are compatible with the
desert environment and surrounding development. Therefore, the Project will have less than
significant impacts to applicable regulations that address scenic quality.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project will generate light and glare primarily from
buildings, landscape lighting, exterior safety and security lighting, and vehicles accessing the
site. Residential lighting is typically limited and of low intensity. The City regulates lighting
levels and does not allow light spillage onto adjacent properties. All Project lighting will comply
with the Refuge Specific Plan, which requires lighting fixtures to complement the architecture
-17-
and landscape, be designed and located to avoid spillover onto adjacent lots and be low-intensity
to preserve the nighttime dark sky. The Project will be required to comply with Chapter 24.16
(Outdoor Lighting Requirements) of the Municipal Code, including lighting performance criteria
and design guidelines. Landscape and lighting plans will be subject to review by the City. With
adherence to City standards and Specific Plan guidelines, Project-related impacts associated with
increased light and glare will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Monitoring: None required
Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Report, 2016 (SCH 2015081020); Palm Desert Municipal Code; California State
Scenic Highway System Map, Caltrans, 2018; Project materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786.
-18-
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) 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 project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
✓
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (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 51104(g))?
✓
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ✓
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
✓
Setting
Agriculture is a significant part of the Coachella Valley economy; however, agricultural land and
operations are largely located east of Palm Desert. The City is in a desert environment and has no forests
or forest production lands. It is predominantly built out with urban uses and does not contain any land
designated or zoned for agricultural uses. Neither the General Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance includes
forestry or forest production designations. While not directly related to agriculture and forest uses, the
General Plan includes the potential for golf course reuse that may allow community-scale agricultural
uses.
-19-
Discussion of Impacts
a-e) No Impact. According to the California Important Farmlands mapping, the Project site is
designated as “Other Land.” The nearest designated important farmlands are Farmland of Local
Importance north of Interstate 10 between Monterey Avenue and Cook Street, approximately one
mile north of the Project site. The Project site is currently vacant and designated as Town Center
Neighborhood on the General Plan land use map, which allows a broad range of residential land
uses. The Project site is zoned as Planned Residential (PR), where single-family dwellings are
permitted by right and multi-family dwellings are permitted with approval of a conditional use
permit. The proposed Specific Plan will allow a mix of residential uses consistent with the
General Plan and Zoning designations. No agricultural lands will be impacted by the Project.
Prime Farmland: No prime or unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance exists on
the Project site or in the Project vicinity. The Project site is not located on or near any property
zoned or otherwise intended for agricultural uses. As such, the Project would not convert
farmland to nonagricultural use. No impact would occur.
Williamson Act: The Project site and surrounding properties are designated for urban uses in the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. No land on or near the Project site is under a Williamson
Act contract. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any zoning for agricultural uses or a
Williamson Act Contract. No impact would occur.
Forest Land: The Project site is located on the desert floor, zoned as Planned Residential (PR),
and surrounded by urban development and vacant land designated for urban uses. The subject
site does not contain forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for timberland production.
Therefore, the Project would not rezone forest land or timberland as defined by the Public
Resources Code. It would not result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses or changes
to the environment that could result in such a conversion. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Monitoring: None required
Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Report, 2016 (SCH 2015081020); Palm Desert Municipal Code; Project
materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786; California Important Farmland Finder, California Department
of Conservation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov.DLRP/CIFF/, 2018, accessed March 2022.
-20-
III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to
make the following determinations.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? ✓
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard
✓
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? ✓
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
✓
Setting
The Coachella Valley is in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which includes part of Riverside County
and all of Imperial County. The SSAB is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD). All development within the SSAB is subject to the 2016 SCAQMD
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), and the Coachella Valley region is subject to the 2003
Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (CV PM10 SIP). SCAQMD operates and maintains
regional air quality monitoring stations at numerous locations throughout its jurisdiction. The Project
site is within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes monitoring stations in Palm Springs,
Indio, and Mecca.
Criteria air pollutants are contaminants for which state and federal air quality standards have been
established. The SSAB exceeds state and federal standards for fugitive dust (PM10) and ozone (O3), and
is in attainment for PM2.5, except the City of Calexico. Ambient air quality in the SSAB, including the
Project site, does not exceed state and federal standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxides, sulfur
dioxide, lead, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, or vinyl chloride.
Buildout of the proposed Project will result in air quality impacts during construction and operation. The
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 was used to project air quality
emissions that will be generated by the Project (Appendix A).
Discussion of Impacts
a) No Impact. The Project site is within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) and will be subject to
SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP and the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 SIP. The AQMP is a
comprehensive plan that establishes control strategies and guidance on regional emission
-21-
reductions for air pollutants. The AQMP is based, in part, on the land use plans of jurisdictions in
the region.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2020-2045 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020 RTP/SCS) to comply with
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) requirements under the Sustainable Communities and
Climate Protection Act. The RTP/SCS Growth Management chapter forms the basis of land use
and transportation controls of the AQMP. Projects that are consistent with the population
forecasts are considered consistent with the AQMP. SCAG forecasts that the City’s population
will be 64,100 in 2045.
A project is considered to be in conformity with adopted air quality plans if it adheres to the
requirements of the SCAQMD Rule Book, AQMP, and adopted and forthcoming control
measures, and is consistent with growth forecasts in the applicable plan(s) (or is directly included
in the applicable plan). Conformity with growth forecasts can be established by demonstrating
that a project is consistent with the land use plan that was used to generate the growth forecast. A
non-conforming project would be one that increases the gross number of dwelling units,
increases the number of vehicle trips, and/or increases the overall vehicle miles traveled in an
affected area relative to the applicable land use plan.
The proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation (Town Center Neighborhood)
assigned to the subject property by the Palm Desert General Plan. The Project’s density range
(7.0 to 9.1 du/ac) is within the density range (7.0 to 40 du/ac) specified for the Town Center
Neighborhood designation. The General Plan was used to develop population forecasts in the
above-described RTP/SCS, and the RTP/SCS served as the basis for the AQMP. The Project will
be part of anticipated growth, and the residential land use was included in the SCAG analysis.
The proposed Project would be implemented in accordance with all applicable rules and
regulations contained in these plans to meet the applicable air quality standards. Therefore, the
Project will be consistent with the AQMP and will not conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the plan. No conflict will occur.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. A project is considered to have significant impacts if there is a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As previously
stated, the SSAB is currently a non-attainment area for PM10 and ozone. Therefore, if the
Project’s construction and/or operational emissions exceed SCAQMD thresholds for PM10 and
ozone precursors, which include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NOx), and
volatile/reactive organic compounds/gases (VOC or ROG), then impacts would be cumulatively
considerable and significant.
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 was used to project
air quality emissions that will be generated by the proposed Project (Appendix A). Criteria air
pollutants will be released during both the construction and operational phases of the Project, as
shown in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 summarizes short-term construction-related emissions, and
Table 4 summarizes ongoing emissions generated during operation.
-22-
Construction Emissions
Project buildout is anticipated to take up to 6 years, from 2023 to 2029, with construction of
Planning Area 1 occurring independently and construction of Planning Areas 2 through 5 spread
over 8 phases. The construction period includes all aspects of Project development, including site
preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and application of architectural coatings.
As shown in Table 3, emissions generated by construction activities will not exceed SCAQMD
thresholds for any criteria pollutant. The data reflect average daily unmitigated emissions for
construction of the entire Project as a whole, including summer and winter weather conditions,
except PM10 and PM2.5 which show emissions after adherence to required dust control measures.
It is important to recognize that construction emissions will not be emitted daily during the entire
6-year construction buildout period, but rather will be spread across various phases of
construction. The analysis assumes a net export of 48,362 cubic yards of dirt/soil materials per
the Project’s preliminary grading plan. Applicable standard requirements and best management
practices include, but are not limited to, the implementation of a dust control and management
plan in conformance with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.1, phased application of architectural
coatings, and the use of low-polluting architectural paint and coatings per SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Table 3
Maximum Daily Construction-Related Emissions Summary
(pounds per day)
Construction Emissions1 CO NOx ROG SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Daily Maximum 33.79 41.31 20.36 0.14 10.60 6.07
SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00
Exceeds? No No No No No No
1 Average of winter and summer emissions, unmitigated, with the exception of PM10 and PM2.5,
which show emissions after adherence to required dust control measures.
Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 (output tables provided in Appendix A).
Given that criteria pollutant thresholds will not be exceeded, and standard best management
practices will be applied during construction, impacts will be less than significant.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions are ongoing emissions that will occur over the life of the Project. They
include area source emissions, emissions from energy demand (electricity), and mobile source
(vehicle) emissions.
According to the Project traffic impact analysis (Appendix D), the Project will generate
approximately 7,267 daily trips (see Section XVII, Transportation). Table 4 summarizes
projected emissions during operation of the Project at build out. As shown, operational emissions
will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants for operations.
Impacts will be less than significant.
-23-
Table 4
Maximum Daily Operational-Related Emissions Summary
(pounds per day)
Operational Emissions1 CO NOx ROG SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Daily Maximum 270.89 40.45 56.02 0.47 40.68 12.14
SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00
Exceeds? No No No No No No
1 Average of winter and summer emissions.
Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 (output tables provided in Appendix A).
Cumulative Contribution
A significant impact could occur if the Project would make a considerable cumulative
contribution to federal or state non-attainment pollutants. The Coachella Valley portion of the
SSAB is classified as a “non-attainment” area for PM10 and ozone. Cumulative air quality
analysis is evaluated on a regional scale (rather than a neighborhood or city scale, for example),
given the dispersing nature of pollutant emissions and aggregate impacts from surrounding
jurisdictions and air management districts. Any development project or activity resulting in
emissions of PM10, ozone, or ozone precursors will contribute, to some degree, to regional non-
attainment designations of ozone and PM10.
The SCAQMD does not currently recommend quantified analyses of construction and/or
operational emissions from multiple development projects, nor does it provide methodologies or
thresholds of significance to be used to assess the significance of cumulative emissions generated
by multiple cumulative projects. However, it is recommended that a project’s potential
contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those
for project-specific impacts. Furthermore, SCAQMD states that if an individual development
project generates less than significant construction or operational emissions, then the project
would not generate a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for
which the Basin is in nonattainment.
As shown in the tables above, Project-related PM10, CO, NOx, and ROG emissions are projected
to be below established SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project will result in
incremental, but not cumulatively considerable impacts on regional PM10 or ozone levels.
Summary
As shown above, both construction and operation of the Project will result in criteria emissions
below the SCAQMD significance thresholds, and neither would violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impacts related to
construction and operation will be less than significant and are not cumulatively considerable
from a non-attainment standpoint.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds,
childcare centers, retirement homes, hospitals, and other land uses occupied by individuals who
are potentially more sensitive to pollutants than the average. The nearest sensitive receptors to
the Project site are single-family homes to the immediate east and south. During construction of
Planning Area 5 (Open Space/Buffer), ground disturbances and the operation of heavy
equipment will be adjacent to the rear lot lines of existing homes. During construction of the
-24-
easternmost and southernmost parcels of Planning Area 3 (Residential), ground disturbances will
be 50 feet from existing homes. However, construction will occur in phases over the 6-year
buildout period, and pollutant emissions will be spread over various phases and locations
throughout the Project site such that they will not be concentrated in a single location for a long
duration.
During the operational phase of the Project, existing homes would be buffered from Project
dwelling units by Planning Area 5, a 50-foot-wide landscaped open space with a pedestrian path.
During all phases of development, existing homes would continue to be separated from the
Project by the existing 8-foot concrete wall along their rear lot lines.
To determine if a project has the potential to generate significant adverse localized air quality
impacts, SCAQMD offers Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) analysis. Analysis of LSTs
by a local government is voluntary and is designed for projects that are less than or equal to 5
acres. The maximum area of disturbance associated with buildout of the Project is approximately
106.4 acres, and it is assumed that buildout will occur over 6 years. Although the total Project
area is greater than 5 acres, the area of daily disturbance (for purposes of LST analysis only) can
be expected to be 5 acres or less per day at any given location. As such, the 5-acre Mass Rate
Look-Up table is appropriate under the SCAMD’s methodology to screen for potential localized
air quality impacts.1
The Mass Rate Look-Up tables for LSTs were used to determine if the proposed Project would
have the potential to generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts during
construction. The LST for Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30 (Coachella Valley) was used to
determine LST emission thresholds. The distance from the emission source and the maximum
daily site disturbance also determines the emission thresholds. For analysis purposes, the worst-
case scenario of a sensitive receptor being within 25 meters was used.
Table 5 shows that LST thresholds are not expected to be exceeded for any criteria pollutant
during construction. Because the proposed land uses do not include major stationary polluters
(such as a landfill, chemical plant, oil field, refinery, etc.), LST analysis was not conducted or
required for Project operation. Impacts to sensitive receptors will be less than significant.
Table 5
Localized Significance Thresholds
25 Meters, 5 Acres
(pounds per day)
CO NOx PM10 PM2.5
Construction Emissions 33.79 41.31 10.60 6.07
LST Threshold 2,292.00 304.00 14.00 8.00
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Source of Emission Data: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 (output tables provided in Appendix A).
Source of LST Threshold: LST Mass Rate Look-up Table, 25 meters, 5 acres, SCAQMD
1 SCAQMD “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds.”
-25-
Health Impacts
As shown in Tables 3 and 4, construction and operation of the proposed Project will result in
criteria emissions that are below the SCAQMD significance thresholds, and neither would
violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation.
It is not scientifically possible to calculate the degree to which exposure to various levels of
criteria pollutant emissions will impact an individual’s health. There are several factors that
make predicting a Project-specific numerical impact difficult:
• Not all individuals will be affected equally due to medical history. Some may have medical
pre-dispositions, and diet and exercise levels tend to vary across a population.
• Due to the dispersing nature of pollutants, it is difficult to locate and identify which group of
individuals will be impacted, either directly or indirectly.
• There are currently no approved methodologies or studies to base assumptions on, such as
baseline health levels or emission level-to-health risk ratios.
Due to these limitations, the extent to which the Project poses a health risk is uncertain but
unavoidable. It is anticipated that the impacts associated with all criteria pollutants will be less
than significant overall, and that health effects will also be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, odors associated with construction
activities, particularly paving, will be generated. However, any such odors would be short-term
and quickly dispersed below detectable levels as distance from the construction site increases.
Project buildout is estimated to occur over a 6-year period, and construction odors would be
generated across various time periods and locations throughout the site such that odors would not
be concentrated in one area for an extended duration.
During long-term operation, residential units will generate odors from cooking and other typical
household activities but will not generate objectionable odors. Therefore, impacts from
objectionable odors will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Monitoring: None required
Sources: SCAQMD AQMP, 2016; 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP/SCS), Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Southern California
Association of Governments, adopted September 3, 2020; “Final Localized Significance Threshold
Methodology,” prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Revised, July 2008;
“2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan,” August 1, 2003; CalEEMod Version
2020.4.0; Project materials.
