HomeMy WebLinkAboutInitial Sudy MND University Medical Office Park 5823
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
University Medical Office Park
SP/EA22-0002, PP22-0009 and TPM 38728
Lead Agency:
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Contact:
Nick Melloni
Development Services Department
Prepared for:
City of Palm Desert
Prepared by:
Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.
42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
May 2023
i
Table of Contents
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .......................................................................... 9
DETERMINATION .............................................................................................................................................. 10
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ......................................................................................... 11
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE ................................................................................. 12
I. AESTHETICS........................................................................................................................... 15
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES ................................................................................................. 19
III. AIR QUALITY ......................................................................................................................... 21
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 27
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 31
VI. ENERGY .................................................................................................................................. 34
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................................... 36
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................ 40
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................................................... 44
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................. 47
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING .................................................................................................. 52
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 54
XIII. NOISE ...................................................................................................................................... 55
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................................... 58
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................................................. 59
XVI. RECREATION ......................................................................................................................... 62
XVII. TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................ 63
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 72
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 74
XX. WILDFIRE ............................................................................................................................... 79
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ....................................................................... 81
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Regional Location Map ......................................................................................................................... 4
Exhibit 2 Project Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................. 5
Exhibit 3 Project Location Map ............................................................................................................................ 6
Exhibit 4 Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Exhibit 5 Tentative Parcel Map No. 38728 ........................................................................................................... 8
List of Tables
Table 1 Maximum Daily Construction-Related Emissions Summary (pounds per day) ................................. 23
Table 2 Maximum Daily Operational-Related Emissions Summary (pounds per day) ................................... 24
Table 3 Localized Significance Thresholds 200 Meters, 5 Acres (pounds per day) ........................................ 25
ii
Table 4 Projected GHG Emissions Summary (metric tons/year) ..................................................................... 41
Table 5 Consistency with Applicable GHG Reduction Measures of the Palm Desert
Environmental Sustainability Plan ...................................................................................................... 42
Table 6 Water Demand at the Project Buildout ................................................................................................ 49
Table 7 Project Trip Generation Summary ...................................................................................................... 65
Table 8 Existing Intersection Delay and Levels of Service ............................................................................. 66
Table 9 EAP Intersection Delay and Levels of Service ................................................................................... 67
Table 10 EAPC Intersection Delay and Levels of Service ................................................................................. 68
Table 11 Horizon Year with Project Intersection Delay and Levels of Service ................................................ 69
Table 12 Citywide VMT With and Without Project .......................................................................................... 70
Table 13 Estimated Solid Waste Disposal at Buildout ....................................................................................... 78
List of Appendices
Appendix A CalEEMOD Air Quality and GHG Modeling ................................................................................... A
Appendix B Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey .................................................................................... B
Appendix C Preliminary Hydrology Report .......................................................................................................... C
Appendix D Traffic Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................... D
Appendix E VMT Analysis .................................................................................................................................... E
-1-
CITY OF PALM DESERT
CEQA Environmental Checklist & Environmental Assessment
Project Title: University Medical Office Park
Case No.: SP/EA22-0002, PP22-0009 and TPM 38728
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 ext. 479
Project location: Southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Technology Drive in the City of Palm
Desert in Riverside County.
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 694-580-026 and -027; Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, Township
4 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian
Project sponsor’s name and address: Prest Vuksic Greenwood Architects
44530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 200
Palm Desert, CA 92260
General Plan Designation:
Town Center Neighborhood
Zoning:
University Park Specific Plan: Neighborhood Center
Background
In November 2016, the City of Palm Desert adopted Resolution No. 2016-86 which certified the
General Plan Update and University Neighborhood Specific Plan EIR that analyzed the buildout of the
2035 General Plan, including the development of the University Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP).
The UNSP is comprised of approximately 400 acres and provides for the development of a new, mixed-
use community adjacent to planned campuses for California State University San Bernardino and the
University of California Riverside. The Project site is within the boundary of the UNSP.
The UNSP sets forth the planning principles, land use policies, and public improvements within the
Specific Plan area. The Project site is zoned for Neighborhood Center (NC) in the UNSP, which
provides a mixed-use neighborhood center environment, including neighborhood-serving retail and
restaurant uses, office space for small businesses, and a range of multi-family housing types. The NC
zone allows for 1 to 3-story commercial and mixed-use buildings, 2 and 3-story multiplexes, and small
apartment buildings and rowhouses with a residential intensity range of 20-40 dwelling units per acre.
The maximum building height allowed in the NC zone is 4 stories or 60 feet to top of parapet. The
architectural theme recommended for the SP are based on the traditions of Spanish Revival, Palm Desert
Ranch, Mid-Century Modern, and Contemporary styles. Precise plans were never prepared for the
Project site and it has remained vacant.
-2-
Proposed Specific Plan Amendment
As previously discussed, the Project site is within the boundary of the University Neighborhood
Specific Plan and is designated Neighborhood Center in the Plan. The Neighborhood Center (NC)
designation does not permit medical uses, nor are medical uses considered in other designations of the
Plan. Therefore, a text amendment is proposed to the Specific Plan (SPA) to allow medical uses and to
provide background and supporting information for the use. Specifically, the SPA adds a
“Professional/Medical Overlay” and adds “medical, offices” and “medical, clinics” as permitted uses
in the NC zone. The Professional/Medical Overlay provides specific standards for medical offices,
clinics and professional offices and will be applied to the Project site. The Overlay is proposed to apply
in the NC zone, and includes modifications to standards including block length and depth, setbacks and
similar changes to accommodate professional and medical services, offices and clinics.
The type and intensity of use proposed by the Project is consistent with the development
anticipated, analyzed, and approved as part of the existing General Plan EIR (General Plan EIR, SCH
#2015081020). The General Plan EIR confirmed that all environmental impacts resulting from the
implementation of the University Neighborhood Specific Plan would be less than significant with the
implementation of appropriate mitigation, except for Greenhouse Gas and Transportation impacts,
which were identified as a significant and unavoidable impact. The SPA does not propose residential
uses or densities that would exceed the forecasted future growth analyzed in the GP EIR, and is therefore
within the scope of the previously certified EIR.
Proposed Precise Plan
The Project proposes the development of a medical office center on ±10.5 acres of vacant land at the
southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Technology Drive in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside
County, California (Exhibits 1 through 3). The proposed medical center consists of two Contemporary
buildings totaling 114,700 square feet and 581 onsite parking spaces, 94 of which are reserved for
electric vehicle parking and charging (Exhibit 4). Building 1 is three-stories, 94,700 square feet and
includes medical offices, an urgent care, and potentially labs and radiology services. Building 2 is a
two-story, 20,000 square foot outpatient surgery facility. All medical appointments and procedures will
be outpatient care, no emergency services or overnight care is proposed.
The Project will be built in two phases, both ranging from 18 to 24 months with the construction of
Phase 1 anticipated to start sometime in late 2023/2024. Phase 1 includes grading and the construction
of building 1, approximately 75% of all onsite parking, and most site improvements including access
points, internal drives, sidewalk improvements and landscaping. Phase 2 includes construction of
building 2 and the remaining parking at the southeast corner of the site adjacent to building 2. The
grading phase will require a net export of 2,620 cubic yards of dirt/soil materials per the Project’s
preliminary grading plan.
Stormwater retention will be provided by two underground retention chambers on the southeast corner
of the site and one above ground infiltration basin on the southwest corner of the site. Development
also includes desert landscaping and other drought-tolerant planting materials.
The Project proposes three access points. The primary access point, or main driveway, will be from
Gerald Ford Drive along the northwest boundary. The two secondary access points will be from
Technology Drive to the southeast, and College Drive to the southwest.
-3-
Proposed Tentative Parcel Map
The Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) will subdivide the site into two parcels (see Exhibit 5). Parcel 1 is
approximately 4.83 acres and includes the building 1 and building 2 footprints and adjacent parking.
Parcel 2 is approximately 5.64 acres and includes the remaining parking lot and onsite retention basin.
Joint use easements are proposed to allow access to parking across both parcels.
Utilities and Service Providers
The following agencies and companies will provide services to the Project:
1. Sanitary 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
7. Transit Service: SunLine Transit Agency
Surrounding Land Uses
North: Gerald Ford Drive, currently vacant (February 2023) but approved for 330-unit apartment
development to undergo construction in 2023.
South: College Drive, dog park, lands under construction for 196-unit residential development
consisting of detached single family, attached townhomes, and duplexes.
East: Technology Drive, commercial uses
West: Vacant land
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
.4IN
Zu
•:'I! y � rr •-: r /Ef � ti ra ;' ,.�- i:. •y�r ,�,:�.�f. '�' Rill
SkLll ROCk
v4/X=...�a'1'�'.,::i
i 11 ',A� �� r r r gg ��` ,./'r�/'� j'� -•�,br�� s>'�'• y'y _ ,�;IX'rf, J .r.- ,`�,�i_
f„J•:/ ,mil f`/off ,��Jv`. az Desert Hot 11" 6 r i'%ti'+ ir'
Springs r /;
RESERVATIONj"i Bonie Bell,{�r-. f`�'�.�,
/7 - f
�A'yr t �1KeYg,jW >
Owl Whiiewate,:; North
m Desert Edge/'d a '�'-r 3 �• Cabazon„q„�tkip��x r,�r
Nr `• J «:r�. �oirr���' 's`• ` •sry-�Ir,I e• J<J 1 r / �i ����(t ��(��� 11�� s,r
S4 SkValleySCreek ')
zaa '• V = ^'' �,I �4ji ,/ "< �CJoshuaTree r ii ,
O -- f t1 ''t .. flrr /+„ 1 �...{i; - �'� �f�;j .�: —,;�ys r .i•'r ai^Sal (�afi,d alFark�l/'
a r 1 IalmSpn gs F ���-�• ry~...
?Renal Tramway , SUNRISE 1 r CCoachella 9 ✓ Pi�F r Il �' y '
l y it - VISTA CHINO l
1r r e r P ariy sed .1 ., la'//e " 2< a S J
`t alm Springs
nn s ,,, y Indio Hills
.t �l'�g¢«�`{ P " 9 Preserve ,/
Mt,San J�In�i`!• `:� TPatlmsd - �,:
A� P ro j eet Coachella f� ,a _ r d��
✓ iii .. r,y n,e Site Valle ,,
.ij.� r, �.a'✓' I�r -Gathedr'IC�'t Wildlife �./'/1,'714�
416
QVI
�, Biskra Palmsf
r y . _a- - -zaa rf� �"Sa %�t raQ'ds-j,�r�" i . �I � ,,, ��' , �•F' y �i`� � � � i`,+� '►^` I .. i'�
y✓ �. s r: -Mt SanEl
Jaclnto .' ,.r'. :.
State Park L Kw v J Rancho Bermuda
Mirage Dunes - d
Palm Desert Indio i)
74 The Living aDesert
t*�i I1:?'✓r f �Zooendt,6�dens a.
t - �Cahuilla Hills
M, .,�/. a?. ♦ram,.• -. /:, .'I f- -��. _ _ Coachella Cactus City t•+1' ��l
y. E
za -� ♦ Thermal - .� l,_ %r '
Vista
Santa Rosa
i f ,
2+ omeS F S
ntain ou
,�, .i .q. 1 %• ./�yi;.r--wf,4{M.r ..
_ Alpine Village-
C l
-
,{... Pin on Pines
a »'s ,Xt r Valerie Meccalr
Cahuilla "�"' . '� J'�• , - i �J� a
Ti ti Desert Cam
I Lake Riverside %* n `�� h i a Mortmar d
N _ s a as North Shore
Wat Ij J. a'l
y r
..'trr` Salton
Source:Google Maps, 2022 �, �'',''r F ..� .r,,',; a+ /yam iii oasis 05.08.23
r University Medical Office Park Exhibit
J TERRA NOVA Regional Location Map 1
PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. Palm Desert, California
Ire,
71IM71
im
qu n . ryAC-
t lubzffll.,-.,..,
it
,spa. �h_
✓ �
'h�' e.+�'� 'A e1. . .• Yi• ,.
...
� I'Ir
AID, •.
,;/'' -tea! �
{,'. .f; SIN•#i},� ,e j;.
sM
e�
e -
*.�-
-._ .
s .'mow, • '.,. .. ,''�•
s ,-..
�T �# ,..
""•,I
•f•,
�..
y*r, f' „r :y�.• •f yt{
y
'+may ! ♦ L ;,�• 'i 1 tt`•
►.
t- 1 e
` ! • t : �-,
�
A'' a 4
_�'•�r
,� ; '•4
•�, - �-
•� ,
�.
.�? 1.
I 4.'
`'�; �
AM
fin.
�ecat
olk
/ �
I.VJ
tf • '��'•
'�,
./• .'�
f`. <
e �•'
,"ter. � f
, �
• c{_-.
♦ •, � 'a a
�r +, • .
r
�
r
•
Ii
Source: Nearmap, 01.09.2023
I
0
j TERRA NOVA
PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC.
University Medical Office Park
Aerial Location Map
Palm Desert, California
Exhibit
3
PROPOSE02P wALL � �\ � ■ � � _ ..u. ...
PRO — — — — ---- -- 1
POSED 3C"'`M) — _ — — y 1
V
2 — — —
BLOCK WALL RIGHt QF WIAI>�. '•. -'G 661651'R-t0i6.OV�'120J 5B'J^
�� -�— PROPoSED 30• VV
LL (TTi
1
W dd''yyI II II I I III
z ��111i, r: >1 rair�rlr-IiIIrlilryirl N1
,8 18
I
1
_ A
B
— —r
a oie.
t. t0 '. 10 wOPoGED
�. ALL TIP.
b
IN N I
PM
I — —
MEDICALOFFICE
` BUILDING II
4 Mq C
al. O
E D
/
1111 1 0
111
Source: Prest Vuksic Greenwood Architects, 03.07.2023
i LAImSCAPE SUMMARY SF
LDTAREA 455.03]ss
1 �_� / VNOSGPEAREA 150.0]0 sF
111`�'!' VWDSCA➢E COVERAGE 33%
BUILDING SUMMARY, AE
T
1
1
BUIDNGI MEDMALOFflOE BUEDNG
BUIDNG 2- MEDKALOFflCE BUEDNG
20.=SF
TOTAL BUIDNG SpUMEFOOTAGE
11I.]ID SF
PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE
25%
1 W
PARKNG SUMMARY SGMOOD MEDMJLL%5
PARKING REpURED-BLDG1 B4] 0]4
Z PAPo(INGREpURED-BLDG2 20 W
O TOTAL PARKNG REQUIRED 1143 514
TOTAL PARKNGPROVDED 574
PARX,NG S,IMYARY
TOTAL REGULPR a.vHClB a
TOTN.ACCESBRLE El. Y11CLS „
TDTALAM, a.vRCLs ,z
ymT VAR EL VHCLS 3
TOTILL VAH I1CC. VHCLS 9
TOTAL STARDARD ACC. VHCLS
�Q ra r • xa 'a PROPw^ED ti1 1 � ,�
30"NALL TYP
O MEDICAL OFFICE a 1BP 1
O.' BUILDING 2 c 1
PHASE 2 R,
, sratY
to
MAx Hr 2so" IN .� .•,t .
3 0
A110 =
C�
Sin �
C e
R=,355 oD a RIGHT OF WAY
r —
µ �1
_ - 9 28 W 'DD' tar 05.08.23
r University Medical Office Park Exhibit
L J TERRA NOVA Site Plan 4
PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. Palm Desert, California
PIN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
R`TS M, P TEN TA T1 /E PARCEL MAP NO.38728 �-
\ ND f< 6
PA
`gR1-1 CEL PARCEL B, AS SHOWN ON CERDFlCATE OF COMPLIANCE (WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP PMW 06-01), AS END£NCED BY — —
�R DOCUMENT RECORDED SEP7EMBER 06, 2006 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2006-0666994 O.R., LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTHWEST —
OUARTER OF SEC77ON 3J TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN , / —
��.
EAn sDEwu% r�-E__--- - "Si wED1-/
N 6 Z
me IX
o
GERALD FORD DRIVE \ �''=t 6x�
30.,gt �b"b xxx'a)'SxE5.6'' E%In. CB
/0. .. R PPWOSED CeG Vp ISi N 6
RTw / aP. � IXI5�03 i.
.oi 159.3911ry
mmosn
In.. \vare. xn m q y
_ �r 4 T pg s PARCEL 2 �\ 20
77— .DRrs <p u �s ❑
N¢ e ❑El El C3
a L rr
❑
_w - -- -R
1
4' O
�lw 1 S El7 j`�ei:so=s 1�. s ,,e,.wr �� 1,s, s ,o�\ x — 1 S
Z, co � e .� ❑ I m I n 1xi.sot6v s xawscD ' sEwER / _ 1 Ix� sole ':'\g .