-26-
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
✓
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
✓
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
✓
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
✓
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
✓
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
✓
Setting
The Coachella Valley is located within the Sonoran Desert, a subdivision of the Colorado Desert. The
Sonoran Desert contains a wide range of biological resources that are highly specialized and endemic to
the region. The central portion of the valley, in which the Project site is located, is composed of sand
dunes and sand fields that are divided into three sub-communities: active sand dunes, active sand fields,
and stabilized and partially stabilized desert sand fields.
-27-
Undeveloped portions of the City of Palm Desert contain a variety of biological resources. Ten (10)
special-status plant species and fifteen (15) special-status wildlife species are known to occur in the
City. Some of these species have been listed as threatened or endangered by the federal and state
governments. The City is within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), a comprehensive regional plan encompassing approximately 1.1
million acres in the Coachella Valley that addresses the conservation needs of 27 native flora and fauna
species and 27 natural vegetation communities. The City of Palm Desert is a CVMSHCP Permittee and
subject to its provisions.
The Project site is surrounded by development on all sides, and is an island of vacant desert land. A
Project-specific Biological Resources Assessment was conducted by Wood Environment &
Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. in March 2022 (Appendix B). Its findings are included in the analysis
below.
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project site is undeveloped but has been disturbed
by the edge effects of surrounding development, including the presence of trash and debris,
intrusion of landscaping vegetation around the site margins, off-road vehicle use, and use by
domestic animals and pedestrians. Sand drift fencing extends across some of the site.
The site-specific biological resources assessment identified 43 special status species that were
either observed onsite, have California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records within a
±5-mile radius of the site, and/or have potentially suitable habitat onsite. Of these, 11 are
considered absent from the site due to a lack of suitable habitat. The Project is not expected to
impact those species, and they are not analyzed further. The other 32 species could potentially
occur onsite and are described below.
Potentially Occurring Species Covered by the CVMSHCP
• Nine (9) special status species have the potential to occur on the Project site and are fully
covered under the CVMSHCP. They include:
1) Coachella Valley milk-vetch,
2) Mecca-aster,
3) Coachella giant sand-treader cricket,
4) Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket,
5) flat-tailed horned lizard,
6) Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard,
7) western yellow bat,
8) Palm Springs pocket mouse, and
9) Coachella Valley (Palm Springs) round-tailed ground squirrel.
Because the Project is within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP and the City is a
Permittee to the CVMSHCP, the Project will be required to pay the standard local
development mitigation fee to mitigate impacts to these and all other covered species that
may result from the Project. The Project is not within or adjacent to a CVMSHCP
conservation area and, therefore, no additional restrictions apply. Participation in the
CVMSHCP will mitigate impacts to these 9 species, and impacts will be less than
significant.
-28-
Potentially Occurring Species Not Covered, or Not Fully Covered, by the CVMSHCP
• Burrowing Owl: The burrowing owl nests and roosts underground, including along canals
and flood control channels, and is particularly sensitive to noise and ground disturbances,
such as grading and construction up to 500 feet away. It is a Species of Special Concern
(state designation) and Bird of Conservation Concern (federal designation) and is
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) code. It is also a covered species under the CVMSHCP, but
the federal permit for the CVMSHCP does not allow take under the MBTA. The subject
property includes marginally suitable habitat for burrowing owl, but there are limited
burrow opportunities, and the probability of occurrence is low. No individuals or sign of
owl was detected in the field survey. Nonetheless, to avoid take of the species, the CDFW
recommends two take avoidance surveys (Mitigation Measure BIO.1). The first should
occur between 14 and 30 days prior to ground disturbance and the second within 24 hours
of ground disturbance. With implementation of BIO.1, impacts to burrowing owl will be
less than significant.
• Plants: Thirteen (13) special status plant species have the potential to occur onsite but are
not covered by the CVMSHCP:
1) chaparral sand-verbena,
2) gravel milk-vetch,
3) pointed odder,
4) glandular ditaxis,
5) California ditaxis,
6) Abram’s spurge,
7) Arizona spurge,
8) flat-seeded spurge,
9) ribbed cryptantha,
10)Torrey’s box-thorn,
11) slender cottonheads,
12) narrow-leaved sandpaper plant, and
13) Mecca-aster.
None are federally or state listed as endangered or threatened, and if they are present
onsite, they are likely to decline or be lost over time given that the site is surrounded by
development. None were identified during the field survey. The isolated nature of the
Project site, and the fact that they were not identified during the spring-season field
survey result in a very low probability of occurrence. In addition, none of these species
are listed as either endangered or threatened. Therefore, impacts will be less than
significant.
• Insects: Two (2) special status insects have the potential to occur onsite but are not
covered by the CVMSHCP: Crotch bumble bee, and cheeseweed owlfly. Neither is
federally or state listed as endangered or threatened. If present onsite, the species would
not be expected to persist in the long-term or in populations of significance. Neither was
identified on the Project site. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.
-29-
• Non-nesting Birds: Two (2) special status non-nesting birds could potentially occur
onsite: prairie falcon, and willow flycatcher (southwestern and other subspecies). They
could occur on the Project site as migrants and/or foragers, but no nesting habitat is
available. No action or mitigation is recommended.
• Nesting Migratory Birds: Five (5) special status nesting birds have the potential to occur
onsite:
1) Costa’s hummingbird,
2) loggerhead shrike,
3) black-tailed gnatcatcher,
4) vermilion flycatcher, and
5) LeConte’s thrasher.
The LeConte’s thrasher is covered by the CVMSHCP, but all five are protected from take
by the MBTA and state code. To avoid impacts to nesting birds, the Project should avoid
site disturbance during the nesting season (generally February 1 through August 31). If
avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, additional impact avoidance and
minimization measures may be necessary, as provided in Mitigation Measure BIO.2.
With implementation of BIO.2, impacts to migratory birds will be less than significant.
• Mammals: One (1) special status mammal not covered by the CVMSHCP has the
potential to occur onsite: pallid San Diego pocket mouse. However, the possibility of
occurrence is low because only marginal habitat is present, and the site is likely beyond
the range of the species. No populations of significance are anticipated onsite, and no
action or mitigation is recommended.
b, c) No Impact. The vegetation community on the subject site is identified as “stabilized and
partially stabilized desert dunes.” The site survey did not identify any springs, seeps, or natural
bodies of water or drainages on the Project site. Review of the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) indicated that no known blue-line streams (drainages) traverse the subject property. The
Project site does not contain any streams, riparian habitat, marshes, protected wetlands, vernal
pools, or sensitive natural communities protected by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No impact would occur.
d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Nearly all land surrounding the Project site is
developed. No wildlife corridors or biological linkages are mapped, known, or expected on the
Project site. Although it is used by several common species and may provide marginal habitat for
migratory birds, the Project site is not identified as a nursery site. As described above, the site
may offer limited nesting sites for birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
Compliance with the MBTA, provided in Mitigation Measure BIO.2, will ensure impacts to
sensitive species are reduced to less than significant levels.
e) No Impact. The proposed Project will not conflict with any local ordinances protecting
biological species and will be required to comply with the landscaping and other applicable
requirements of the Municipal Code and Refuge Specific Plan. The Project would also adhere to
the City’s General Plan Policy 4.3 by incorporating native vegetation materials into the Project
landscape. No impact will occur.
-30-
f) No Impact. The subject property is within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP, and the City of
Palm Desert is a Permittee to the CVMSHCP. Therefore, the Project proponent will be required
to pay the local development mitigation fee to mitigate impacts to covered species. Payment of
the fee is a standard requirement of projects in the CVMSHCP coverage area. The Project will
not conflict with this or any other habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan. No impact will occur.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO.1 Burrowing Owl Surveys
To mitigate potential impacts to burrowing owl, two pre-construction surveys shall be conducted
in accordance with CDFW protocol. The first survey shall occur between 14 and 30 days prior to
ground disturbance, and the second shall occur within 24 hours of the initiation of ground
disturbance activities for any phase of development on the Project site.
• If no owls are detected during those surveys, ground disturbance may proceed without further
consideration of this species, assuming there is no lapse between the surveys and
construction, because the protocol states “time lapses between Project activities trigger
subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted
within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance.”
• If burrowing owls are detected during the surveys, avoidance and minimization measures
shall be required. Avoidance and minimization measures may include establishing a buffer
zone, installing a visual barrier, implementing burrow exclusion and/or closure techniques, in
conformance with CDFW protocol.
BIO.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
If ground disturbance or tree or plant removal is proposed between February 1st and August 31st,
a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within 7 to 10 days of initiation of
grading onsite, focusing on MBTA covered species. If active nests are reported, then species-
specific measures shall be prepared. At a minimum, grading in the vicinity of a nest shall be
postponed until the young birds have fledged. For construction that occurs between September
1st and January 31st, no pre-removal nesting bird survey is required.
• In the event active nests are found, exclusionary fencing shall be placed around the nests
until such time as nestlings have fledged. Avoidance buffers shall be 100 to 300 feet from
the nests of unlisted songbirds, and 500 feet from the nests of birds-of-prey and listed
species.
Monitoring:
BIO.A The Project biologist shall supply the City with reports of findings regarding burrowing owls and
migratory birds. The reports will be attached to the grading permit for the Project.
Responsible Parties: Project Biologist, City Engineer, Planning Department
Timeline: prior to issuance of any permits that result in ground disturbance
Sources: Biological Resources Assessment & Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan Compliance Report, Refuge Palm Desert Project, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 694-310-002, 694-
310-003, & 694-310-006, Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc., March 11, 2022; City
of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental
Impact Report, 2016; Project materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786.
-31-
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
✓
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
✓
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
✓
Setting
The Cahuilla Indians settled in the Coachella Valley centuries ago. They were a Takic-speaking people
that, before European settlement, consisted primarily of hunters and gatherers generally divided into
three groups based on geography: the Pass Cahuilla of the San Gorgonio Pass-Palm Springs area; the
Mountain Cahuilla of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley; and the Desert
Cahuilla of the eastern Coachella Valley.
The first noted European explorations in the Coachella Valley occurred in the 1820’s. By the 1870’s,
non-native settlements expanded across the region as new federal laws opened lands for settlement. The
discovery of underground water sources increased farming activities in the early 20th century. After
World War II, the Henderson brothers organized the Palm Desert Corporation to promote their new
desert town. In 1946, they started constructing streets and commercial buildings which later became
known as Palm Desert. The City was incorporated in 1973.
Development in the Project area began in the late 1950s. By 1956-1958, three buildings (“jackrabbit
homesteads”) were constructed southeast of the Project site, but they were abandoned shortly
afterwards. The Project site remained a largely undisturbed desert landscape until 1972, when
construction of the present-day Gerald Ford Drive began. The Shadow Ridge Golf Club to the west and
the residential tract to the east were present by 2002, and the neighborhood north of Gerald Ford Drive
developed between 2006 and 2016. The sheriff’s station to the west was built between 2009 and 2011.
The Project site was the subject of a cultural resources assessment conducted by CRM TECH in 2016.
At that time, the study area included the Project site plus vacant land to the immediate east. In 2020,
CRM TECH prepared another cultural resources assessment that updated and reexamined the findings of
the 2016 study as they pertained to Planning Area 1 (Vitalia). In April 2022, CRM TECH prepared a
cultural resources assessment to update the findings of the previous studies and reevaluate the Project
site as it relates to the currently proposed Project (Appendix C).
-32-
Discussion of Impacts
a) No Impact. In 2022, CRM TECH conducted a cultural resources study for the Project site and
reexamined and updated the findings of the 2016 and 2020 cultural resources analyses described
above. The 2022 study included a review of data gathered during the previous studies and the
results of more recent records on nearby properties, as well as a Sacred Lands Files search at the
State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and field inspection of the
Project site.
Records Search
According to the 2016 cultural resources study, a records search of the California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) found that 25
cultural resources studies were conducted within a one-mile radius of the Project site. Three sites
and one isolate (locality with fewer than three artifacts) that dated to the historic period
(generally within 50 years) were recorded within the one-mile radius. However, none of the
resources were located on the Project site or within a ½-mile radius of it. The 2020 cultural
resources study re-evaluated the previously identified records and found no new historic
resources. The 2022 study searched recent studies within a ½-mile radius of the Project site and
determined that no additional historical resources have been recorded on the Project site or
within the ½-mile radius.
Field Survey
The 2016 field survey identified remnants of three “jackrabbit homesteads” built in the 1950s
immediately east of the current Project boundary. None of the remnants demonstrated any
potential to be considered historically significant under CEQA. The 2020 field survey
encountered no historical resources in Planning Area 1 (Vitalia) but observed ground
disturbances along its westerly and northerly boundaries where underground utility lines had
been installed along the south side of Gerald Ford Drive. The 2022 field survey encountered no
historical resources on the current Project site. Recent ground surface disturbances were noted
near the eastern Project boundary in association with residential development on the adjacent
property, and a block wall had been built along the boundary line. Evidence of off-road vehicle
use and extensive pedestrian use were also seen on the Project site.
Summary of Impacts
Based on findings of the three site-specific studies, CRM TECH concluded that no historical
resources are known to occur in the Project area, and the proposed Project will not cause a
substantial adverse change to any known historical resources. No impact will occur.
b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation.
Sacred Lands File Search
On February 23, 2022, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the Sacred Lands File regarding the proposed
Project. NAHC reported no Native American cultural resource(s) in the Project vicinity but
recommended that sixteen local Native American representatives be consulted for further
information. The City will contact Tribal representatives as part of the SB 18 and AB 52
consultation process described in Section XVIII (Tribal Cultural Resources) of this Initial Study.
-33-
Records Search
The records search conducted at the EIC for the 2016 cultural resources study found that 25
cultural resources studies were conducted within a one-mile radius of the Project site. One
prehistoric (Native American) site and three isolates were recorded within a one-mile radius of
the Project site. However, none were located on the Project site and, therefore, the Project would
have no impact on them. The 2020 cultural resources study did not identify any additional
records of prehistoric resources on the Project site. The 2022 study searched recent studies
within a ½-mile radius and found no evidence of additional prehistoric resources being recorded
in the Project area.
Field Survey
The 2016 field survey identified no prehistoric resources on the Project site but did find
disturbances of the ground surfaces on the southerly, easterly, and northerly edges of the
property in association with adjacent development. No items of archaeological interest were
found. The 2020 field survey encountered no archaeological resources in Planning Area 1
(Vitalia) but observed ground disturbances along its westerly and northerly boundaries where
underground utility lines had been installed along the south side of Gerald Ford Drive. The 2022
field survey encountered no archaeological resources on the Project site.