$ i cwD r4sE E +�
I I 5 Q
IIF". PROPOSED PARCEL 1 I FUTURE I Ovw0E 5M•1
NI 71 MEDICAL BUILDING <e3 neREs i6ru( rnc �I BUILDING SITE
'� F DFOaD Dw6E V) Pe=tri.e 1
O I I V xlaala c[auoroaooarve I 1 g
rzs'�1D e'
• m- s. I I a c .
EA6.
O \ IU50I7A'E IB
�\ ` GPOBEO— x1f5 a� I .92' _ i 1l -
_ _ I
CIS 106.IwY • . �� ( ) - _ IN e 5 — _ — — � Iu -
cu
45I
g�iR � tm.6us
z u EAsr
.� }�L
111 EJSF.%5'
i a�
16•sD aas �&' t - EAs cR� -
_ `EAs.
Evs
COLLEGE DRIVE —�
u /•
R/W /
v EXISTING PUBLC DOG PARK--
Evsr.
EXISTING RETENTION BASIN U PER C1TY'S MA5TER DRAINAGE PLAN \ EAsi le sD P o„�°�x[e togf1
L�T� 12 LOT 13
7 � � Lw�,1 iO�e2 i�ffin3 Lwmt4 Lwmt,S :ov,B :w�iwa Lwm,.B L..o�mu9 L0�110 L�.�i1 � LO- su ea 6ue'"a
UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE
r University Medical Office Park Exhibit
L J TERRA NOVA Tentative Parcel Map No. 38728
PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. Palm Desert, California 5
-9-
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
-10-
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
May 11, 2023
-11-
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.
-12-
CITY OF PALM DESERT
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE
DATE: May 8, 2023 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 694-580-026 and -027
PROJECT TITLE/
CASE NO.:
University Medical Office Park
Case No.: SP/EA22-0002, PP22-0009 and
TPM 38728
PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Technology
Drive in the City of Palm Desert in Riverside County.
APPLICANT: Prest Vuksic Greenwood Architects
APPROVAL DATE: In progress
THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE CITY’S MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ABOVE CASE NUMBER
SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE
FOR
MONITORING
TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE
CHECKED BY DATE
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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.
Project Biologist, City
Engineer, Planning
Department
Prior to
issuance of any
permits that
result in ground
disturbance
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.
-13-
SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE
FOR
MONITORING
TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE
CHECKED BY DATE
BIO.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
If ground disturbance or tree or plant removal is
proposed between January 15th and August
31st, a qualified biologist shall conduct a
nesting bird survey within 7 to 10 days of
initiation of grading onsite. 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.
Project Biologist, City
Engineer, Planning
Department
Prior to
issuance of any
permits that
result in ground
disturbance
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.
CULTURAL & TRIBAL RESOURCES
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
Project applicant,
Project archaeologist,
Tribal monitor, Planning
Division, City Engineer.
Monitoring
shall occur
during earth-
moving
activities.
Within 30 days of the
completion of ground
disturbing activities on the
Project site, a report of
findings shall be filed with
the City.
-14-
SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES
RESPONSIBLE
FOR
MONITORING
TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE
CHECKED BY DATE
preclude the occurrence of cultural
resources, and when monitoring should
conclude.
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.
GEOLOGY
GEO.1 A site-specific Geotechnical Report shall be
prepared and submitted with grading plans,
and report recommendations should be
incorporated in Project design and
construction.
Project engineer, Project
geotechnical consultant,
Project applicant.
Prior to
issuance of
grading permits
Final report submitted to and
approved by the City
TRANSPORTATION
TRA.1 In addition to paying the requisite CVAG
TUMF fee, and to remedy the LOS deficiency
at the intersections of Cook Street and the I-10
westbound and eastbound ramps, the Project is
responsible for the following fair share
contributions:
- Intersection of Cook Street and I-10 Westbound
Ramp: Project is responsible for 8.0% towards
a 2nd 200 ft. WB left turn lane.
- Intersection of Cook Street and I-10 Eastbound
Ramp: Project is responsible for 9.2% towards
the restriping of existing NB travel lanes to
achieve a 12ft. wide NB 200 ft. long right turn
lane, with remaining through travel lanes at
11ft. widths. Ultimately include northbound
free-right turn channelization.
Project applicant, CVAG,
City Engineer.
Prior to the
issuance of
grading permits
The Project applicant shall
coordinate with the City and
CVAG the payment of
CVAG’s TUMF fee and the
agreed upon fair share
contribution for improvements
to the intersection of Cook
Street and the I-10 westbound
and eastbound ramps.
-15-
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, which is a low desert basin surrounded
by dramatic mountainous terrain created by the active geology that is characteristic of Southern California.
The overall gradient of the Valley is from northwest to southeast, gently sloping from the San Gorgonio
Pass, at approximately 2,600 feet above mean sea level, to the Salton Sea, which has a surface elevation
of approximately 228 feet below mean sea level.
The Valley and the Salton Sea are located within the Salton Trough, a fault-controlled valley formed by
the San Andreas Fault Zone. The Salton Trough is located within the Colorado Desert Geomorphic
Province, which is bounded to the southwest by the Peninsular Ranges province, to the north by the eastern
Transverse Ranges province, and to the northeast by the southeastern portion of the Mojave Desert
province.
Surrounding mountains include the San Jacinto Mountains, the foothills and slopes of which ascend from
the Valley floor and form the westerly boundary of the Coachella Valley. At its peak, Mount San Jacinto
rises to an elevation of 10,834 feet above mean sea level. The Santa Rosa Mountains, with Toro Peak at
an elevation of 8,715 feet above mean sea level, generally form the southerly boundary of the valley. In
the northerly portion of the valley are the Indio Hills, with elevations rising to about 1,600 feet, and the
Little San Bernardino Mountains further north, forming the northeasterly boundary of the valley.
-16-
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project (the
“Project”) introduces incompatible visual elements within a field of view containing a scenic vista
or substantially blocks views of a scenic vista. Scenic vistas are generally described in two ways:
panoramic views (visual access to a large geographic area, for which the field of view can be wide
and extend into the distance) and focal views (visual access to a particular object, scene, or feature
of interest).
The Project site is located in a largely urbanized area of Palm Desert that supports a mix of
commercial and residential land uses. The Project site is currently vacant and bounded by Gerald
Ford Drive and vacant lands to the north, Technology Drive and commercial development to the
east, College Drive and vacant land to the south, and a dog park and vacant lands to the west. The
City of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.28.080, Scenic Preservation Overlay District,
establishes development standards for scenic corridors. The Project site is not located in a Scenic
Preservation Overlay District.
From the subject property, scenic views of the San Bernardino Mountains and Indio Foothills are
to the north and northeast, views of the Santa Rosa Mountains are to the south and southwest, and
views of the San Jacinto Mountains are to the west. There are no scenic views to the east. The
Project site is located approximately 7.8 miles southwest of the San Bernardino Mountain foothills,
approximately 3.3 miles southwest of the Indio Foothills, approximately 4 miles northeast of the
Santa Rosa Mountain foothills, and approximately 11 miles east of the San Jacinto Mountain
foothills. From the Project site, views of the lower elevations of the mountains to the south and
west are blocked by intervening residential and commercial developments. However, middle and
upper elevations of the mountains are visible above. Lower and upper views of the San Bernardino
Mountains and Indio Foothills are partially obstructed by intervening commercial development to
the north, however due to distance and their low topography they do not provide significant
viewsheds.
Construction of the proposed medical center would require the use of heavy equipment for grading,
paving and excavation. Standard construction methods would be used for the construction of the
proposed two- and three-story buildings. Construction activities would be visible from the
surrounding streets and commercial developments; however, impacts from construction are
temporary and would be limited by distance and grade differences.
The Project proposes to develop two medical office buildings: one two-story building and one
three-story building with a maximum height of 54 feet. Currently the UNSP allows building
heights of up to 4 stories or 60 feet in height in the Neighborhood Center zone. The proposed
buildings would be taller than the adjacent commercial uses to the east, but consistent with the
maximum height allowed under the UNSP. Building and site design on the Project site would be
guided by the UNSP.
Viewers to the east of the site enjoy upper views of the Santa Rosa mountains to the south and
southwest, with lower to middle views obstructed by elevated grades of the adjacent vacant lands.
Viewers to the east also enjoy middle and upper views of the San Jacinto Mountains to the west,
with moderate obstruction due to distance and intervening commercial and residential
development. The proposed Project would not obstruct views to the south and only partially
-17-
obstruct views to the west and southwest to some extent, however, the nearest structures are located
approximately 100 feet east of the Project site boundary (dermatology office) a distance which
would lessen these impacts. Views to the north, east, and south would remain unobstructed by the
Project, and impacts would be less than significant.
Lands immediately to the north are planned for a 330-unit apartment project scheduled to start
construction in 2023. Future viewers from the north looking to the south would experience blocked
views of the Santa Rosa Mountain as a result of the Project, however lower and middle range views
are already obstructed by the elevated grade of vacant lands to the south. Future viewers from the
north would not lose views of the San Bernardino or San Jacinto Mountains.
Lands to the south include a dog park and a 196-unit residential development currently under
construction. Future viewers from the south looking north may experience partially blocked views
of the San Bernardino Mountains and Indio Foothills, however due to their elevated grade above
the subject property, impacts are expected to be less than significant. Future viewers from the south
would not lose views of the Santa Rosa or San Jacinto Mountains from any direction.
Lands to the west are currently vacant but are planned for future residential. Future viewers from
the west looking east/southeast towards the Project site may experience partially blocked views of
the Indio foothills; however, views are already obstructed by intervening development and are
diminished by distance. Future viewers from the west would not lose views of the San Bernardino
or San Jacinto Mountains.
The proposed Specific Plan amendments are limited to minor modifications including the addition
of medical offices as a permitted land use and increasing the maximum building width from 150
to 300 feet in the NC zone of the UNSP. Proposed site improvements include landscaping and
sidewalk improvements with further enhance aesthetics. Building height and overall design
guidelines requiring high quality architecture have not changed, and therefore potential impacts to
scenic vistas would be the same as previously identified in the certified General Plan and UNSP
EIR. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any new adverse impacts
or significantly increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the certified
EIR. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant
b) No Impact. A significant impact would occur only if scenic resources would be damaged and/or
removed by development of a project. There are no scenic resources such as trees, rock
outcroppings, or historical buildings onsite. 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,
which is ±4 miles south of the Project area. No impact will occur as result of the Precise Plan or
the Specific Plan amendment.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is in an urban setting; therefore, a significant
impact would occur if the Project conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality. According to the UNSP, the Neighborhood Center land use designation is to
provide a mixed-use environment with a wide range of neighborhood-serving shops, offices, and
multi-family and single-family attached housing types.
-18-
The proposed Specific Plan amendment does not significantly deviate from the current UNSP
development standards or design guidelines. The Specific Plan amendment adds “medical, offices”
and “medical, clinics” as permitted uses in the NC zone, which are consistent with the types of
non-residential uses currently permitted in the zone and Town Center Neighborhood designation
in the General Plan. The Project’s proposed Contemporary architectural style is consistent with
styles recommended in the Specific Plan and the color palettes and building materials are
compatible with the desert environment and existing development in the Project vicinity.
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 UNSP. Therefore, the Project will have less than significant impacts
to applicable regulations that address scenic quality.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project introduces
new sources of light or glare on or from the project site which would be incompatible with the
areas surrounding the project site, or which pose a safety hazard to motorists utilizing adjacent
streets or freeways.
The Project will generate light and glare primarily from buildings, landscape lighting, exterior
safety and security lighting, parking lot lighting, and mobile light sources from vehicles accessing
the site during normal business hours. The Project does not propose emergency services such as
ambulances that would require the use of emergency lighting. City of Palm Desert Municipal
Code Chapter 24.16 (Outdoor Lighting Requirements) regulates outdoor lighting and establishes
requirements which are intended to minimize light pollution and light trespass onto adjacent
properties. All exterior Project lighting will comply with the University Neighborhood Specific
Plan and General Plan, which requires lighting fixtures to complement the architecture 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.
-19-
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 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, University Neighborhood Specific Plan, nor the
Zoning Ordinance include 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.
-20-
Discussion of Impacts
a-e) No Impact. The site is currently vacant and designated as Neighborhood Center in the UNSP,
which allows a broad range of commercial and residential land uses. There are no existing or
mapped agricultural or forestry resources within or in proximity to the Project site, and such uses
are not proposed as part of the Specific Plan amendment. No agricultural lands will be impacted
by the Project.
Prime Farmland: According to the California Important Farmlands mapping provided by the
California Department of Conservation, the Project site is designated as “Other Land.” 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, designated Neighborhood Center in the
UNSP, 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;
California Important Farmland Finder, California Department of Conservation,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ agriculture/DataViewer/index.html, accessed November 2022.
-21-
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. According to CEQA, a significant air quality impact could occur if the proposed
project is not consistent with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) or would
obstruct the implementation of the policies or hinder reaching the goals of that plan. The Project
site is within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) and will be subject to SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP
-22-
and the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 SIP. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that establishes
control strategies and guidance on regional emission reductions for air pollutants. The AQMP is
based, in part, on the land use plans of 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 Project proposes a medical center that includes medical offices, an urgent care and outpatient
surgery center. Currently, office professional and personal services are permitted uses in the NC
designation; however, medical office uses are not explicitly listed. For the Project to be consistent
with the UNSP, the SPA revises the Land Use Matrix (Table 4.1) of the UNSP to permit “medical,
office” and “medical, clinic” uses in the NC zone.
The General Plan and UNSP 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 does not increase the
allowed density (20-40 dwelling units per acre) specified for the Neighborhood Center designation
and would not impact population, as employees of the proposed Project are expected to be residents
of the city and region. In addition, a VMT analysis was prepared that found the Project would
result in a net decrease in citywide VMTs due to virtual medical appointments that allow patients
to access healthcare services or communicate with healthcare staff through online or off-site
programs (see Section XVII, Transportation, for detailed VMT analysis).
In summary, the Project will be part of anticipated growth, does not increase the residential land
use assumptions used in the SCAG analysis, and will result in a net decrease in citywide VMT.
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
-23-
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.
Construction Emissions
Project buildout is anticipated to take up to 1 year. 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 1, emissions generated by construction activities will not exceed SCAQMD
thresholds for any criteria pollutant. The analysis assumes a net export of 2,620 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 1
Maximum Daily Construction-Related Emissions Summary
(pounds per day)
Construction Emissions1 CO NOx ROG SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Daily Maximum 37.07 35.73 53.82 0.06 21.07 11.30
SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00
Exceeds? No No No No No No
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 4,129 daily trips (see Section XVII, Transportation). Table 24 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.
-24-
Table 2
Maximum Daily Operational-Related Emissions Summary
(pounds per day)
Operational Emissions1 CO NOx ROG SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Daily Maximum 83.04 11.62 16.12 0.15 14.90 4.05
SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00
Exceeds? No No No No No No
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 include the future 330-unit residential development 120 feet to the north site, future
196-unit residential project and University Dog Park 100 feet south of the site, University Park
East (park) located 0.18 miles southeast of the site, and multi-family homes (The Vineyards at
Palm Desert) located 0.33 miles southeast of the site.
-25-
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
10 acres, and it is assumed that buildout will occur over one year. 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 scenario of a
sensitive receptor being within 200 meters was used.
Table 3 shows that LST thresholds are not expected to be exceeded for any criteria pollutant during
construction or operation. Impacts to sensitive receptors will be less than significant.
Table 3
Localized Significance Thresholds
200 Meters, 5 Acres
(pounds per day)
CO NOx PM10 PM2.5
Construction Emissions 37.07 35.73 21.07 11.30
LST Threshold 10,178 547 112 37
Operational Emissions 83.04 11.62 14.90 4.05
LST Threshold 10,178 547 27 9
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
Health Impacts
As shown in Tables 1 and 2, 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.
1 SCAQMD “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds.”
-26-
• 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. A significant impact could occur if objectionable odors are
generated that would adversely impact sensitive receptors. Odors are typically associated with
industrial projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-
smelling elements used in manufacturing processes, as well as in sewage treatment facilities and
landfills. The Project proposes a medical office center, and as such, no odors from industrial uses
are anticipated.
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. The Project does not propose land uses that
cause odor impacts, such as fast-food restaurants, photographic studios, and laundry facilities, and
other commercial and industrial uses. The SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), and SCAQMD Best
Available Control Technology Guidelines would limit potential objectionable odor impacts during
the proposed project’s long-term operations phase. 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.
-27-
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.
-28-
A wide range of common plant species, such as mesquite, smoke tree, desert holly, creosote bush, and
palo verde, are supported by the conditions present in the valley, as are a wide range of wildlife species.