Summary of Impacts
Based on these findings, CRM TECH concluded that no known archaeological resources occur
on the Project site, and no further cultural resources investigation is needed for the Project unless
development plans change to include areas not covered by the study. However, as recommended
in the cultural resources study, to protect any potential buried archaeological resources that may
be uncovered during Project development and to reduce potential impacts to less than significant
levels, Mitigation Measure CUL.1 is provided below. Please also see Section XVIII, Tribal
Cultural Resources. With implementation of CUL.1, potential impacts to archaeological
resources will be reduced to less than significant levels.
c) No Impact. No cemeteries or human remains are known to occur onsite. It is unlikely that
human remains will be uncovered during Project development. However, should human remains
be uncovered, California law requires that all activity cease and the coroner be notified to
determine the nature of the remains and whether Native American consultation is needed. This
requirement of law assures that there will be no impact to cemeteries or human remains.
Mitigation Measures:
CUL.1. Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring
Earth-moving activities, including grading, grubbing, trenching, or excavations at the site
shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor.
If any cultural materials more than 50 years of age are discovered, they shall be recorded and
evaluated in the field. The monitors shall be prepared to recover artifacts quickly to avoid
construction delays but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction
equipment to allow for controlled archaeological recovery if a substantial cultural deposit is
encountered. The monitors shall determine when excavations have reached sufficient depth to
preclude the occurrence of cultural resources, and when monitoring should conclude.
-34-
If artifacts are discovered, these shall be processed, catalogued, analyzed, and prepared for
permanent curation in a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for
additional research in the future.
Monitoring:
CUL.A. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the site, the applicant shall provide fully executed
monitoring agreement(s) to the City.
Responsible parties: Project applicant, Planning Division, City Engineer.
CUL.B. Within 30 days of the completion of ground disturbing activities on the Project site, a report of
findings shall be filed with the City. The report will summarize the methods and results of the
monitoring program, including an itemized inventory and a detailed analysis of recovered
artifacts, upon completion of the field and laboratory work. The report should include an
interpretation of the cultural activities represented by the artifacts and a discussion of the
significance of all archaeological finds.
Responsible parties: Project applicant, Project archaeologist, Tribal monitor, Planning
Division, City Engineer.
Sources: Update to Historical/Archeological Resources Survey, Refuge Palm Desert Project, CRM
TECH, April 21, 2022; Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, Palm Desert Apartments
Project, CRM TECH, December 16, 2020; Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, Assessor’s
Parcel Numbers 694-300-001, -002, -005, -014, -015, and 694-310-002, -003, -006, -007, CRM TECH,
December 28, 2016; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific
Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016 (SCH 2015081020); Project materials.
-35-
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
✓
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
✓
Setting
Primary energy sources include fossil fuels (e.g. oil, coal, and natural gas), nuclear energy, and
renewable sources (e.g. wind, solar, geothermal and hydropower). Southern California Edison (SCE)
provides electricity to the City of Palm Desert and serves approximately 15 million people in a 50,000
square-mile service area.2 Natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas).
It serves approximately 21.8 million customers in a service area covering approximately 24,000 square
miles.3 Both SCE and SoCalGas offer programs and incentives to reduce energy consumption.
The Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan (2010) establishes the City’s vision for long-term
energy reduction and sustainability. It addresses city-wide energy usage and establishes goals and policy
recommendations within six resource areas: building efficiency standards, energy management,
materials management, regional air quality, transportation resources, and water management.
Discussion of Impacts
a, b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project will consume energy during both
construction and long-term operation. During construction, energy demand will come from the
operation of construction machinery and equipment, manufacturing of construction materials,
delivery of building materials, hauling of construction debris, and commuting of workers to and
from the Project site. The Project consists of typical residential development, and has no
characteristics that would result in unusually high use of energy for construction. Construction
practices would be subject to current SCAQMD rules and regulations, such as source-specific
standards for engines and limits on equipment idling duration. The Project would also adhere to
state Low Carbon Fuel Standards for construction equipment and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency
standards. These standards would reduce fuel consumption, help maximize fuel efficiency, and
reduce pollutant emissions.
2 Southern California Edison, www.calcities.org/detail-pages/partner/edison, accessed March 2022.
3 SoCalGas, Company Profile, www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-profile, accessed March 2022.
-36-
Long-term operational energy demand will be generated by Project lighting,
heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC) systems, and household appliances. Energy would
be consumed during the operation of community facilities, such as club houses and swimming
pools, as well as landscape irrigation, the transport and conveyance of water, and solid waste
hauling and disposal. However, the Project will result in single- and multi-family units typical of
such construction throughout the City and region. Residential units will be constructed in
accordance with the state Building Code, Green Building Code, and Energy Code in effect at the
time that development occurs, to ensure the most efficient building technologies are used, which
will benefit overall building operations, ensure energy efficiency, and reduce wasteful and
unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Current energy code requirements include the use
of solar energy for residential projects. The Project will be required to comply with these
standards.
The Project will increase the population, which will increase vehicle trips and miles traveled
(VMT) and long-term fuel demand. According to the Project-specific traffic impact analysis, the
Project is estimated to generate 7,267 vehicle trips per day (see Section XVII, Transportation).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) set
forth vehicle fuel efficiency standards to reduce vehicle emissions. Although the Project will
increase vehicle trips, it will not interfere with increased fuel efficiency standards or result in
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy resources during
operation.
SCE engages in renewable power generation and procurement, administers a variety of energy
efficiency programs, and encourages rooftop solar energy. According to the Project-specific
CalEEMod analysis (Appendix A), at buildout, the Project is projected to consume
approximately 5,102,344 kWh of electricity and approximately 188,215 therms of natural gas per
year. Actual consumption will be offset by energy-efficient appliances and future solar systems.
The Project will be required to comply with solar and zero net energy requirements of the 2019
California Building Code and will not interfere with any state or local plan that promotes
renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Adherence to applicable laws and standards enforced by government agencies, SCE, and
SoCalGas will ensure the Project is consistent with current energy standards and conservation
goals laid out in the City’s General Plan and Environmental Sustainability Plan. Therefore,
Project impacts will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Monitoring: None required
Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; City of Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability
Plan, February 11, 2010.
-37-
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
✓
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ✓
iii) Seismic related ground failure, including
liquefaction? ✓
iv) Landslides? ✓
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? ✓
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
✓
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
✓
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
✓
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
✓
Setting
Geology and Soils
The Coachella Valley is at the northern end of the Salton Trough, a tectonic depression formed by
regional faulting that extends from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of Mexico. The geology and
seismicity of the valley are highly influenced by the tectonics of the San Andrea and San Jacinto fault
systems. The Valley is surrounded by the San Bernardino Mountains on the northwest, San Jacinto
-38-
Mountains on the west, Santa Rosa Mountains on the south, and Little San Bernardino Mountains and
Indio Hills on the north.
Episodic flooding of major regional drainages, including the Whitewater River, results in the deposition
of sand and gravel on the valley floor. Strong sustained winds emanating from the San Gorgonio Pass
cause wind erosion and transport, and they deposit dry, finely granulated, sandy soils on the central
valley floor. Regional soils range from rocky outcrops within the mountains bordering the valley to
coarse gravels of mountain canyons and recently laid fine- and medium-grained alluvial (stream-
deposited) and aeolian (wind-deposited) sediments on the central valley floor.
Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the remains and/or traces of plant and animal life such as bones, teeth,
shells, and wood that are found in geologic deposits. Palm Desert General Plan Policy 9.7 requires
development to avoid paleontological resources whenever possible. If complete avoidance is not
possible, development is required to minimize and fully mitigate impacts to the resource.
Discussion of Impacts
a.i) No Impact. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones in the City (General Plan Figure
8.1), and the subject property is not located within or adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone. The nearest earthquake fault is the South Branch of the San Andreas Fault Zone,
approximately 3.6 miles northeast of the Project site. No fault-related surface rupture would
occur on the Project site.
a.ii) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Coachella Valley is a seismically active region. The
closest active fault to the City is the San Andreas Fault, 4 miles north of the City, which has a
probable magnitude range of 6.8-8.0 on the Richter scale. The San Jacinto Fault and the Elsinore
Fault are 10 miles and 30 miles southwest of the City, respectively, and both have a probable
magnitude range of 6.5-7.5 on the Richter scale. The Project would be exposed to strong ground
shaking during a major quake on nearby faults, which could expose people and structures to
safety risks. The impacts associated with ground shaking could be significant without mitigation.
The subject property is not in the Seismic Hazard Overlay on the City’s zoning map, which
requires development proposals to conduct in-depth geotechnical soils investigations. However,
a geotechnical survey was prepared for Planning Area 1 (Vitalia) in 2021.4 Planning Areas 2
through 5 share the same soil type (Myoma fine sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes, MaD) as Planning
Area 1, and also have a small area of Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes, MaB near the
westerly edge. Planning Areas 2 through 5 are designated for similar types of development
(residential) as Planning Area 1. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the same ground
shaking hazards and geotechnical recommendations and mitigation measures provided for
Planning Area 1 apply to the entire Project site. The Project will be required to comply with the
California Building Code (CBC) in effect at the time that development occurs, which includes
seismic safety specifications and requirements. The Project should be constructed based on
parameters for the Site Class D designation. Adherence to the CBC and recommendations from
the geotechnical report will reduce potential impacts associated with strong seismic ground
shaking to less than significant levels on the subject property (Mitigation Measure GEO.1).
4 Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Palm Desert Apartments, 25.48 Acres, Gerald Ford Drive, prepared by Petra
Geosciences, March 4, 2021.
-39-
a.iii) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Seismically induced liquefaction is the loss of soil
strength caused by a sudden increase in pore water pressure shortly after an earthquake.
Liquefaction can occur with a combination of the following conditions: saturated soil or soil
below the groundwater table, strong ground shaking, and susceptible soil types such as loose
sands and gravels. Lateral spreading is a form of liquefaction-related hazard.
According to the geotechnical study prepared for Planning Area 1, the groundwater table on the
subject site is deeper than 150 feet below surface; therefore, the potential for liquefaction to
occur is unlikely. Given the adjacency of Planning Area 1 to Planning Areas 2 through 5, and
that they share the same soil type, this condition can be expected across the entire Project site.
Moderate and large earthquakes could induce dry sand settlement in which the structure of
granular soils are rearranged such that vertical settlement occurs among dry, clean sands of
uniform grain size and in fine-grained soils. A settlement analysis performed on the 60-feet deep
boring during the Planning Area 1 geotechnical investigation determined that differential dry
sand settlement of up to 1-inch over a horizontal distance of approximately 25 feet may occur on
the site, which should be considered during the foundation structural design of the proposed
improvements. Provided that grading and other development plans for the Project site are
designed in accordance with site-specific parameters for soils and geological conditions, Project-
related impacts from seismic related ground failure will be less than significant (Mitigation
Measure GEO.1).
a.iv) No Impact. The Project site is not susceptible to landslides due to its relatively flat terrain and
distance from mountainous slopes and hillsides (approximately 3 miles). According to Palm
Desert General Plan Figure 8.2, Landslide Susceptibility, areas susceptible to landslide are
limited to the southern portion of the City. No impact will occur.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is in a very high wind erodibility zone (Palm
Desert General Plan Figure 8.3, Wind Erosion Hazard). Buildout of the Project will result in
ground disturbances, including site preparation and grading, that have the potential to increase
soil erosion. However, the Project will include new structures, paved surfaces, and landscaping
that will stabilize ground surfaces and resist long-term erosion. The Project will be required to
submit and implement a site-specific dust control mitigation plan as part of the grading permit
process to minimize potential impacts caused by blowing dust and sand during construction.
Adherence to this standard requirement will assure that potential wind erosion impacts remain
less than significant.
The Project will install onsite drainage retention facilities to retain groundwater onsite and have
sufficient capacity to accommodate a 100-year storm event (see Section X, Hydrology and Water
Quality). Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) will ensure that the Project will
not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Impacts will be less than significant.
c) Less than Significant with Mitigation.
Subsidence
Subsidence is the settlement or sinking of the land surface that, in the Coachella Valley, has been
associated with long-term groundwater withdrawal. Subsidence is considered a regional issue
-40-
and is being addressed by the water agencies and government agencies through water
conservation and supplemental groundwater recharge efforts.
The Project site is near areas of inferred land subsidence that extend from Rancho Mirage to La
Quinta.5 The geotechnical investigation for Planning Area 1 estimated subsidence of between 0.2
and 0.22 feet to occur when exposed bottom surfaces are scarified and re-compacted. Given that
Planning Area 1 is adjacent to and has the same soil type as Planning Areas 2 through 5, and that
the planning areas propose similar types of development (residential), the same conditions are
expected to be present throughout the entire Project site, and the same geotechnical
recommendations provided for Planning Area 1 apply to the entire Project site. Adherence to the
recommendations provided in the geotechnical study will assure that impacts regarding
subsidence will remain less than significant (Mitigation Measure GEO.1).
Landslide and Rockfall
See Response VII.a.iv, above.
Liquefaction and Dry Sand Settlement
See Response VII.a.iii, above.
Hydrocollapsible Soils
Hydrocollapsible soils are subject to collapse upon the introduction of water. The volume of
collapsible soils reduces when the pores in the soil become saturated, causing loss of grain-to-
grain contact. Collapsible soils can cause uniform or differential damage to foundations and
walls built on this soil type.
According to the geotechnical report for Planning Area 1, an average shrinkage on the order of
about 20-22% may occur when excavated onsite soils are removed and recompacted as properly
compacted fill. Planning Area 1 is adjacent to and has the same soil type as Planning Areas 2
through 5; therefore, it is expected that the same soil conditions apply to the entire Project site.
Adherence to the recommendations of the geotechnical report will assure that Project impacts
associated with collapsible soils will remain less than significant (Mitigation Measure GEO-1).
d) Less than Significant Impact. The Palm Desert General Plan EIR (Section 4.7) states that there
appear to be no expansive clays or soils exhibiting shrink-swell characteristics in the City. The
geotechnical investigation prepared for Planning Area 1 determined that onsite soils have
expansive indices less than 20 and are considered non-expansive per the 2019 CBC.
Nonetheless, the geotechnical report included minimum requirements for the design and
construction of footings and slabs on-grade. Because Planning Area 1 is adjacent to and shares
the same soil type as Planning Areas 2 through 5, it is expected that the same conditions are
present throughout the entire Project site. Compliance with recommendations in the geotechnical
report will ensure Project impacts are less than significant.
e) No Impact. The subject property is in an urban area that is served by a community sewer
system, and the proposed Project will be connected to the sewer system. The Project will not
result in new septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact will occur.
5 2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater Resource Plan Update, Coachella Valley
Regional Water Management Group, December 2018, amended December 2020, Figure 3-3.
-41-
f) No Impact. The soils underlying the Project site consist of recently deposited aeolian and
alluvial sediments that typically do not harbor paleontological resources. According to the
Riverside County General Plan EIR (Figure 4.9.3), the Project area is of low paleontological
sensitivity. The Project site is not known to have unique paleontological or geologic features. No
impact will occur.