Bird species include golden eagle, western burrowing owl, and others. There are also a range of sensitive
plant and animal species present in the Coachella Valley, some of which have been listed as threatened or
endangered by federal and state agencies.
Within the Coachella Valley region, some plant species that are federally listed as endangered include the
Coachella Valley milkvetch and triple-ribbed milkvetch. Threatened or endangered wildlife species
include the Peninsular bighorn sheep, Casey's June beetle, Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, arroyo
southwestern toad, and mountain yellow-legged frog. Sensitive bird species include the least Bell’s vireo
and southwestern flycatcher, both listed as endangered. In addition, there are several species of birds
considered “sensitive” by state and federal wildlife resource agencies.
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.
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed Project site is currently vacant and has been
heavily disturbed by previous grading activities. Vegetation coverage is generally sparse with
regrowth of shrubs and desert grasses, such as tumbleweed and brittlebush. The surface soils are
composed mainly of wind-blown fine-grained sand. Land use in the immediate vicinity is
dominated by vacant lands, retail uses and medical offices, with residential neighborhoods further
away in all directions. Due to the disturbed nature of vegetation and soils, the Project site has a
very low to low potential to harbor sensitive wildlife species.
Burrowing owl is a state species of special concern that resides in open dry grasslands and desert
areas. Since the site is currently vacant and covered sparsely with vegetation. The CVMSHCP and
State law prohibit the take of burrowing owl. Should burrowing owl be found on the property prior
to construction, a significant impact would occur. To assure that this impact is mitigated,
Mitigation Measure BIO.1 is provided below, which requires pre-construction surveys to assure
that the species is not present, or to protect the species should it be identified on-site. With
implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts to burrowing owls will be less than significant.
The existing vegetation on and adjacent to the property would have a low potential to provide
nesting opportunities for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). As the
subject site is vacant, these species would reside seasonally within the subject site. Nesting
activities would occur between January and August of any year. Under the provisions of the
MBTA, impacts to covered nesting birds would be considered a significant impact. To assure that
impacts to bird nests covered under the MBTA are reduced to less than significant levels, a pre-
construction survey is required if any activity to remove vegetation is proposed during the nesting
season, as provided in Mitigation Measure BIO.2, below. With implementation of this mitigation
measure, impacts to birds covered by the MBTA will be less than significant.
-29-
The implementation of the SPA would not significantly change impacts to biological resources,
because the 10.5 acres would be expected to be graded and fully disturbed under either the
proposed Project or UNSP buildout. The proposed land use would result in a comparable
development intensity, and thus result in comparable areas of open space for common species to
use as forage and nesting areas. Therefore, the proposed Project will not result in any new
significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts already identified in the General Plan EIR.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO.1 and BIO.2, and adherence to existing federal, state,
and City regulations will ensure potential impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.
b) No Impact. The Project site does not contain any riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities
protected by local plans, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The site is isolated by existing roadways, and is surrounded by a mix of vacant land and
urban development. Onsite soils have been disturbed by previous grading activity, and onsite
vegetation is limited to only sparse shrubs and desert grass. No Project-related impacts would
occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.
c) No Impact. The Project site is located inland and does not contain any streams, marshes, protected
wetlands, or vernal pools protected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Project-generated runoff will be managed onsite. No Project-related impacts
would occur and no mitigation measures would be required.
d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Surrounding lands include vacant, commercial properties
and major roadways. No wildlife corridors or biological linkages are mapped, known, or expected
on the Project site. Although it may provide marginal habitat for burrowing owls and 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 MBTA and burrowing owls. Compliance with pre-
construction surveys, described in Mitigation Measures BIO.1 and 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 University Neighborhood 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.
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. The Project does not propose a land use designation
change that would convert protected or open space lands to urban uses. 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.
-30-
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 January 15th and August 31st,
a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within 7 to 10 days of initiation of grading
onsite. 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: City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Report, 2016; Project materials.
-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.
Prior to the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1876-1877, no human-made features of any
kind were known to be present in the Project vicinity. Scattered residential development began to emerge
to the southwest of the project location in the mid-20th century, while farming operations continued at
least into the mid-1990s, mostly to the north and east. Over the next ten years, urbanization and
suburbanization rapidly altered the landscape in and around the project area. In 2005-2006, most of the
project area was leveled and graded evidently in preparation of a development project that never
materialized.
In October 2022, CRM TECH prepared a Historical/Archeological Resources Survey for the proposed
Project (Appendix B).
-32-
Discussion of Impacts
a, b) No Impact. In 2022, CRM TECH conducted a historical and archeological resources study for the
Project site, which included a historical background and records search, 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 Eastern Information Center (EIC), the project area had not been previously
surveyed, and no cultural resources had been recorded within or adjacent to the Project site.
Outside of the Project boundaries, over 30 previous studies completed between 1978 and 2018,
including an adjacent property to the northeast carried out by CRM TECH in 2013. These past
studies identified four historical/archaeological sites and two isolates (i.e., localities with less than
three artifacts) within the one-mile radius of the subject property. However, none of the resources
were found in the immediate vicinity of the current project area, the nearest ones being nearly a
half-mile away along the Union Pacific Railroad. With no potential to receive any impact from
the project as proposed, none of these sites or isolates required further consideration during the
study.
Sacred Lands File Search
On July 13, 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. A
representative of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians participated in the archaeological
field survey of the project area. However, to date the trade has provided no further comments
regarding potential Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity.
The city will contact Tribal representatives as part of the AB 52 and SB 18 consultation process
described in Section XVIII (Tribal Cultural Resources) of this Initial Study.
Field Survey
A field survey was conducted on August 15, 2022 by CRM TECH archeologist with the assistance
of a Native American Monitor of the Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The ground surface
in the entire project area has been extensively disturbed due to previous grading and leveling of
the land in 2005-2006. Scattered modern refuse was observed over much of the property, including
building debris such as concrete fragments, asphalt fragments, and broken glass, but none of the
items are of any historical/archaeological interest. The field survey encountered no historical
resources on the current 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, Mitigation Measure CUL.1 is provided to protect any potential
buried archaeological resources that may be uncovered during Project development. With
implementation of CUL.1, potential impacts to archaeological resources will be reduced to less
than significant levels.
-33-
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.
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. 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
evaluation, 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: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, University Medical Office Park Project, CRM
TECH, October 17, 2022; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific
Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016 (SCH 2015081020); Project materials.
-34-
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 commercial/medical office 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 November 2022.
3 SoCalGas, Company Profile, www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-profile, accessed November 2022.
-35-
Long-term operational energy demand will be generated by Project lighting, and
heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Energy would be consumed during the
operation of the facilities, as well as landscape irrigation, the transport and conveyance of water,
and solid waste hauling and disposal. However, the Project will result in medical office uses typical
of such construction throughout the City and region. Buildings 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 building codes require all newly constructed
commercial buildings to have a solar photovoltaic (PV) array and an energy storage system (ESS)
installed. The Project will be required to comply with these standards.
The Project will not directly increase the population and will therefore not directly increase vehicle
trips and miles traveled (VMT) and long-term fuel demand. A VMT analysis was prepared that
found the Project would result in a net decrease in citywide VMTs due to virtual medical
appointments that allow patients to access healthcare services or communicate with healthcare
staff through online or off-site programs (see Section XVII, Transportation). According to the
Project-specific traffic impact analysis, the Project is estimated to generate 4,129 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
1,135,430 kWh of electricity and approximately 3,935 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 requirements of the 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.
-36-
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 Project is located in the City of Palm Desert which is part of the Coachella Valley. The geology and
seismicity of the Coachella Valley is primarily influenced by the tectonics of the San Andrea and San
Jacinto fault systems. The San Andreas Fault is a continental transform fault that extends roughly 750
miles through California. It forms the tectonic boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American
Plate, and its motion is right-lateral strike-slip (horizontal). The San Jacinto Fault Zone (SJFZ) is a major
-37-
strike-slip fault zone that runs through San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties in
Southern California. The SJFZ is a component of the larger San Andreas transform system and is
considered to be the most seismically active fault zone in the area.