Mitigation Measures:
GEO.1 Geotechnical Report Recommendations
The Project design and construction should incorporate the following components based on
each phase of development’s site-specific geotechnical analysis during the preparation of
precise grading plans:
a. Earthwork Specifications. All earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance
with the applicable requirements of City of Palm Desert, in compliance with all applicable
provisions of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and in accordance with the
recommendations in the Project geotechnical report.
b. Site Clearing. Clearing operations should include the removal of all vegetation and any
structural features when found. Large shrubs, when removed, should be grubbed out to
include their stumps and major root systems.
c. Ground Preparation. All unsuitable surficial materials should be removed down to
competent native dune sand deposits. The exposed bottom surface should be scarified to a
depth of at least 6 inches, watered as necessary to achieve slightly above optimum moisture
conditions, and then recompacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent.
d. Shrinkage and Subsidence. The following estimates of shrinkage and subsidence are
intended as an aid for project planners in determining the earthwork quantities and should
be used with some caution since they are not absolute values. An average shrinkage on the
order of about 20 to 22 percent may occur when excavated onsite soils are replaced
(removed and recompacted) as properly compacted fill. A subsidence estimated between
0.2 and 0.22 feet may also be expected when exposed bottom surfaces in removal areas are
scarified and re- compacted as recommended herein.
Additional recommendations on post-grading considerations, foundations, footings and slabs
on-grade design and construction, retaining walls, masonry block walls, exterior concrete
flatwork, swimming pool and spa, and preliminary pavement sections should also be followed
in the Project design and construction.
Monitoring:
GEO.A The applicant shall provide the final grading plan to the Project geotechnical consultant for
review and ensure the recommendations are incorporated into the design criteria and Project
specifications as deemed appropriate by the consultant.
Responsible parties: Project engineer, Project geotechnical consultant, Project applicant.
Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; City of Palm Desert Zoning Map; City of Palm
Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact
Report, 2016 (SCH 2015081020); Riverside County General Plan EIR (SCH 2009041065);
Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Palm Desert Apartments, 25.48 Acres, Gerald Ford Drive,
-42-
prepared by Petra Geosciences, March 4, 2021; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web
Soil Survey, accessed March 17, 2022; Project materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786; 2018 Coachella
Valley Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater Resource Plan Update, Coachella Valley
Regional Water Management Group, December 2018, amended December 2020, Figure 3-3.
-43-
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
✓
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
✓
Setting
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in
determining the earth’s surface temperature. Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds. GHGs are
emitted during natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) processes. Anthropogenic emissions of these
GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect
and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or
global warming.
State laws, such as Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), require cities to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. SB 32 is the extension of AB 32 and requires
the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
The City of Palm Desert adopted an Environmental Sustainability Plan (2010) that is consistent with the
goals of AB 32 and S-3-05, which calls for a statewide GHG emission reduction to 80% below 1990
levels by 2050.
On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD formally adopted a greenhouse gas significance threshold of
10,000 MTCO2e/yr that only applies to industrial uses’ stationary sources where SCAQMD is the lead
agency (SCAQMD Resolution No.08-35). This threshold was adopted based upon an October 2008 staff
report and draft interim guidance document that also recommended a threshold for all projects using a
tiered approach. It was recommended by SCAQMD staff that a project’s greenhouse gas emissions
would be considered significant if it could not comply with at least one of the following “tiered” tests:
• Tier 1: Is there an applicable exemption?
• Tier 2: Is the project compliant with a greenhouse gas reduction plan that is, at a minimum,
consistent with the goals of AB 32?
• Tier 3: Is the project below an absolute threshold (10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial
projects; 3,000 MTCO2e/year for residential and commercial projects)?
• Tier 4: Is the project below a (yet to be set) performance threshold?
• Tier 5: Would the project achieve a screening level with off-site mitigation?
The analysis provided below is based on this tiered approach.
-44-
Discussion of Impacts
a, b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project will generate GHG emissions during both
construction and operation. As described in Section III (Air Quality), the California Emissions Estimator
Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 was used to project the Project’s air quality emissions, including
greenhouse gas emissions (Appendix A). Applicable standard requirements and best management
practices (BMPs) were included in the model, including the implementation of a dust control and
management plan in conformance with SCAQMD Rule 403, phased application of architectural
coatings, and the use of low-polluting architectural paint and coatings per SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Projected short-term construction and annual operational GHG emissions associated with Project
buildout are described below and shown in Table 6.
Construction Emissions
Construction activities, including operation of construction equipment, employee commute, and material
hauling, will generate short-term GHG emissions. As shown in Table 6, the Project is projected to
generate 7,071.31 MTCO2e of GHG emissions during the 6-year construction period. Construction
emissions are cumulative for the entire Project and will not occur for the entire 6 years, but rather will be
spread across various phases and onsite locations. There are currently no construction related GHG
emission thresholds for residential projects of this nature.
Operational Emissions
During long-term operation of the Project, five sources will contribute either directly or indirectly to
operational GHG emissions: area emissions (pavement and architectural coating off-gassing), energy
usage, mobile (vehicle) emissions, solid waste disposal, and water usage. As shown in Table 6,
operational emissions are projected to be 8,256.84 MTCO2e/year, with mobile source emissions
representing about 69% of all operational emissions.
As shown, GHG emissions from energy usage are projected to be 1,919.66 MTCO2e/year. However, the
2019 California Building Code requires all new residential projects, including single and multi-family
buildings up to three stories high, to be designed to achieve Zero Net Energy (ZNE). This requirement
will apply to the Project and, therefore, its energy usage can be considered to generate zero GHG
emissions. Under ZNE conditions, in which GHG emissions from energy usage are zero, total
operational emissions would be 6,337.18 MTCO2e/year (Table 6).
Total Emissions
To determine if construction GHG emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable impact, they
were amortized over a 30-year period and added to annual operational emissions for comparison with
applicable GHG thresholds. As shown in Table 6, the combined total of (amortized) construction and
operational emissions is projected to be 6,572.89 MTCO2e/year.
-45-
Table 6
Projected GHG Emissions Summary
(metric tons/year)
Phase CO2e (MT/YR)
Construction
(6 years cumulative) 7,071.31
Operational
Area 32.62
Energy 1,919.66
Mobile 5,721.11
Waste 272.15
Water 311.30
Operational Subtotal 8,256.84
Operational Subtotal (Zero Net Energy) 6,337.18
Construction, 30-year amortized1 235.71
Total
(30-year amortized construction
(235.71) + operational ZNE)1
6,572.89
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000.00
1 Buildout construction GHG emissions amortized over 30 years.
7,071.31/30 = 235.71
Emission Source: CalEEMod Version 2040.4.0
Consistency with SCAQMD GHG Thresholds
The proposed Project is a residential development and, therefore, can be evaluated under SCAQMD’s
Tier 3 residential threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year. As shown in Table 6, Project emissions are
projected to exceed the Tier 3 threshold. However, the Project would comply with the Tier 2 criteria.
According to the SCAQMD’s recommended Tier 2 threshold, a project would have a less than
significant impact if it would be consistent with an approved plan for the reduction of GHGs. The City
of Palm Desert adopted an Environmental Sustainability Plan (2010) that was based on a 2008 GHG
Inventory and establishes energy-efficiency reduction policies and implementation measures for the City
and development projects to meet AB 32 goals. In November 2017, the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) released the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan that discusses not only the 2030 targets, but
how to substantially advance toward the state’s 2050 climate goal to reduce GHG emissions by 80
percent below 1990 levels. To be consistent with statewide targets for 2030, CARB recommends a 6.0
MTCO2e per capita emission rate for compliance with AB 32.6 As explained in Section XIV (Population
and Housing) of this Initial Study, the Project’s buildout population is projected at 1,986 persons. With
total emissions of 6,572.89 MTCO2e/year, a population of 1,986 would result in a per capita emission
rate of 3.3 MTCO2e and is, therefore, consistent with the state approved scoping plan for reducing
GHGs. Impacts would be less than significant.
Consistency with Local GHG Reduction Measures
The City adopted an Environmental Sustainability Plan in 2010 that outlines a course of action to reduce
municipal and communitywide GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. The Plan is based on
6 “California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan,” California Air Resources Board, November 2017, page 101.
-46-
the City’s 2008 Greenhouse Gas Inventory and establishes a 10-year, 3-phased approach to reduce GHG
emissions by 378,145 metric tons annually. It sets forth 139 reduction measures categorized in six
sustainability resource areas: the built environment, energy management, materials management,
regional air quality, transportation resources, and water management. The City determined that the
Plan’s reduction measures will effectively reduce city-wide GHG emissions through municipal and
community efforts. If the proposed Project is not consistent with its measures, or if the measures are not
otherwise binding, they must be incorporated as mitigation measures applicable to the Project. The
following table compares the Project with applicable GHG reduction measures of the Environmental
Sustainability Plan.
Table 7
Consistency with Applicable GHG Reduction Measures of the
Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan
GHG Reduction Measure Project Consistency
BE 1 Pass Green Building Ordinance to adopt the
California Green Building Code, Title 24 edition.
Consistent: The City has adopted the 2019 edition of
the California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 of the
California Code of Regulations. The Project is
required to meet the standards of the Title 24
requirements.
BE 2 Maintain 2007 ordinance feature: Developers
must sell “solar ready” homes (conduits, junction
boxes, etc.).
Consistent: The Project would meet Title 24
California Building Code mandatory solar-ready
requirements for new buildings.
BE 4 Develop, define, and promote a net zero energy
building approach and timeline.
Consistent: The Project would comply with the 2019
edition of the California Building Code which
requires all single- and multi-family residences up to 3
stories high to be designed to achieve zero net energy.
MM 21 Enact by 2011 an ordinance for residential,
commercial, and construction debris that requires
mandatory diversion of 100% inert, 75% other debris
by 2012.
Consistent: The Project would comply with City
requirements for waste disposal set forth in Chapter
8.19 of the Municipal Code (Requirements for
Collection of Solid Waste, Recyclable Material, and
Organic Waste for All Residents).
RAQ 6 Implement incentives for replacing turf with
native low water-use plants, trees, ground cover and
“hard-scapes.”
Consistent: The Project includes an approved plant
list and requires planting and irrigation design to
comply with CVWD and state Model Efficient Water
Ordinance standards, and 75% of the plant palette to
be low-water plants from the Water Use Classification
of Landscape Species (WUCOL), 2014.
T 1 Develop plan for increasing the connectivity of
Class 1 and Class 2 bicycle lanes and golf cart lanes.
Consistent: The Project will have direct access to the
existing Class 2 bicycle/golf cart lanes on Gerald Ford
Drive and Portola Avenue, allowing residents and
visitors to maximize use of these facilities.
WM 9 Continue supporting the offers for drip
irrigation and smart controller systems through
CVWD.
Consistent: The Project’s irrigation standards require
drip irrigation to be provided for all shrub planting
controlled by smart weather-based equipment with a
rain sensor.
As shown, the Project would implement applicable GHG reduction measures of the City’s
Environmental Sustainability Plan and, therefore, would be consistent with the Plan. It should be noted
that many of the reduction measures are dependent on third party participants, including the City and
utility providers. Nonetheless, the Project will be constructed in conformance with the 2019 California
-47-
Building Code, which sets forth stringent energy efficiency requirements and standards for new
development that support the goals of the statewide GHG reduction plans. Therefore, the Project is
considered consistent with local and state GHG reduction measures. Impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Monitoring: None required
Sources: Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0; City of Palm Desert
Environmental Sustainability Plan, February 11, 2010; Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 2008;
“California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan,” California Air Resources Board, November 2017;
Project materials.
-48-
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
✓
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
✓
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
✓
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
✓
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project
area?
✓
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
✓
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires.
✓
Setting
Hazardous waste generators in the City of Palm Desert generally include “small quantity generators,”
such as medical clinics, gasoline service stations, vehicle storage yards, and waste haulers. The City is
responsible for coordinating with the appropriate agencies in the identification of hazardous material
sites and regulation of their timely cleanup.
The Project site is surrounded by residential development, Gerald Ford Drive, the County Sheriff
Department, a golf course, and vacant land. It is undeveloped but has been subject to ground surface
disturbances, such as off-road vehicle use, that are associated with surrounding development. No
-49-
chemical or hazardous waste disposal has been documented on the site. There are no known
underground tanks or buried materials on the site.
Discussion of Impacts
a, b) Less than Significant Impact. The construction phase of the Project would involve the use of
heavy equipment and vehicles, which will use limited quantities of oil and fuels and other
potentially flammable substances. During construction, equipment could require refueling and
minor maintenance on site that could lead to fuel and oil spills. The contractor will be required to
identify a staging area for storing materials and will be subject to laws regarding the handling,
storage, and use of hazardous materials during construction.
During long-term operation, the Project will involve the routine transport, use, and storage of
cleaning materials for household use and various chemical products for swimming pools and
landscaping. None of these products will be used in sufficient quantities to pose a foreseeable
threat to humans or cause a chemical release into the environment. The use and handling of
hazardous materials would occur in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws,
including California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (CalOSHA) requirements.
Impacts would be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The Project site is not within ¼ mile of a school and, therefore, the Project will have
no impact associated with emitting or handling hazardous materials in proximity of a school.
d) No Impact. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor
database and the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database, the Project site is
not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment. No impact will occur.
e) No Impact. The subject property is not within the boundaries of an airport land use plan or
within 2 miles of a public or private airstrip. The site is 7± miles from the Palm Springs
International Airport and 6± miles from the Bermuda Dunes Airport. Therefore, the Project will
not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people in the Project area. No impact will
occur.
f) No Impact. The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted in 2012 and specifies actions
for the coordination of operations, management, and resources during emergencies. Key
evacuation routes include Monterey Avenue, Portola Avenue, Cook Street, and Washington
Street (General Plan p. 123).
The Project will not physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. It will
take access from Julie Drive and (future) Vitalia Way, which connect to Portola Avenue and
Gerald Ford Drive and other roads designated as evacuation routes. The Project will be required
to comply with police and fire department regulations to assure adequate emergency access and
vehicle turn-around space. A construction access plan will be required by the City to assure the
Project does not interfere with emergency access during construction. No impacts are expected.
-50-
g) No Impact. The Project site is not within or near a wildland fire hazard zone. According to the
Palm Desert General Plan (Figure 8.5), the Project site and surrounding lands are classified as
‘Urban Unzoned’ for fire hazard severity. The site is sparsely vegetated with sandy soils and
provides no substantial fire fuel source. The Project will not expose people or structures to a
significant risk associated with wildfire hazards. No impact will occur.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Monitoring: None required
Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker,
accessed March 2022; California Department of Toxic Substances Control “EnviroStor” Database,
accessed March 2022; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific
Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016 (SCH 2015081020); Project materials; Google Earth Pro
7.3.3.7786.
-51-
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
✓
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
✓
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site; ✓
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site;
✓
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
✓
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ✓
(d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
✓
(e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
✓
Setting
Domestic Water
The Project site is within the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) service area for domestic water.
The District’s primary water source is groundwater extracted through a system of wells from the
Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. In addition to groundwater, CVWD relies on imported water that
is recharged into the groundwater basin at three facilities: Whitewater River Groundwater Recharge
Facility (GRF), Thomas A. Levy GRF, and Palm Desert GRF. CVWD’s domestic water system includes
97 groundwater production wells and 65 enclosed reservoirs. In 2020, it pumped 99,843 acre-feet per
year (AFY) of groundwater from the Indio and Mission Creek Subbasins. CVWD also owns and
-52-
operates the water distribution system, which is generally located under existing streets in the public
right‐of-way. There are existing 12-inch water mains beneath Gerald Ford Drive and Julie Drive in the
Project vicinity.
CVWD is responsible, under the California Water Code, for analyzing its current and future water
supply, and assuring that sufficient supply is available to serve land uses within the District through the
preparation of an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). CVWD is required to periodically update
the UWMP. In 2020, CVWD collaborated with other water purveyors in the Coachella Valley to prepare
a regional UWMP.7
Wastewater Treatment
CVWD provides sewer service to the City of Palm Desert, including the Project area. CVWD maintains
sewer trunk lines ranging from 6 to 36 inches in diameter and 28 lift stations and associated force mains.
Effluent from Palm Desert is conveyed to CVWD’s Cook Street treatment plant (Water Reclamation
Plant No. 10), which has a total capacity of 18 million gallons per day (mgd), including 15 mgd of
tertiary treatment capacity. CVWD also implements the requirements of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board pertaining to domestic water quality and wastewater discharge.
The Project site is in an urban area where sewer lines are installed under the main roads. The Project will
connect to an existing 12-inch sewer main beneath Gerald Ford Drive.
Flood Control
Rainfall on the Coachella Valley floor averages 3 inches annually. Several watersheds drain the
mountains toward the valley floor. There are five stormwater channels in Palm Desert: Whitewater
River Stormwater Channel, Dead Indian Creek, Deep Canyon Channel, Palm Valley System, and East
Magnesia Channel. The Project area is subject to City requirements relating to flood control. The City
implements standard requirements for the retention of storm flows and participates in the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to protect surface waters from pollution.
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is in the Whitewater River watershed. All water
providers in the watershed are required to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) standards for the protection of water quality, including the preparation of project-
specific Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) for surface waters. CVWD is required to
meet water quality requirements in its production and delivery of domestic water.
The Project will connect to the existing CVWD sewer system that will minimize impacts to
regional groundwater quality. Installation of water lines on the Project site will comply with
CVWD and RWQCB standards for water conveyance. The Project will be required to prepare a
WQMP per the Colorado River Basin Regional Board. To minimize the pollutant load associated
with urban runoff, it will also be required to comply with NPDES regulations, including
preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Adherence to conditions of
approval and local, state, and federal standard requirements will assure that the Project will not
violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or conflict with any water
quality control plan or sustainable ground water management plan. Project impacts will be less
than significant.
7 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Water Systems Consulting, Inc., June 30, 2021.
-53-
b) Less than Significant Impact. During construction, water demand will be limited and
temporary and used for dust control purposes, including the routine spraying of ground surfaces
and construction equipment. During operation, water will be used for household purposes,
drought-tolerant landscape irrigation, and public spaces and facilities, such as swimming pools or
splash pads.
State Water Code Section 10910(a) states that any city or county that determines that a “Project,”
as defined in Water Code Section 10912, is subject to CEQA under Public Resources Code
Section 21080, shall assess the project’s projected water demand compared to total projected
water supplies. According to Section 10912, a “Project” includes residential developments of
more than 500 dwelling units. Because the proposed Project meets the threshold of 500 dwelling
units, a Project-specific Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared (Appendix D). The
WSA projected the Project’s water demand and compared it to CVWD’s total projected water
supplies. The WSA determined that, at buildout, the Project will demand 128.88 acre-feet per
year (AFY) for indoor uses and 117.70 AFY for outdoor uses, for a total demand of 246.58
AFY.8
According to the 2020 Coachella Valley Regional UWMP9, the projected 2025 regional water
supply is 137,061 AFY, and the projected 2045 regional water supply is 164,966 AFY (UWMP
Table 4-22). Approximately 90% of water supplies are expected to be groundwater and 10% are
expected to be recycled water. Projections are based on existing water sources and expected
future water supply projects or programs. The proposed Project’s water demand (246.58 AFY) is
0.18% of projected 2025 regional water supplies and 0.15% of projected 2045 regional water
supplies. Therefore, the Project will not substantially decrease local groundwater supplies or
interfere with groundwater recharge such that it would impede sustainable management of the
basin. The Project includes irrigation requirements, including the use of water-efficient fixtures
and drought-tolerant landscape materials, which will help reduce water demand over the long
term. Impacts will be less than significant.
c) i-iii) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is generally flat with elevated sand dunes in the
west-central portion of the site. The site generally slopes to the east and northeast. Elevations are
approximately 315 feet above sea level in the west, 295 feet in the southwest corner, and 275 feet
in the northeast corner. The ground surface consists of mostly Myoma fine sand 5 to 15 percent
slopes (MaD), with a limited area of Myoma fine sand 0 to 5 percent slopes (MaB) in the west
central portion of the site. According to the Project’s preliminary hydrology report, these soil
types are categorized as hydrologic soil group A in the National Cooperative Soil Survey and
represent well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands with high infiltration rates
(low runoff potential) and high rates of water transmission. The site contains no rivers or
streams.
The Project will remove existing ground surface materials and replace them with impermeable
structures and surfaces, including buildings, roads, parking lots, and sidewalks, that will increase
runoff compared to existing conditions. The Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan shows that
8 The Project-specific WSA analyzes an earlier version of the Project that included seven planning areas instead of the
currently proposed five. However, the unit count and landscaping assumptions remain the same as originally proposed,
and Project water demand estimates remain the same.
9 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Water Systems Consulting, Inc., June 30, 2021.
-54-
Planning Area 1 (Vitalia) will be graded to direct drainage as surface flow from southwest to
northeast. Elevation contours will range from approximately 290 feet above mean sea level in the
southwest corner to 280 feet in the northeast corner, consistent with existing elevations and
drainage patterns. Runoff will be managed by a combination of retention basins and an
underground catch basin with sufficient capacity to accommodate the 100-year storm event.
Planning Areas 2 through 5 will be graded to direct drainage as surface flow from west to east
and south to north. Contour elevations will range from 300 to 315 feet above mean sea level in
the southwest and west, respectively, to 295 feet in the east and northeast, consistent with
existing elevations and drainage patterns. Onsite drainage will be conveyed to multiple retention
basins and underground retention systems dispersed throughout the site. Offsite tributary flows
from the east (Julie Drive) will be conveyed to a retention basin at the north end of Planning
Area 5. The preliminary hydrology report demonstrates that proposed improvements are
sufficient to accommodate the 100-year controlling storm event, thereby meeting the City’s
hydrologic requirements.
The Project will also be required to comply with conditions of approval pertaining to discharge,
standard stormwater management requirements, and project-specific Best Management Practices
(BMPs) and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that are subject to approval by the City
Engineer and required by the City’s NPDES implementation agreement. Implementation of the
WQMP and BMPs will reduce impacts to surface waters by reducing siltation and reducing or
eliminating pollutants in storm flows, including pathogens (bacteria/virus) generally associated
with human activities but also present in the environment. With the implementation of these
measures, impacts associated with surface water pollution will be less than significant.
Adherence to City requirements, including WQMP BMPs, will ensure the Project will not result
in erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Implementation of these and other applicable requirements
will assure that the Project will not create or contribute water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff.
iv) Less than Significant Impact. The subject property is designated Zone X, which represents
areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain on FEMA’s Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRM). The site is not located in a 100-year or 500-year FEMA Flood Zone.
Implementation of the proposed onsite drainage retention facilities will further ensure that the
Project will have a less than significant impact on impeding or redirecting flood flows.
d) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is inland and not subject to tsunami. It is not in
the vicinity of a water body, levee, or dam. According to the General Plan, the City of Palm
Desert is within the potential inundation area of the Wide Canyon Flood Control Dam in Fun
Valley. However, the dam is managed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District under state laws to ensure dam safety, and General Plan Policy 3.5 calls for
disseminating information about potential dam inundation areas. No specific dam inundation risk
has been identified for the subject property. The Project site is not within a 100-year or 500-year
floodplain. Impacts associated with Project inundation would be less than significant.
-55-
e) No Impact. The Project will be required to comply with all applicable water quality standards
and implement a WQMP approved by the City and the RWQCB for both construction activities
and long-term operation. The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation
assigned to the Project site, and its anticipated water demand is addressed in the 2020 Coachella
Valley regional UWMP. Therefore, it will not conflict with a sustainable groundwater
management plan. Adherence to the City’s standard requirements related to water quality will
ensure there will be no impacts to a water quality control plan.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Monitoring: None required
Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report, Tentative Tract Map 38434, Refuge, MSA Consulting, Inc.,
May 9, 2022; 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Water Systems
Consulting, Inc., June 30, 2021; FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) #06065C1595G, effective
August 28, 2008; City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update &
University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016 (SCH 2015081020);
Project materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786.
-56-
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community? ✓
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
✓
Setting
The Project site is designated as Town Center Neighborhood (7.0 to 40 du/ac) on the General Plan land
use map. This designation allows a broad range of residential land uses, including single- and multi-
family units. The Project site is zoned as Planned Residential (P.R.-20), in which single-family units are
permitted by right and multi-family units are allowed with a conditional use permit.
Discussion of Impacts
a) No Impact. The Project site is currently vacant. The surrounding area is largely developed with
single-family residential development to the east, south, and north beyond Gerald Ford Drive.
The Marriott Shadow Ridge Golf Club and Riverside County Sheriff Department are located to
the west. Each of these facilities and residential communities operates independently and will not
be divided bv the Project. The Project will not physically divide an established community.
b) Less Than Significant Impact.
General Plan
The Project site is designated as Town Center Neighborhood in the General Plan. The intent and
purpose of the Town Center Neighborhood is to provide moderate to higher intensity
neighborhood development that features a variety of housing choices, walkable streets, and
mixed uses. The designation allows densities ranging from 7.0 to 40 dwelling units per acre
(du/ac). The Project accommodates a wide range of housing products, including affordable
apartments in Planning Area 1 (Vitalia). Planning Areas 2 and 3 can accommodate numerous
housing types by right and with a conditional use permit (CUP). Planning Area 2 allows medium
to high density housing options, including small-lot detached cluster units, bungalow-style
detached units, attached townhomes, and garden-style attached apartments. Planning Area 3
offers various lot sizes and accommodates single-family and guest dwellings by right. In total,
the Project allows 749 to 969 dwelling units on 106.4 acres, for a density range of 7.0 to 9.1
du/ac. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the Town Center Neighborhood land use
designation.
Among the Project’s goals are ensuring high-quality development within the Project area and
providing a flexible variety of housing products that can meet future market demand. It is also
consistent with the following General Plan Land Use Element goals and policies:
-57-
Goal 1. Quality Spaces. A beautiful city with a balance of high quality open spaces and high
quality urban areas.
1.6 Community Amenities. Balance the impacts of new development, density, and
urbanization through the provision of a high-level of neighborhood and community
amenities and design features.
Goal 2. Human-Scaled Design. A city designed for people, fostering interaction, activity, and
safety.
2.3 Landscaping. Require development projects to incorporate high quality landscaping in
order to extend and enhance the green space network of the city.
Goal 3. Neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that provide a variety of housing types, densities,
designs and mix of uses and services that support healthy and active lifestyles.
3.4 Balanced neighborhoods. Within the allowed densities and housing types, promote a
range of housing and price levels within each neighborhood in order to accommodate
diverse ages and incomes. For development projects larger than five acres, require that a
diversity of housing types be provided and that these housing types be mixed rather than
segregated by unit type.
3.15 Access to parks and open spaces. Require the design of new neighborhoods and, where
feasible, retrofit existing neighborhoods, so that 60 percent of dwelling units are within a
¼ mile walking distance of a usable open space such as a tot-lot, neighborhood park,
community park or plaza/green.
The Project is consistent with the Palm Desert General Plan, and no conflict would occur.
Zoning Code
The zoning map designates the Project site as P.R.-20 (Planned Residential up to 20 du/ac),
which allows single-family units by right and multi-family units with a conditional use permit
(CUP). The Project density range (7.0 to 9.1 du/ac) is consistent with the zoning designation.
However, the proposed Project is a Specific Plan, a regulatory document that establishes site-
specific land uses, development standards, design guidelines, and infrastructure plans for the
Project site. Upon approval, the Specific Plan would govern future development of the Project
site and supersede the development standards of the Zoning Code. Project approval will include
a Change of Zone that changes the zoning designation from P.R.-20 to Refuge Specific Plan.
Given that the density allowed in the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan
designation for the property, and the underlying zoning currently applied to the property, the
Project will be consistent with the Zoning Code.
Summary of Impacts
Even with a Change of Zone, the Project’s land use plan, density range, and vision will remain
consistent with the General Plan land use designation, density, vision, and Land Use Element
goals and policies. Impacts will be less than significant.
-58-
Mitigation Measures: None required
Monitoring: None required
Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; Palm Desert Municipal Code.
-59-
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
locally important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
✓
Setting
Pursuant to the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA), the state Mining and
Geology Board designates mineral resource sectors within geographic areas where significant mineral
resources of statewide importance and regional significance are located. The City of Palm Desert is in
the Palm Springs Production-Consumption Region that covers approximately 631 square miles of the
Coachella Valley from near Cabazon to Thermal. The City is in Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3),
defined as “areas containing known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource
significance.”
Discussion of Impacts
a, b) No Impact. The Project site is in Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3). According to the General
Plan EIR, no known mineral sources exist in the City, and the significance of any mineral
resource in MRZ-3 is considered speculative because no mining has historically occurred in the
area. The Project site is not designated, used, or planned for mineral resource extraction or
development. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on mineral resources.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Monitoring: None required
Sources: Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University
Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016 (SCH 2015081020); Update of
Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the Palm Springs
Production-Consumption Region, Riverside County, California (Special Report 198), California
Geological Survey, 2007.
-60-
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
✓
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? ✓
c) For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
✓
Setting
The predominant source of noise in Palm Desert is motor vehicle traffic. Other noise generators include
light industrial operations, construction activities, commercial activities, and landscaping equipment.
Noise-sensitive receptors include housing, schools, libraries, and senior care facilities. The City has
established goals, policies, and programs to limit and reduce the effects of noise intrusion on sensitive
land uses and to set acceptable noise level standards for various types of land uses.
City Noise Standards
General Plan Table 7.1 (Noise Compatibility Matrix) defines the level of acceptable noise for different
land uses in the City. Normally acceptable noise levels range from 50 to 65 dBA CNEL for multi-family
development, 50 to 60 dBA CNEL for single-family residential development, and 50 to 70 dBA CNEL
for office buildings, business commercial, and professional uses. These allowable noise levels do not
include construction-related noise levels, as construction activities generate temporary noise. Rather,
construction noise is regulated by Municipal Code Section 9.24.070. General Plan standards are further
supplemented by Municipal Code Section 9.24.030, Sound Level Limits, which regulate noise levels in
different land use zones.