The Coachella Valley is located in the northwestern portion of the Salton Trough which is bounded by the
San Bernardino Mountains on the northwest, San Jacinto Mountains on the west, Santa Rosa Mountains
on the south, and Little San Bernardino Mountains and Indio Hills on the northeast. 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. 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 deposit dry, finely granulated, sandy soils on
the central valley floor. Soils in the project area primarily consist of myoma fine sand and Coachella fine
sands.4
Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of prehistoric animals and plants, created more than
12,000 years ago in the Pleistocene era. 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 4 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,
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 Website: Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed February 2023.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
-38-
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 Palm Desert General Plan, the Riverside County Land Information System
identifies most of the city is susceptible to moderate liquefaction potential. 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 3.5 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 and
is being addressed by the water agencies and government agencies through water conservation and
supplemental groundwater recharge efforts. 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.
-39-
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. 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 with Mitigation. 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 sites underlaying soils consist of fine windblown sand, and heavily graded sand. The
geotechnical report required by Mitigation Measures GEO.1 will provide recommendations that
the Project should implement to assure these geotechnical issues are appropriately addressed,
including removal and recompaction of collapsible or weak soils during the grading phase.
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.
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 A site-specific Geotechnical Report shall be prepared and submitted with grading plans, and
report recommendations should be incorporated in 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); USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, accessed November 2022; Project materials.
-40-
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.
-41-
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 4, the Project is projected to generate
594.51 MTCO2e of GHG emissions during the 1-year construction period. There are currently no
construction related GHG emission thresholds for residential projects of this nature. To determine if
construction emissions will result in a cumulatively considerable impact, buildout GHG emissions were
amortized over a 30-year period and added to annual operational emissions to be compared to applicable
GHG thresholds (see Table 4, below).
Operational Emissions
At buildout, there are five emission source categories that will be contributing either directly or indirectly
to operational GHG emissions, including energy/electricity usage, water usage, solid waste disposal, area
emissions (pavement and architectural coating off-gassing), and mobile sources. Table 4 provides a
summary of the projected short-term construction and annual operational GHG generation associated with
buildout of the proposed Project.
Table 4
Projected GHG Emissions Summary (metric tons/year)
Phase CO2e (MT/YR)
Construction 594.51
Operational
Area 0.01
Energy 223.52
Mobile 2,483.35
Waste 622.97
Water 58.43
Operational Subtotal 3,388.28
Construction, 30-year amortized1 19.81
Total
(30-year amortized construction 3,408.09
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000.00
1 Buildout construction GHG emissions amortized over 30 years.
594.51/30 = 19.81Emission Source: CalEEMod Version 2040.4.0
-42-
Consistency with SCAQMD GHG Thresholds
The proposed Project is medical office business park and, therefore, can be evaluated under SCAQMD’s
Tier 3 commercial 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. The Environmental Sustainability Plan 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 5
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 2022 edition of
the California Building Code will be in effect on
January 1, 2023. The Project is required to meet the
standards of the current Title 24 requirements. The
Project would meet Title 24 California Building Code
mandatory solar-ready requirements for new
buildings.
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
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.
-43-
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 California Building Code, which
sets forth stringent energy efficiency requirements and standards for new development that support the
goals of the statewide GHG reduction plans.
In addition, a VMT analysis was prepared that found the Project would result in a net decrease in citywide
VMTs due to virtual medical appointments that allow patients to access healthcare services or
communicate with healthcare staff through online or off-site programs (see Section XVII, Transportation).
A reduction in VMT will result in a direct reduction in mobile-source emissions, the largest GHG emission
source.
In summary, 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.
-44-
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
The proper management of hazardous materials is a common concern for all communities within the
Coachella Valley. Beginning in the 1970s, governments at the federal, state, and local levels became
increasingly concerned about the effects of hazardous materials on human health and the environment.
Numerous laws and regulations were developed to investigate and mitigate these effects. As a result, the
storage, use, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials are highly regulated by federal,
state, and local laws and regulations.
-45-
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 vacant lands and commercial/retail development. The site is currently
vacant but has been heavily disturbed by previous grading activities. No 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 office use and various chemical products for 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, storage, and disposal of hazardous
materials, including medical waste, would occur in accordance with applicable federal, state, and
local laws, including California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (CalOSHA)
requirements. Medical waste will be stored and collected in regulated containers, and transported
to approved disposal sites from Project offices and clinic(s). Impacts would be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The nearest existing elementary school is James Earl Carter Elementary School on
Hovley Lane East, approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the Project site. A new elementary/middle
school is proposed at the northeast corner of Dolce Avenue and Gateway Drive, approximately 1.4
miles northwest of the Project site. The nearest university is UC Riverside – Palm Desert, located
0.35 miles southeast of the site at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive. 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 approximately 8 miles from the Palm Springs
International Airport and 4.5 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.
-46-
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 Gerald Ford Drive, Technology Drive and College Drive/University Park Drive. 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.
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 November 2022; California Department of Toxic Substances Control “EnviroStor” Database,
accessed November 2022; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific
Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016 (SCH 2015081020); Project materials.
-47-
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
-48-
groundwater from the Indio and Mission Creek Subbasins. 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 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.5
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 18-inch sewer main beneath Gerald Ford Drive and 8-inch sewer main beneath
Technology 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.
A Draft Hydrology Report was prepared for the Project and is provided in Appendix C.
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
5 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Water Systems Consulting, Inc., June 30, 2021.
-49-
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.
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 medical office purposes and
drought-tolerant landscape irrigation.
The American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF) has developed
demand factors for land use categories including residential uses. As shown in the table below, the
Project has the potential to generate a demand of 79.65 acre-feet per year.
Table 6
Water Demand at the Project Buildout
Proposed Land
Use Unit Water Consumption
Factor
Water Demand
(gpd)
Total Water
Demand At
buildout (AFY)
Medical Office 114,700 SF 0.62-gallons per SF
per day 71,114 gpd 79.65
According to the 2020 Coachella Valley Regional UWMP6, 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 (79.65 AFY) is 0.05%
of projected 2025 regional water supplies and 0.04% 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 and slopes to the east with
elevations ranging from 160-190 feet above sea level. The ground surface consists of mostly wind-
blown fine-grained sand and contains no rivers or streams. On-site soils 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.
There are two existing retention basins on-site that collect runoff from the three adjacent streets.
According to the hydrology report (Appendix C), the on-site basins collect the runoff from about
10.9 acres. The basin in the southern corner of the project site collects 4.46 acres of College Drive
and the basin in the eastern corner collects 6.40 acres of Gerald Ford Drive and portions of College
Drive and Technology Drive. The basin in the eastern corner also collects the on-site runoff.
6 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Water Systems Consulting, Inc., June 30, 2021.
-50-
The site has been designed to maintain the existing easterly drainage pattern and 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. Runoff flows will be intercepted by a series of catch basins and area drains
and conveyed to on-site retention areas. The 10.5-acre project site consists of three sub-watershed
areas and three catch basins are proposed: A, B, and C. Two underground chamber systems are
proposed to replace the existing aboveground retention basin in the eastern corner. Basin B will
be located under a portion of the eastern parking area and will collect on-site runoff and Basin C
will be located under the north-eastern landscape area and collect offsite runoff. These two systems
will prevent the commingling of stormwater from the public streets and private development,
allowing effective stormwater quality monitoring. Basin A, the southern retention basin, will
remain aboveground and will be expanded to properly store the increase in runoff due to
development, in addition to the existing capture of offsite runoff from the adjacent streets. New
storm drain connections are proposed for the existing offsite catch basins to align with the proposed
configurations of the retention areas. Drywells are proposed in each basin to properly evacuate the
runoff of the 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The proposed on-site basins are designed to retain
100% of the 100-year, 24-hour storm and infiltrate within 48 hours.
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.
-51-
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, University Medical Office Park, Michael Baker International,
December 7, 2022; 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Water Systems
Consulting, Inc., June 30, 2021; FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) #06065C1615G, 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.
-52-
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 and Neighborhood Center (NC) in the UNSP, which provides a mixed-use neighborhood center
environment, including neighborhood-serving retail and restaurant uses, office space for small businesses,
and a range of multi-family housing types.
Discussion of Impacts
a) No Impact. The Project site is currently vacant. The surrounding area is largely undeveloped with
commercial retail development to the east with the nearest residential development located more
than a quarter mile southeast of the site. All commercial uses and residential communities operate
independently and will not be divided by 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. Non-
residential uses include retail. Personal service, care, public facilities, and others which are
determined to be compatible with an oriented toward serving the needs to neighborhoods. The
Project proposes a medical office park, which is consistent with the non-residential land uses
described in the Town Center Neighborhood designation.