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less than Significant Impact. The subject property is currently undeveloped and generates no
noise. The main noise source in the area is vehicle traffic on Gerald Ford Drive. The surrounding
area consists of residential development, the Marriott Shadow Ridge Golf Course, and the
Riverside County Sheriff Station. The nearest sensitive receptors are residents in single-family
homes immediately adjacent to the easterly and southerly Project boundaries.
-61-
Construction Noise
Project construction will temporarily increase ambient noise levels from the operation of heavy
equipment and machinery. Grading, construction, paving, and other development activities will
involve the operation of graders, bulldozers, dump trucks, and similar equipment. Heavy
equipment can generate noise levels ranging from 70 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the
source. However, such equipment will be mobile and will not create a source of constant noise at
any one location on the site. Construction noise will be reduced, to some extent, by existing 8-
foot concrete walls along the shared property boundary between the Project site and surrounding
residential, golf course, and sheriff station development. Project buildout is expected to be
phased over a 6-year period such that construction noise will impact different areas of the Project
site at different times.
Noise from construction activities will be temporary and will cease once the Project is
operational. Construction noise is exempt from the noise standards of Section 9.24.030 of the
Municipal Code. Instead, it is subject to Municipal Code Section 9.24.070, which limits
construction activities to the least sensitive hours of the day, Monday through Saturday,
excluding holidays. Adherence to these restrictions will ensure that construction-related impacts
are compatible with the Municipal Code and less than significant.
Operational Noise
During long-term operation, the Project will permanently increase ambient noise levels in the
Project area. Noise will be generated by vehicles accessing the site, residential mechanical
equipment (such as HVAC units), and landscaping equipment. However, the Project will be
required to comply with the noise level limits of Municipal Code Section 9.24.030. Residential
noise levels are limited to 45 dBA between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., and 55 dBA from 7 a.m. to 10
p.m. The Project is not expected to permanently increase ambient noise levels such that they
exceed the City’s standard of 60 dBA CNEL for single-family residential uses. Existing 8-foot
concrete walls extend along the perimeters of adjacent development, including residential
development to the east and south, golf course to the west, and sheriff station to the northwest.
The walls will provide a noise buffer between the Project and adjacent development. Planning
Area 5 will provide a 50-foot-wide landscaped open space buffer between Project dwelling units
and existing homes to the east and south, further minimizing permanent ambient noise impacts.
The Project will result in residential land uses that are the same as adjacent residential
development and compatible with golf course and institutional (sheriff station) uses, and
permanent increases in ambient noise levels will be less than significant, as described below.
According to the General Plan EIR (Figure 4.12-1), the Project area currently experiences noise
levels that decrease with distance from Gerald Ford Drive. Noise levels are 65 dBA CNEL
immediately adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive, 60 dBA CNEL in the northerly portion of the site,
and less than 60 dBA CNEL in the central and southerly portions of the site.
The General Plan EIR projected future noise levels at General Plan buildout using land use
designations assigned by the General Plan land use map, including Town Center Neighborhood
(7.0 to 40 du/ac) on the Project site. The Project is consistent with the Town Center
Neighborhood designation and density and, therefore, its future noise impacts are reflected in
General Plan projections. The EIR (Figure 4.12-2) determined that, at General Plan buildout,
noise levels in the northerly portion of the Project site would remain at 65 dBA CNEL
immediately adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive and 60 dBA CNEL in the northerly portion of the site
-62-
where multi-family residences are proposed. The 60 dBA CNEL contour would extend farther
south into the central portion of the site where single-family residences are proposed, and noise
levels would remain less than 60 dBA CNEL in the southerly portion of the site where single-
family residences are proposed. These noise projections include future noise generated by the
Project. They are within the normally acceptable noise range for multi-family residences
(maximum of 65 dBA CNEL) and single-family residences (maximum of 60 dBA CNEL)
established in General Plan Table 7.1, Noise Compatibility Matrix. Therefore, Project
operational noise will increase noise levels in the area, but they will not exceed General Plan
standards. Impacts will be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Groundborne vibration and/or groundborne noise will be
produced by heavy equipment during the construction phase of the Project. Construction
activities, such as earth-moving and trenching, could generate temporary and short-term
groundborne vibration and/or noise. The highest degree of groundborne vibration is likely to be
generated during paving due to the operation of a vibratory roller. Based on Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) data, vibration velocities from vibratory rollers are estimated to be
approximately 0.1980 inch-per-second PPV at 26 feet from the source of activity. As such,
structures greater than 26 feet from vibratory roller operations would not experience
groundborne vibration above the Caltrans significance thresholds (i.e. 0.3 inch-per-second PPV
for structures and 0.2 inch-per-second PPV for human annoyance). Due to proximity to the
Project site, existing residents to the immediate east and south may detect groundborne vibration
and/or noise, but impacts would be temporary and would end once construction is complete. No
such impacts will occur during long-term Project operation. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
c) No Impact. The subject property is not within two miles of any airport, private or public. It is
approximately 7 miles from the Palm Springs International Airport and 6 miles from the
Bermuda Dunes Airport. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Monitoring: None required
Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; Palm Desert Municipal Code; City of Palm Desert
General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report,
2016 (SCH 2015081020); Project materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786.
-63-
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
✓
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
✓
Setting
As of January 2022, the population of the City of Palm Desert is 50,889. The Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) projects it will grow to 64,100 by 2045. The housing stock
includes 36,058 single-family, multi-family, and mobile home units, the majority of which (39.8%) are
single-family detached homes.
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project proposes new dwelling units and will directly
induce population growth. Planning Area 1 (Vitalia) is approved for 269 affordable multi-family
units, Planning Area 2 can accommodate up to 302 dwelling units, and Planning Area 3 can
accommodate up to 398 dwelling units. At maximum buildout, the Project could result in up to
969 single- and multi-family units. Based on an average household size of 2.05 persons in Palm
Desert10, the Project would have a maximum buildout population of approximately 1,986. This
represents 3.9% of the current City population (51,163) and 3.1% of the 2045 City population
(64,100) projected by SCAG, which are limited percentages and not considered substantial.
The Project will require the construction of a new road, Vitalia Way/Street A, and the connection
to Julie Drive. However, they will not extend beyond the Project boundaries and will not
indirectly induce growth elsewhere. Public utilities are already available in the immediate area
and other than parcel-level connections, no utility extensions would be required to serve the
Project. Impacts to population and housing will be less than significant.
The City anticipates, and has planned for, future population growth on the Project site by
designating it as Town Center Neighborhood in the General Plan. The Project is consistent with
this designation and, therefore, impacts associated with population growth will be less than
significant.
10 E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, California Department of Finance, January 1, 2022.
-64-
b) No Impact. The subject property is vacant, and the Project would not displace any existing
people or housing or necessitate replacement housing elsewhere. No impact will occur.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Monitoring: None required
Sources: Project materials; E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, California Department
of Finance, January 1, 2022; 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP/SCS), Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Southern California
Association of Governments, adopted September 3, 2020.
-65-
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in:
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:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Fire protection? ✓
Police protection? ✓
Schools? ✓
Parks? ✓
Other public facilities? ✓
Setting
Fire Protection
The City of Palm Desert contracts with the State of California (CalFire) and Riverside County Fire
Department for fire protection services. Riverside County Fire Station 71 at 73995 Country Club Drive,
approximately 2 miles southeast of the Project site, serves north Palm Desert. Palm Desert has a total
Fire Department staff of 44 positions at the three stations within the City limits. Backup support is
available from stations in Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage.
Police Protection
The City contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff Department for police protection services. The
nearest police station is the Palm Desert Police Station on Gerald Ford Drive immediately adjacent to
and northwest of the Project site. Staffing consists of 80 sworn deputy officers, 36 of which are
dedicated to the patrol division, with the remaining dedicated to special assignments such as the Traffic
Division, Special Enforcement Team, Motorcycle Enforcement Unit, K-9 Officer, Business District
Team, School Resource Officers, Coachella Valley Violent Crime Gang Task Force, and Narcotics
Enforcement. The City currently provides about 1.56 sworn officers for every 1,000 residents. In 2013,
the response time to the highest priority calls was within 5.58 minutes.
Schools
Palm Desert is within the jurisdictions of two school districts: Desert Sands Unified School District
(DSUSD) and Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD). The Project site is within the boundary of
the PSUSD. The nearest elementary school is James Earl Carter Elementary School on Hovley Lane
East, approximately 2 miles southeast of the Project site.
-66-
Parks
The City currently operates and maintains 200 acres of park land in 12 parks. The nearest public parks to
the Project site are University Dog Park (±0.75 miles to the east) and University Park East (±1 mile to
the east).
Other Public Facilities
Other public facilities in Palm Desert include the Palm Desert Library, Joslyn Center (senior services),
City Hall, and other government facilities.
Discussion of Impacts
Fire Protection:
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project will increase the demand for fire services for the
protection of new permanent structures and population. However, Project development will be in
accordance with all state and local (Municipal Code and RCFD) fire standards to assure adequate
fire safety and emergency access. The Project will be required to pay City development impact
fees to contribute its fair share of costs for future fire facilities, personnel, and apparatus.
Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant.
Police Protection:
Less Than Significant Impact. The addition of up to 969 single-family units and 1,986
additional residents will increase the need for police services. However, the Project will be
required to comply with all Police Department regulations and procedures, and Project plans will
be reviewed by the Police Department to assure adequate emergency access is provided. The
Project is not expected to require the construction of new or expanded police services or
facilities. Impacts will be less than significant.
Schools:
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is within the Palm Springs Unified School
District (PSUSD) boundary and served by Rancho Mirage Elementary School, Nellie Coffman
Middle School, and Rancho Mirage High School.
Based on PSUSD student generation factors, shown below, the Project has the potential to
generate approximately 171 students at the elementary to high school levels. The Project will be
required to pay the standard PSUSD developer fees in place at the time development occurs,
which are currently $4.08 per square foot of residential development.11 Payment of developer
fees would reduce potential Project impacts to school resources to less than significant levels.
11 Palm Springs Unified School District website, www.psusd.us, accessed May 5, 2022.
-67-
Table 8
Estimated Student Generation
School Type
Generation Rate
(per residential unit)
Estimated Project
Student Generation
Elementary School 0.0839 81
Middle School 0.0420 41
High School 0.0510 49
Total: 0.1769 171
Sources: Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee
Justification Study, Palm Springs Unified School District, April 3, 2020, Table 3
Student Generation Factors; Project materials.
Parks/ Other Public Facilities:
Less Than Significant Impact. At its maximum, the Project could have a population of
approximately 1,986 residents which will increase the use of local and regional parks and other
public facilities. However, Planning Areas 1 (Vitalia), 2 (Residential), and 4 (Recreation
Amenity) can accommodate a variety of onsite recreational amenities for Project residents, the
use of which can be expected to decrease the use of existing parks and recreational facilities.
Stormwater retention basins can also serve as passive open space.
The Project will increase the use of other public facilities, such as the library and government
buildings. However, given that the Project’s maximum buildout population would constitute only
about 3% of the total City population (see Section XIV, Population and Housing), the added
impact would be marginal and the Project will not increase use of public facilities such that new
or expanded facilities would be required. Impacts will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Monitoring: None required
Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update &
University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016 (SCH 2015081020);
Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study - Palm Springs
Unified School District, April 3, 2020; Project materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786.
-68-
XVI. RECREATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 accelerated?
✓
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?
✓
Setting
The City maintains and operates over 200 acres of park land in 12 public parks, two community centers,
an aquatic center, and over 25 miles of multi-purpose trails. The City also partners with the Desert
Recreation District to provide recreational programs and activities. Other recreational facilities in Palm
Desert include a municipally owned golf course and the Family YMCA of the Desert in Civic Center
Park. The City also contains, or is in proximity to, numerous public and private golf courses, large open
space reserves, the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, and other local and
regional recreational resources.
Discussion of Impacts
a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. Maximum buildout of the Project could include a population
of approximately 1,986, which represents about 3.9% of the current City population and 3.1%
of the projected 2045 City population (see Section XIV, Population and Housing). The
additional population can be expected to increase the use of existing parks and recreational
facilities. However, the increase would not be such that substantial physical deterioration
would occur or be accelerated because the Project provides opportunities for its own onsite
recreational facilities. Planning Area 1 (Vitalia), as approved, will include a community pool,
play areas, and a dog park. Planning Area 2 (Residential) provides opportunities for
community recreational amenities, and Planning Area 4 (Recreation Amenity) provides 3.9
acres for the same. Stormwater retention basins can also serve as passive open space. Use of
these recreational facilities will reduce the use of existing local and regional facilities. Future
facilities will be subject to City review and approval to assure they do not result in adverse
environmental effects. Project impacts will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Monitoring: None required
Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; City of Palm Desert website, accessed March 2022;
City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Report, 2016 (SCH 2015081020); Project materials.
-69-
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
✓
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
✓
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
✓
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ✓
Setting
Existing Conditions
The Project site is currently undeveloped and does not generate any traffic. Key roads in the Project area
include Gerald Ford Drive, Portola Avenue, Julie Drive, and Rembrandt Parkway. Gerald Ford Drive
and Portola Avenue are fully built out as 4-lane divided arterials and improved with Class 2 (striped on-
street) bicycle/golf cart lanes. Sidewalks have been built on both sides of Gerald Ford Drive and Portola
Avenue, except where adjacent to undeveloped parcels. Rembrandt Parkway is fully improved as a 2-
lane road accessing The Gallery neighborhood north of the Project site. Julie Drive is a 2-lane street with
a sidewalk on the south side but is not improved adjacent to undeveloped parcels on the north.
SunLine Transit Agency provides bus transit services to the Coachella Valley, including Palm Desert.
Currently, there are no transit routes or facilities in the immediate Project vicinity. The nearest bus stop
is on Dinah Shore Drive at Shoppers Lane (Route 4), approximately 1¼ miles northwest of the Project
site. Another stop at Cook Street and Berger Drive (Route 5) is approximately 1½ miles to the southeast
and can be accessed by bike from the Project site via existing bike lanes.
General Plan Designations
The Palm Desert General Plan Mobility Element establishes a roadway classification system (Figure
4.1) based on vehicle capacity, number of lanes, and other improvements such as bike lanes, sidewalks,
and parkways. Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue are classified as Balanced Arterials consisting of a
4-lane divided road with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Julie Drive and Rembrandt Parkway are
classified as local streets. At General Plan buildout (2040), the nearby intersections of Gerald Ford
Drive and Portola Avenue, and Gerald Ford Drive and Monterey Avenue, are projected to operate at
Level of Service (LOS) C or better. The General Plan (Figure 4.2) designates Gerald Ford Drive as a
Class 2 (on-street striped lane) bicycle and golf cart facility. Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue are
designated as truck routes (Figure 4.3).
-70-
Level of Service Threshold
The General Plan does not set forth a LOS threshold for acceptable roadway and intersection operations.
Policy 1.3 of the Mobility Element states that the City will “determine appropriate service levels for all
modes of transportation and develop guidelines to evaluate impacts to these modes for all related public
and private projects.” The City has not yet developed new guidelines for an acceptable LOS. The Project
traffic impact analysis (Appendix E) uses LOS D as the threshold for acceptable traffic conditions on the
circulation network.
VMT Analysis
Effective July 1, 2020, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require lead
agencies to adopt Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a replacement for automobile delay-based LOS as
the measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. Because the City of Palm Desert
does not have its own VMT guidelines, Urban Crossroads prepared a Project VMT analysis (Appendix F
based on the adopted Riverside County “Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service &
Vehicle Miles Traveled.” Based on consultation with the City’s Traffic Engineer and approval of a
scoping agreement, Urban Crossroads also prepared a focused traffic impact analysis for the proposed
Project (Appendix E).
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. At buildout, the Project could facilitate the
development of up to 969 single- and multi-family dwelling units. Primary access is proposed
via Vitalia Way/Street A and its future intersection at Gerald Ford Drive. Secondary access is
planned via a westerly extension of Julie Drive, and the existing signalized intersection of Julie
Drive and Portola Avenue.
As shown in the following table, the Project is forecast to generate approximately 7,267 daily
vehicle trips at buildout, including 476 trips during the AM peak hour and 607 trips during the
PM peak hour. The trip reducing potential of modal split was not incorporated into the traffic
modeling. There is potential for multi-modal transportation to occur in the Project area given the
existing bike/golf cart routes and pedestrian facilities on Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue,
the use of which could replace some vehicle trips; therefore, projected trip generation is
conservative.
-71-
Table 9
Project Trip Generation Summary
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE
Code
Unit2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 DU 0.18 0.52 0.70 0.59 0.34 0.93 9.43
Rental Homes 220 DU 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51 6.74
Paired Housing 215 DU 0.15 0.33 0.48 0.32 0.25 0.57 7.20
Apartments 220 DU 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51 6.74
Project Trips Generated
Land Use
Quantity
Unit2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 248 DU 45 129 174 146 84 230 2,339
Rental Homes 302 DU 30 91 121 97 57 154 2,035
Paired Housing 150 DU 23 50 73 48 38 86 1,080
Apartments 269 DU 27 81 108 86 51 137 1,813
Total: 125 351 476 377 230 607 7,267
1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th edition, 2021.
2 DU = Dwelling Unit
Based on consultation with City staff, the traffic impact analysis studied the following eleven
(11) intersections to evaluate Project impacts on the circulation network:
1. Monterey Avenue/Gerald Ford Drive
2. Gateway Drive/Gerald Ford Drive
3. Rembrandt Parkway – Street “A”/Gerald Ford Drive
4. Portola Avenue/Gerald Ford Drive
5. Pacific Avenue/Gerald Ford Drive
6. Technology Drive/Gerald Ford Drive
7. Cook Street/Gerald Ford Drive
8. Portola Avenue/College Drive – Julie Drive
9. Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive
10. Portola Avenue/County Club Drive
11. Monterey Avenue/Dinah Shore Drive
The following scenarios were analyzed:
• Existing (2022) Conditions
• Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) (2027)
• Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project Plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2027)
Existing Conditions
The analysis of Existing Conditions establishes the baseline for the Project’s traffic analysis, and
consideration of impacts. Under Existing Conditions, with the exception of the intersections of
Portola/Gerald Ford and Portola/Country Club, which operate at LOS D, all other studied
intersections operate at LOS C or better, as shown in Table 10. Therefore, all intersections are
operating at acceptable General Plan standards. The analysis also found that under existing
conditions, no new traffic signals are warranted at studied intersections.
-72-
Table 10
Existing Intersection Delay and Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Traffic
Control1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Average
Delay2
LOS3
Average
Delay2
LOS3
Monterey Avenue/Gerald Ford Drive TS 29.6 C 26.3 C
Gateway Drive/Gerald Ford Drive TS 11.5 B 12.0 B
Rembrandt Parkway – Street “A”/
Gerald Ford Drive CSS 18.2 C 15.7 C
Portola Avenue/Gerald Ford Drive TS 36.5 D 36.0 D
Pacific Avenue/Gerald Ford Drive TS 12.8 B 10.7 B
Technology Drive/Gerald Ford Drive TS 18.1 B 20.1 C
Cook Street/Gerald Ford Drive TS 27.7 C 31.3 C
Portola Ave/College Drive–Julie Drive TS 4.7 A 4.7 A
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive TS 24.7 C 22.4 C
Portola Avenue/County Club Drive TS 40.7 D 38.2 D
Monterey Avenue/Dinah Shore Drive TS 33.2 C 39.1 D
1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service
are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop
control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are
shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software.
BOLD = Unacceptable LOS.
3 LOS = Level of Service
EAP Conditions
EAP traffic conditions represent Existing Conditions, plus the addition of ambient traffic growth
(in this case an ambient growth factor of 10.4% was added to Existing Conditions volumes), plus
the addition of the Project. Because of the size and phasing of the Project, the EAP projections
assume that these conditions occur in 2027. As shown in Table 11, all studied intersections will
operate at LOS D or better in 2027, representing acceptable conditions under the City’s General
Plan, with the exception of the intersection of Rembrandt Parkway/Street A and Gerald Ford,
which will operate at LOS E during the morning peak hour, and LOS F during the evening peak
hour, without improvements. However, with the addition of a traffic signal, a northbound
left/through shared lane, an eastbound right turn lane with 150 feet of storage and a separate right
turn lane with 125 feet of storage on Street A/Rembrandt Parkway, and a westbound left turn
lane with 150 feet of storage on Gerald Ford Drive, all intersections would operate at an
acceptable LOS.
-73-
Table 11
EAP Intersection Delay and Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Traffic
Control1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Average
Delay2
LOS3
Average
Delay2
LOS3
Monterey Avenue/Gerald Ford Drive TS 31.8 C 28.9 C
Gateway Drive/Gerald Ford Drive TS 11.8 B 12.1 B
Rembrandt Parkway – Street “A”/
Gerald Ford Drive
w/ improvements
CSS
TS
37.8
30.7
E
C
>50
21.8
F
C
Portola Avenue/Gerald Ford Drive TS 36.6 D 36.4 D
Pacific Avenue/Gerald Ford Drive TS 13.4 B 11.0 B
Technology Drive/Gerald Ford Drive TS 19.1 B 21.1 C
Cook Street/Gerald Ford Drive TS 30.6 C 33.3 C
Portola Ave/College Drive–Julie Drive TS 8.5 A 9.4 A
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive TS 29.5 C 24.0 C
Portola Avenue/County Club Drive TS 42.2 D 39.9 D
Monterey Avenue/Dinah Shore Drive TS 34.3 C 41.0 D
1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop. Underlined = Improvement.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service
are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop
control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are
shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software.
BOLD = Unacceptable LOS.
3 LOS = Level of Service
EAPC Conditions
Under EAPC (2027) conditions, with the inclusion of the proposed Project, ambient growth and
known cumulative projects, the analysis found that with the construction of the same
improvements at Rembrandt/Street A and Gerald Ford Drive, all study area intersections would
operate at an acceptable level of service, as shown in Table 12. The traffic volumes generated by
not only ambient growth, but also a number of additional projects in the area (please see Exhibit
4-3 of Appendix E), will increase traffic in the area, but will not result in significant impacts
beyond those already identified under EAP conditions. Therefore, with the implementation of
Mitigation Measure TRA.1, impacts associated with build out of the proposed Project will be
less than significant.
-74-
Table 12
EAPC Intersection Delay and Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Traffic
Control1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Average
Delay2
LOS3
Average
Delay2
LOS3
Monterey Avenue/Gerald Ford Drive TS 32.2 C 38.0 D
Gateway Drive/Gerald Ford Drive TS 13.2 B 14.1 B
Rembrandt Parkway – Street “A”/
Gerald Ford Drive
w/ improvements
CSS
TS
>50
31.3
F
C
>50
24.7
F
C
Portola Avenue/Gerald Ford Drive TS 36.7 D 37.5 D
Pacific Avenue/Gerald Ford Drive TS 15.8 B 35.8 D
Technology Drive/Gerald Ford Drive TS 22.1 C 22.8 C
Cook Street/Gerald Ford Drive TS 35.2 D 36.7 D
Portola Ave/College Drive–Julie Drive TS 9.5 A 10.5 B
Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive TS 30.3 C 26.7 C
Portola Avenue/County Club Drive TS 47.3 D 48.3 D
Monterey Avenue/Dinah Shore Drive TS 36.1 D 53.0 D
1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop. Bold: improvement required.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service
are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop
control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are
shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software.
BOLD = Unacceptable LOS.
3 LOS = Level of Service
The traffic analysis also made several recommendations regarding the build out cross sections of
Street A and Julie Drive, including:
• Street A should be improved as a 2-lane collector, with a minimum curb to curb width of
44 feet between Gerald Ford Drive and Julie Drive.
• Julie Drive should be improved as a collector, to the east, and should connect to the
Project site with a curb to curb width of 52 feet, to allow two travel lanes, a center
median and a shared bike/golf cart lane.
Alternative Transportation
The Project will improve Gerald Ford Drive along the Project frontage, including a meandering
sidewalk that will provide seamless connection to existing sidewalks. The Project includes an
internal network of sidewalks that connect residents to Gerald Ford Drive, Julie Drive, onsite
recreational amenities, paseos, and a pedestrian pathway in Planning Area 5 (Open
Space/Buffer). Project residents and visitors will be able to use existing bike/golf cart lanes on
both sides of Gerald Ford Drive, Portola Road, and Gateway Drive in the Project area. The
Project would not conflict with plans or policies addressing multimodal facilities.
-75-
The Project will have no impact on transit facilities because there are none in the Project area.
SunLine periodically reviews and updates its services and facilities based on ridership, budget,
and community demand. General Plan Mobility Element Goal 5 and Policies 5.1 through 5.6
promote and encourage public and private transit service and connections to bicycle and
pedestrian networks. The Project would have no impact on plans or policies addressing transit
facilities.
b) No Impact. SB 743 requires amendments to the CEQA Guidelines (pre-2019) to provide an
alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. CEQA Guidelines were amended to
require all lead agencies to adopt vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a replacement for automobile
delay-based level of service (LOS) for identifying transportation impacts. This statewide
mandate went into effect July 1, 2020.
The Riverside County’s VMT Guidelines describe specific screening criteria based on the
location/project type that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated
to result in a less than significant impact without conducting a more detailed project level VMT
analysis. A land use project need only meet one of the screening thresholds to result in a less
than significant impact:
• Small Projects
• Projects Near High Quality Transit
• Projects within Low VMT Area
The Project does not qualify as either a Small Project or a Project Near High Quality Transit.
However, as mapped by the County, the Project is located in an area with low VMT. According
to the VMT analysis prepared for the proposed Project, the Project is located in TAZ 4672, a
Traffic Analysis Zone identified as a low VMT generating area in the Riverside Transportation
Analysis Model (RIVTAM) because it experiences less than the County average VMT per
capita. The Project VMT analysis also verified that the model’s underlying land use assumptions
contained in the Project TAZ are consistent with the proposed Project’s land use. Therefore, the
Project, per the County VMT guidelines, can be determined to have less than significant impacts
on circulation. The Project will not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b).
c) No Impact. The Project is proposed to have access from (future) Vitalia Way, Gerald Ford
Drive, and Julie Drive (extended). As discussed in subsection a) above, roadway improvements
will be constructed in compliance with City standards and will not cause significant traffic delays
or increased traffic hazards. No sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or hazardous geometric
features are proposed. The Project vehicle mix will be consistent with the existing mix in the
Project area. Construction plans will be coordinated with the City so that construction activity
does not interfere with traffic on adjacent and nearby roads.
d) No Impact. Both proposed entryways can serve as emergency access routes. Prior to
construction, the Fire and Police Departments will review the site plan to ensure safety measures
are addressed, including emergency access and vehicle turnaround space. Construction plans will
be coordinated with the City and emergency providers, as needed, to assure that emergency
access is maintained throughout all stages of development. No impact will occur.
-76-
Mitigation Measures:
TRA.1 The Project proponent shall construct the following improvements:
1. Construct Traffic signal at the intersection of Gerald Ford Drive and Street A/Rembrandt
Parkway prior to the occupancy of the first residential units in Planning Area 1.
2. Construct westbound left turn lane with 150 feet of storage on Gerald Ford Drive at Street
A/Rembrandt Parkway prior to the occupancy of the first residential units in Planning Area
1.
3. Construct eastbound right turn lane with 150 of storage on Gerald Ford Drive at Street
A/Rembrandt Parkway prior to the occupancy of the first residential units in Planning Area
1.
4. Construct Street A as a collector roadway with a 44 foot curb to curb width, with one travel
lane southbound, one shared left/through lane, and one right turn lane with 125 feet of
storage northbound on Street A at Gerald Ford Drive.
5. Connect to Julie Drive as a collector roadway with a 52 foot curb to curb width prior to
occupancy of the first residential units in Planning Areas 2 through 6.
Monitoring:
TRA.A All improvement plans for the proposed Project shall be prepared to include the lane
improvements cited in Mitigation Measure TRA.1.
Responsible parties: Project engineer, Project geotechnical consultant, Project applicant.
Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update &
University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, August 2016 (SCH
2015081020). Vitalia/Refuge Residential Traffic Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, June 2, 2022.
Vitalia/Refuge Residential VMT Screening Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, June 2, 2022.
-77-
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL
RESOURCES
a) Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources,
or in a local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
✓
ii) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
✓
Setting
As discussed in the Section V, Cultural Resources, the Cahuilla people lived in the Coachella Valley for
thousands of years. They were Takic-speaking and lived in various groups in the region. Today, Native
Americans of Pass or Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more of the Indian
reservations in and near the Coachella Valley, including the Cabazon, Augustine, Torres Martinez,
Twenty-nine Palms, Agua Caliente, and Morongo. Numerous cultural resources are found throughout
the valley which provide important information about the past.
Discussion of Impacts
a. i, ii) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires a
lead agency to consult with tribes in the Project area during the CEQA process to allow tribes to
be involved in the project development process and to address their concerns about potential
impacts to tribal cultural resources. The consultation process requires the lead agency to provide
written notification about a proposed project, as defined by CEQA, to tribes within the project’s
geographic area. If a tribe chooses to engage in consultation, it must respond to the lead agency
within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification, and the lead agency must begin the
-78-
consultation process within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation
concludes when the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect (if a
significant effect exists) on the tribal cultural resources, or when a party, acting in good faith and
after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached (Public Resources
Code section 21080.3.2 (b)(1) and (2)).