Among the Project’s goals are ensuring high-quality development within the Project area and
providing medical care services to the surrounding neighborhoods. It is also consistent with the
following General Plan Land Use Element goals and policies:
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.
-53-
2.6 Lighting. Require all new streetlights in commercial areas to be pedestrian-oriented and
scaled, attractively designed, compatible in design with other street furniture, and to
provide adequate visibility and security in accordance with best practices for night sky
protection.
Goal 5. Centers. A variety of mixed use, urban centers throughout the city that provide
opportunities for shopping, recreation, commerce, employment and arts and culture.
5.3 Diverse centers. Encourage the development of local and city-wide centers that address
different community needs and market sectors. The centers shall complement and be
integrated with surrounding neighborhoods
The Project is consistent with the Palm Desert General Plan, and no conflict would occur.
University Neighborhood Specific Plan (Zoning)
The proposed Specific Plan amendment does not propose an increase to overall land use densities
or development standards. As a result, the consistency identified in the EIR with the General Plan’s
policies and programs also applies to the currently proposed Project. The proposed Specific Plan
is consistent with the previously approved 2016 Specific Plan and development of the proposed
Project will be in accordance with the requirements of the Specific Plan and other applicable
regulations, including payment of the CVMSHCP development impact fee and the implementation
of its standards.
The proposed Project is consistent with the amended Specific Plan and proposes development that
will meet or exceed the development standards in the Specific Plan. As the Specific Plan acts as
the zoning document for the Project, the Precise Plan will be consistent with the City’s zoning
standards, since it meets or exceeds the Specific Plan development standards.
Summary of Impacts
The Project’s land use plan, density range, and vision will remain consistent with the UNSP and
General Plan land use designation, density, vision, and Land Use Element goals and policies.
Impacts will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Monitoring: None required
Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; University Neighborhood Specific Plan, 2016.
-54-
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.
-55-
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, Technology Drive,
and College Drive. The surrounding area consists of vacant lands and commercial development.
The nearest sensitive receptors are residents in multi-family homes approximately 0.33 miles
southeast of the Project site.
-56-
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 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.
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, 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. Commercial noise levels are
limited to 55 dBA between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., and 65 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 70 dBA CNEL for office buildings, business commercial, and professional uses.
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 and the I-10 Freeway. Noise levels are
65 dBA CNEL immediately adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive and 60 dBA CNEL throughout the rest
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 on
the Project site, which is consistent with the Neighborhood Center (NC) designation in the UNSP.
The proposed Project and Specific Plan amendment would result in a consistent maximum buildout
potential as the approved UNSP and therefore, impacts would be the same as those analyzed in the
EIR for maximum buildout. The EIR (Figure 4.12-2) determined that, at General Plan buildout,
noise levels in the northerly portion of the Project site would increase to 70 dBA CNEL
immediately adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive and 65 dBA CNEL on the rest of the site where the
medical office center is proposed. These noise projections include future noise generated by
buildout of the subject stie. These noise levels are within the normally acceptable noise range for
office buildings, business commercial, and professional uses (maximum of 70 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
-57-
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, sensitive receptors 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). The nearest sensitive receptors are the multi-family residents
approximately 0.33 miles southeast of the subject site. Due to this distance, sensitive receptors
would not be significantly impacted by groundborne vibration and/or noise, and any such 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 8 miles from the Palm Springs International Airport and 4.5 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).
-58-
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 a 114,700 square foot medical office center
and will not directly induce population growth. Construction and operation of the Project will
generate jobs. However, construction is expected to be fulfilled by the local labor market. At
buildout, the Project expects to have approximately 363 employees. Given the current labor
market, it is more likely that the new jobs will be filled by existing residents than new residents
attracted to the area by the proposed Project.
The city anticipates, and has planned for, future population growth on the Project site by
designating it as Neighborhood Center in the UNSP, which allows a residential density of 20-40
dwelling units per acre. The purposed Project would result in reduced on-site density (no dwelling
units) compared to the maximum density allowed in the Specific Plan, resulting in a reduced
population potential compared to that analyzed in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with
population growth will be less than significant.
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.
-59-
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 1.75 miles southwest 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, approximately 1 mile
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 2.5 miles southeast of the Project site.
-60-
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 (immediately southwest of the site) and University Park East (0.2
miles to the southeast).
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. 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 114,700 square feet of medical office uses 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. The Project will be required to pay the standard PSUSD
developer fees in place at the time development occurs, which are currently $0.78 per square foot
of commercial development.7 Payment of developer fees would reduce potential Project impacts
to school resources to less than significant levels.
Parks/ Other Public Facilities:
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project proposes a medical office center and will have
approximately 363 employees at buildout. It is expected that the proposed Project will be staffed
by existing and future residents occurring as a result of annual growth. The Project does not
propose residential uses, which would directly increase the city’s population and demand for
recreational resources or other public facilities. The subject site is zoned Neighborhood Center
(NC) in the UNSP, which allows residential development of up to 40 dwelling units per acre.
Because residential uses are not proposed, the Project will result in fewer new residents than
7 2022 Fee Schedule, Palm Springs Unified School District website, www.psusd.us, accessed November 2022.
-61-
previously analyzed in the GP and UNSP EIR. The proposed 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); PSUSD 2022
Developer Fee Schedule; Project materials.
-62-
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. The Project proposes a 114,700 square foot medical office center
and will have approximately 360 employees at buildout.8 It is expected that the proposed Project
will be staffed by existing and future residents occurring as a result of annual growth. The Project
does not propose residential uses, which would directly increase the city’s population and demand
for recreational resources. The proposed Project is not expected to require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, nor will it result in a noticeable increase of use, if any.
The Specific Plan currently allows up to 40 dwelling units per acre in the NC zone. The proposed
SPA does not propose an increase to overall land use densities and therefore will not result in any
new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact previously
analyzed in the EIR. Overall, impacts 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); Project materials.
8 University Medical Office Park Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads. November 7,
2022.
-63-
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, Cook Street, Technology Drive, and College Drive. Gerald Ford Drive and
Cook Street are fully built out as 6-lane divided arterials and improved with Class 2 (striped on-street)
bicycle/golf cart lanes. Sidewalks have been built on the south side of Gerald Ford Drive along the Project
site’s northern boundary. Technology Drive is fully improved as a 2-lane collector street with shared bike
lanes and sidewalks on both sides. College Drive is a 2-lane collector street with two shared bike lanes
and 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 Cook Street at University Park (Route 5), approximately 0.35 miles southeast of the Project site and
can be accessed via existing sidewalks and bike lanes.
General Plan Designations
The Palm Desert General Plan Mobility Element establishes a roadway classification system based on
vehicle capacity, number of lanes, and other improvements such as bike lanes, sidewalks, and parkways.
Gerald Ford Drive is classified as Balanced Arterials consisting of a 4 to 6-lane divided road with bicycle
and pedestrian facilities. Cook Street is a Vehicular Oriented Arterial consisting of 6 travel lanes.
Technology Drive and College Drive are classified as Collector Streets. At General Plan buildout (2040),
the nearby intersections of Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street, and Gerald Ford Drive and Technology
Drive, are projected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) D 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 Cook Street are designated as truck routes (Figure 4.3).
-64-
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 D) 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 E)
based on the adopted Riverside County “Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service &
Vehicle Miles Traveled.”
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The Project proposes development of 114,700 square
foot medical office park. The Project proposes three access points, including the main driveway
(primary access) on Gerald Ford Drive and two secondary access points on Technology Drive and
College Drive/University Park Drive. The Traffic Analysis recommends the following site access
improvements:
• Gerald Ford, Main Driveway (Primary Access): Right-in/right-out on Gerald Ford Drive 500
feet west of Technology Drive. Install a cross street stop for the northbound approach. Install
an eastbound right turn lane west of the Main Driveway/Gerald Ford Drive and an auxiliary
lane east of the Main Driveway/Gerald Ford Drive.
• Technology Drive, East Driveway (Secondary Access): Install a cross street stop for the
eastbound approach, provide one 100ft shared left/through/right outbound lane, and modify
existing raided median to provide one 90ft northbound left turn lane.
• University Park Drive, South Driveway (Secondary Access): Install a cross street stop for the
southbound approach, provide one 50ft shared left/through/right outbound lane, and modify
existing raised median to provide one 125ft eastbound left turn lane.
As shown in the following table, the Project is forecast to generate approximately 4,129 daily
vehicle trips at buildout, including 356 trips during the AM peak hour and 451 trips during the PM
peak hour.