The City has initiated the tribal consultation process in conformance with SB 18 and AB 52
requirements. It has distributed consultation letters to the tribes identified by the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as having knowledge of tribal cultural resources in the
Project area (SB 18), and to those tribes who have requested consultation under AB 52. Each
representative was contacted in writing regarding the proposed Project. The City received two
responses. The Queshan Tribe deferred to more local tribes, and the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians requested copies of the cultural resource study, and the presence of a Tribal
monitor during ground disturbing activities. The Tribe did not request consultation, and since
Mitigation Measure CUL.1 is included in Section V, Cultural Resources, consistent with the
findings of the cultural resource study and the Tribe’s request, to require archaeological and
tribal monitoring of ground disturbing activities, the Mitigation Measure will reduce the impacts
to tribal cultural resources to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
See Section V, Cultural Resources.
Monitoring:
See Section V, Cultural Resources.
Sources: Update to Historical/Archeological Resources Survey, Refuge Palm Desert Project, CRM
TECH, April 21, 2022; Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, Palm Desert Apartments
Project, CRM TECH, December 16, 2020; Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, Assessor’s
Parcel Numbers 694-300-001, -002, -005, -014, -015, and 694-310-002, -003, -006, -007, CRM TECH,
December 28, 2016; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific
Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016 (SCH 2015081020); Project materials.
-79-
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
✓
b) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
✓
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
✓
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
✓
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
✓
Setting
Domestic Water
The Project site is within the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) service area for domestic water.
Its primary water source is groundwater extracted through a system of wells from the Whitewater River
subbasin. In addition to groundwater, CVWD relies on imported water brought to the region by canals.
CVWD’s domestic water system includes 97 wells with a total daily pumping capacity of 244 million
gallons. CVWD has a total of 64 reservoirs, with an average storage capacity of 153.2 million gallons.
CVWD also owns and operates the water distribution system, which is generally located under existing
streets in the public right‐of-way. There are existing 12-inch water mains within Gerald Ford Drive and
Julie Drive in the Project vicinity.
CVWD is responsible, under the California Water Code, for analyzing its current and future water
supply and assuring that sufficient supply is available to serve land uses within the District, through the
preparation of an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). CVWD is required to periodically update
the Plan.
-80-
Wastewater Treatment
CVWD provides sewer service to the City of Palm Desert, including the Project area. CVWD maintains
sewer trunk lines ranging in diameter from 4 to 24 inches and 5 sewer lift stations in City boundaries.
Effluent from the City is conveyed to CVWD’s Cook Street treatment plant (Water Reclamation Plant
No. 10), which has a total capacity of 18 million gallons per day (mgd), including 15 mgd tertiary
treatment capacity. CVWD also implements the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control
Board pertaining to domestic water quality and wastewater discharge. There is an existing 12-inch sewer
main within Gerald Ford Drive in the Project vicinity.
Stormwater Management
Several watersheds drain the elevated terrain of the San Jacinto, Santa Rosa, San Bernardino, and Little
San Bernardino Mountains towards the valley floor. There are five stormwater channels in Palm Desert:
Whitewater River Stormwater Channel and its tributaries, including Dead Indian Creek, the Deep
Canyon Channel, the Palm Valley System, and the East Magnesia Channel. For the proposed Project,
management of stormwater is under the jurisdiction of the City.
Electric Power and Natural Gas
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical services to the City of Palm Desert. Many
neighborhoods were developed prior to the undergrounding of electric facilities and have overhead
power lines. There are overhead power lines on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive and underground
lines on the south side in the Project area. Underground electrical lines also run along the western
Project boundary.
Natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). There are underground 4-
inch gas lines on the south side of Gerald Ford Drive along the Project boundary.
Solid Waste
Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services, LLC (Burrtec) provides solid waste disposal to the City through
a franchise agreement. Non-hazardous household, commercial, and most nonhazardous industrial solid
waste collected is taken to the Edom Hill Transfer Station (EHTS) in Cathedral City, which is permitted
to receive 3,500 tons of waste per day. From there, solid waste is transported to the Lamb Canyon
regional landfill, which is operated by the County of Riverside and had a remaining capacity of
19,242,950 cubic yards as of 2015 (latest available data).
Discussion of Impacts
a-c) Less than Significant Impact.
Water
The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
for domestic water services. Existing water mains are already in place and operational in the
Project area. The Project will connect to existing 12-inch water mains beneath Gerald Ford Drive
and Julie Drive and will install new 8-inch and 12-inch water mains onsite. Other than onsite
extensions, no new water infrastructure will be required which could result in significant
environmental effects.
-81-
The 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) demonstrates
that CVWD has available, and can supply in the future, sufficient water to serve additional
development in its service area. The UWMP calls for a combination of continued groundwater
extraction, conservation programs, additional water sources and source substitution, and
groundwater recharge opportunities. CVWD anticipates having sufficient water supplies to serve
existing and future in the near-term (2025) and long-term (2045). For 2025, projected water
supply is 137,061 AFY and retail water demand is 123,461 AFY, resulting in an anticipated
surplus of 13,600 AFY. For 2045, projected water supply is 164,966 AFY and retail water
demand is 148,166 AFY, resulting in an anticipated surplus of 16,800 AFY (UWMP Tables 4-8
and 4-22). Future demand projections are based on development intensities provided in the
General Plans of regional jurisdictions, including the Palm Desert General Plan. The proposed
Project is consistent with the General Plan designation (Town Center Neighborhood) and
development intensity (7.0 to 40 du/ac) assigned to the Project site. This General Plan
designation was used in the UWMP to project future water demand on the Project site.
Therefore, the Project’s water demand is consistent with the UWMP’s projected future demands.
As discussed in the Project’s Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and Section X (Hydrology and
Water Quality) of this Initial Study, the Project’s projected annual water demand at buildout is
approximately 246.58 acre-feet, which is 0.18% of 2025 projected water supply and 0.15% of
2045 projected water supply. Therefore, CVWD has available, or can supply, sufficient water to
serve reasonably foreseeable development, including the proposed Project. Additionally, CVWD
has determined that it will be able to meet future urban water demands projected in the regional
UWMP in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years (UWMP Tables 4-25, 4-26, 4-27). Under
each of these scenarios, the difference between supply and demand is projected to be zero.
Project water consumption will be reduced with low-flow household appliances, water-efficient
irrigation practices, and drought-tolerant landscape materials. The Project restricts turf grass to
active use areas only, and plants must be selected from the Project’s plant list. Planting and
irrigation design must meet CVWD standards and the California Model Efficient Water
Ordinance (MELO), and 75% of the planting selections for shrubs must be designated low-water
plants from the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species published by the University of
California Cooperative Extension, Department of Water Resources, and Bureau of Reclamation.
Drip irrigation must be controlled by smart weather-based equipment with a rain sensor, and
spray and rotor irrigation systems must eliminate overspray into sidewalks and other hardscape.
Flow sensors and master valves are required downstream of all points of connection.
Implementation of these measures will contribute to water conservation. Impacts to water
supplies will be less than significant.
Wastewater
The subject property is within the jurisdiction of CVWD for wastewater collection and treatment
services. Existing sewer infrastructure is already in place and operational in the Project area. The
Project will connect to an existing 12-inch sewer main beneath Gerald Ford Drive and will install
new 8-inch sewer mains onsite. Sewage will be conveyed to and treated at Water Reclamation
Plant-10 (WRP-10) on Cook Street in Palm Desert. WRP-10 treats wastewater from four cities
(Palm Desert, Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage, and portions of Cathedral City) and serves a
population of approximately 90,000 people. It has a secondary treatment capacity of 18 million
-82-
gallons per day (mgd) and currently treats an average daily flow of approximately 9 mgd.12
WRP-10 also has a tertiary treatment capacity of 15 mgd and supplies tertiary treated water for
golf course and landscape irrigation. Therefore, the plant has sufficient capacity to serve
additional development, including the proposed Project. Project wastewater discharges will be
typical of residential uses and will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the CVWD
or Regional Water Quality Control Board. Other than onsite extensions, no new sewer
infrastructure will be required which could result in significant environmental effects. Impacts to
wastewater services will be less than significant.
Stormwater Drainage
The Project site is currently vacant, and the Project will result in impervious surfaces throughout
the site, including buildings, roads, and sidewalks. As described in Section X, Hydrology and
Water Quality, the Project proposes stormwater retention facilities to manage storm flows and
designed to meet local stormwater retention requirements. The site will be graded to direct
drainage as surface flow through streets and parking areas and toward proposed retention basins
and catch basins that will provide storage of the 100-year controlling storm event, as required by
the City. Other than onsite improvements, the Project will not require the construction or
expansion of stormwater management facilities that could result in significant environmental
impacts. Impacts will be less than significant.
Electricity
The Project will provide local connections to existing SCE infrastructure in the Project area. SCE
has existing facilities within Gerald Ford Drive. Other than onsite connections, the Project will
not require the addition or expansion of electric power facilities. Impacts will be less than
significant.
Natural Gas
The Project will provide local connections to the existing SoCalGas infrastructure in the Project
area. A 4-inch gas line is located underground within the Gerald Ford Drive right-of-way. Other
than onsite connections, the Project will not require the addition or expansion of natural gas
facilities. Impacts will be less than significant.
Telecommunications
The Project will require local connections to the existing Frontier Communications and Spectrum
infrastructure in the Project area. Existing underground communications cables are available
within Gerald Ford Drive. Other than onsite connections, the Project will not require the addition
or expansion of telecommunication facilities. Impacts will be less than significant.
d, e) Less than Significant Impact. Burrtec provides solid waste services to the City of Palm Desert.
Solid waste is recycled, reused, or transformed at a waste-to-energy facility13, or disposed of at
County landfills. The Lamb Canyon regional landfill has a remaining capacity of 19,242,950
cubic yards as of 2015 (latest data available).14
12 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Water Systems Consulting, Inc., June 30, 2021, Table
4-16.
13 Riverside County Nondisposal Facility Element by Riverside County Department of Waste Resources (2015),
https://www.rcwaste.org/Portals/0/Files/Planning/CIWMP/NDFE.PDF, accessed March 2022.
14 CalRecycle SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2246?siteID=2368, accessed March 2022.
-83-
As shown in the following table, at maximum buildout, the Project would include 969 dwelling
units and generate an estimated 586.56 tons of solid waste per year. This equals 9,384.88 cubic
yards per year15, which is approximately 0.05% of the Lamb Canyon landfill’s remaining
capacity. Therefore, the Project will not exceed the available capacity of the landfill and Project
impacts will be less than significant.
Table 13
Estimated Solid Waste Disposal at Buildout
Proposed
Land Use
Disposal Rate*
Maximum
Proposed
Units
Solid Waste Disposal
(lbs/day)
Projected Solid
Waste Disposal
(tons/year)
Multi-family
Residential 3.6 pounds/unit/day 269 968 176.66
Single-family
Residential 7.8 pounds/unit/day 700 5,460 996.45
Subtotal: 1,173.11
Total (with 50% diversion): 586.56
*Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates by Calrecycle,
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, accessed March 2022.
Recyclable materials (e.g., paper, plastic, glass, cardboard, aluminum) will be transported to
Burrtec’s material recovery facilities for recycling and reuse. Burrtec is responsible for
maintaining standards that assure that all waste is handled in a manner that meets local, state, and
federal standards. These requirements will assure that impacts associated with solid waste
disposal remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Monitoring: None required
Sources: Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, CVWD, December 1, 2019; 2020 Coachella Valley
Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Water Systems Consulting, Inc., June 30, 2021; Solid Waste
Information System, www2.calrecyle.ca.gov, CalRecycle, accessed March 2022; Project materials.
15 Assumes 1 cubic yard of residential uncompacted municipal solid waste equals 250 lbs. “Volume-to-Weight Conversion
Factors,” US EPA Office of Resource Conversion and Recovery, April 2016.
-84-
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or
near state responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
✓
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
✓
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
✓
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
✓
Setting
Wildfires can occur in undeveloped areas and spread to urban areas. The California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) has mapped areas of significant fire hazards in the state through
its Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). These maps identify fire hazard severity zones
(FHSZ) based on a hazard scoring system using subjective criteria for fuels, fire history, terrain
influences, housing density, and occurrence of severe weather where urban conflagration could occur.
The southern portions of Palm Desert are susceptible to the risk of wildland fires. The Project site is in
the northwest portion of the City and is not adjacent to a wildland fire area. The subject property is
designated as a local responsibility area (LRA) and is not located in or near a state responsibility area
(SRA) or designated as a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ).
Discussion of Impacts
a-d) No Impact. The Project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area (SRA) or very
high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). The nearest VHFHSZ and SRA are more than 6 miles
to the south in the Santa Rosa Mountains.
The Project site is accessed by Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue, which are key evacuation
routes and would provide emergency access for Project residents. The Project would not impair
the City’s adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan as it does not propose to amend
these or other evacuation routes or plans. Project construction plans will be reviewed by and
-85-
coordinated with the City and Fire Department to assure that adequate emergency access is
maintained during the construction process. The Project would not require the installation or
maintenance of wildfire infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risks or result in adverse
environmental impacts. The Project site is relatively flat on the central valley floor and would not
expose people or structures to downslope flooding or landslides resulting from post-fire
instability or drainage changes. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Monitoring: None required
Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; Project materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786; Fire
Hazard Severity Map, CalFire, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed March 2022.
-86-
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially 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, substantially
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 history or prehistory?
✓
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
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 probable future projects)?
✓
c) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
✓
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation.
Biological Resources: The Project is not expected to substantially degrade environmental quality
or reduce the habitat, population, or range of a fish or wildlife species. However, several
sensitive status species could potentially occur onsite. Payment of standard CVMSHCP local
development mitigation fees will reduce impacts to covered species to less than significant
levels, and implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 will mitigate impacts to
those that are not covered or not fully covered. With mitigation, impacts will be less than
significant.
Cultural Resources: No cultural resources are known to exist within or adjacent to the Project
site. However, the Project will result in soil disturbances such as excavation and grading, and
there is potential for previously unknown resources to be uncovered. Mitigation Measure CUL-1
and monitoring program CUL-A will assure that impacts to cultural and/or tribal cultural
resources are less than significant in the unlikely event that resources are discovered during
Project development.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Project impacts will not be cumulatively considerable because
the Project is consistent with the land use designation (Town Center Neighborhood) assigned to
the subject property in the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Population
-87-
growth resulting from the Project will not surpass that anticipated in the General Plan EIR or by
SCAG. The Project’s incremental effects are not considerable when viewed in connection with
other projects. Impacts will be less than significant.
c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project could cause environmental effects that
could cause adverse effects on humans, specifically as it relates to geotechnical and
transportation impacts. However, the mitigation measures provided in this Initial Study and
supporting documentation cited herein will reduce potential impacts to less than significant
levels.
A
Appendix A
CalEEMOD Air Quality and GHG Modeling
(Available on City website)
B
Appendix B
Biological Resources Assessment Report
(Available on City website)
C
Appendix C
Cultural Resources Survey
(Available on City website)
D
Appendix D
Water Supply Assessment
(Available on City website)
E
Appendix E
Traffic Impact Analysis
(Available on City website)
F
Appendix F
VMT Analysis
(Available on City website)