-65-
Table 7
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
Medical-Dental Office 720 TSF 2.45 0.65 3.10 1.18 2.75 3.93 36.00
Project Trips Generated
Land Use
Quantity
Unit2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Medical-Dental Office 720 94.7 232 62 296 112 260 372 3,409
Outpatient Surgery Center 720 20 49 13 62 24 55 79 720
Total: 281 75 356 136 315 451 4,129
1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th edition, 2021.
2 TSF = thousand square feet
Based on consultation with City staff, the traffic impact analysis studied the following twelve (12)
intersections to evaluate Project impacts on the circulation network:
1. Technology Drive/Gerald Ford Drive
2. Technology Drive/E. Driveway – The Village W. Driveway
3. Technology Drive/College Drive
4. South Driveway – University Park Drive/College Drive
5. Pacific Avenue/College Drive
6. Cook Street/University Park Drive
7. Cook Street/I-10 WB Ramps
8. Cook Street/I-10 EB Ramps
9. Cook Street/Gerald Ford Drive
10. Cook Street/University Park Drive
11. Cook Street/ Frank Sinatra Drive
12. Main Driveway/Gerald Ford Drive
The following scenarios were analyzed:
• Existing (2022) Conditions
• Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) (2024)
• Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project Plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2024)
• Horizon Year 2040 Without Project
• Horizon Year 2040 With Project
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
Cook Street and the I-10 westbound ramp, which operates at LOS E (unacceptable level), all other
studied intersections operate at LOS C or better, as shown in Table 8.
-66-
Table 8
Existing Intersection Delay and Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Traffic
Control1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Average
Delay2
LOS3
Average
Delay2
LOS3
Technology Drive/Gerald Ford Drive TS 11.0 B 12.6 B
Technology Drive/E. Driveway – The Village W. Driveway CSS 8.7 A 8.9 A
Technology Drive/College Drive RDB 3.0 A 3.1 A
South Driveway – University Park Drive/College Drive CSS 9.0 A 8.9 A
Pacific Avenue/College Drive RDB 2.9 A 2.9 A
Cook Street/University Park Drive RDB 3.1 A 3.3 A
Cook Street/I-10 WB Ramps TS 57.0 E 11.3 B
Cook Street/I-10 EB Ramps TS 16.2 B 22.9 C
Cook Street/Gerald Ford Drive TS 27.7 C 32.6 C
Cook Street/University Park Drive TS 5.5 A 5.8 A
Cook Street/ Frank Sinatra Drive TS 12.1 B 25.9 C
Main Driveway/Gerald Ford Drive Future Intersection
1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; RDB = Roundabout
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.
BOLD = Unacceptable LOS.
3 LOS = Level of Service
EAP (2024) Conditions
EAP traffic conditions represent Existing Conditions, plus the addition of ambient traffic growth
(in this case an ambient growth factor of 4.04% was added to Existing Conditions volumes), plus
the addition of the Project. EAP projections assume that these conditions occur in 2024.
As shown in the following table, all studied intersections will operate at LOS C or better in 2024,
representing acceptable conditions under the City’s General Plan, with the exception of the
intersection of Cook Street and I-10 westbound (WB) ramps, which will operate at LOS E during
the morning peak hour without improvements, with or without the proposed Project. The traffic
analysis recommended improvements to address deficiencies: The Project should contribute its
fair share of 8.0% towards the addition of a second westbound left turn lane with 200 feet of storage
at the Cook Street and I-10 WB ramp (Mitigation Measure TRANS.1). With the recommended
improvements, the intersection of Cook Street and the I-10 WB ramp will operate at acceptable
LOS. Impacts will be less than significant with Mitigation Measure TRANS.1 incorporated.
-67-
Table 9
EAP Intersection Delay and Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Traffic
Control1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Average
Delay2
LOS3
Average
Delay2
LOS3
Technology Drive/Gerald Ford Drive TS 14.6 B 14.8 B
Technology Drive/E. Driveway – The Village W. Driveway CSS 11.0 B 10.8 B
Technology Drive/College Drive RDB 3.5 A 3.3 A
South Driveway – University Park Drive/College Drive CSS 10.0 B 9.7 A
Pacific Avenue/College Drive RDB 3.0 A 3.1 A
Cook Street/University Park Drive RDB 3.5 A 3.6 A
Cook Street/I-10 WB Ramps
-Without Improvements
-With Improvements
TS
TS
75.8
25.3
E
C
11.9
11.2
B
B
Cook Street/I-10 EB Ramps TS 18.5 B 30.4 C
Cook Street/Gerald Ford Drive TS 29.9 C 33.8 C
Cook Street/University Park Drive TS 7.5 A 6.8 A
Cook Street/ Frank Sinatra Drive TS 12.8 B 29.2 C
Main Driveway/Gerald Ford Drive CSS 10.7 B 14.0 B
1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop; RDB = Roundabout.
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 (2024) conditions, with the inclusion of the proposed Project, ambient growth,
known cumulative projects, and construction of the same improvements at Cook Street and the I-
10 WB ramp, the analysis found that all study area intersections would operate at an acceptable
level of service except for the Cook Street and I-10 eastbound (EB) ramp intersection, which will
operate at LOS E during the evening peak hour without improvements. The traffic analysis
recommended improvements to address deficiencies: The Project should contribute its fair share
of 9.2% towards restriping the existing northbound right-turn travel lanes to achieve a 12-foot-
wide lane with 200 feet of storage, with remaining through travel lanes at 11-foot widths, at the
Cook Street and I-10 EB ramp (Mitigation Measure TRANS.1). With the recommended
improvements, the intersection of Cook Street and the I-10 EB ramp will operate at acceptable
LOS. Impacts will be less than significant with Mitigation Measure TRANS.1 incorporated.
-68-
Table 10
EAPC Intersection Delay and Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Traffic
Control1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Average
Delay2
LOS3
Average
Delay2
LOS3
Technology Drive/Gerald Ford Drive TS 15.7 B 17.6 B
Technology Drive/E. Driveway – The Village W. Driveway CSS 12.8 B 13.8 B
Technology Drive/College Drive RDB 4.7 A 5.0 A
South Driveway – University Park Drive/College Drive CSS 14.6 B 14.7 B
Pacific Avenue/College Drive RDB 4.0 A 4.5 A
Cook Street/University Park Drive RDB 4.6 A 5.4 A
Cook Street/I-10 WB Ramps
-Without Improvements
-With Improvements
TS
TS
>100
26.7
F
C
15.1
12.5
B
B
Cook Street/I-10 EB Ramps
-Without Improvements
-With Improvements
TS
TS
34.9
32.0
C
C
57.4
54.7
E
D
Cook Street/Gerald Ford Drive TS 40.3 D 46.5 D
Cook Street/University Park Drive TS 13.0 B 11.7 B
Cook Street/ Frank Sinatra Drive TS 16.6 B 46.8 D
Main Driveway/Gerald Ford Drive CSS 12.1 B 20.1 C
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
Horizon Year (2040) with Project Conditions
Under Horizon Year (2040) conditions, with the inclusion of the same improvements at Cook
Street and the I-10 WB and EB ramps, the analysis found that all study area intersections would
operate at an acceptable level of service. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation
Measure TRA.1, impacts associated with build out of the proposed Project will be less than
significant.
-69-
Table 11
Horizon Year with Project Intersection Delay and Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Traffic
Control1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Average
Delay2
LOS3
Average
Delay2
LOS3
Technology Drive/Gerald Ford Drive TS 17.7 B 19.6 B
Technology Drive/E. Driveway – The Village W. Driveway CSS 13.6 B 15.8 C
Technology Drive/College Drive RDB 5.1 A 5.6 A
South Driveway – University Park Drive/College Drive CSS 15.8 C 16.1 C
Pacific Avenue/College Drive RDB 4.2 A 4.8 A
Cook Street/University Park Drive RDB 5.0 A 6.2 A
Cook Street/I-10 WB Ramps
-Without Improvements
-With Improvements
TS
TS
>100
37.1
F
D
38.0
24.9
D
C
Cook Street/I-10 EB Ramps
-Without Improvements
-With Improvements
TS
TS
67.3
33.3
E
C
>100
28.7
F
C
Cook Street/Gerald Ford Drive TS 53.9 D 54.8 D
Cook Street/University Park Drive TS 18.5 B 26.4 C
Cook Street/ Frank Sinatra Drive TS 35.2 D 47.1 D
Main Driveway/Gerald Ford Drive CSS 13.1 B 25.5 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
Alternative Transportation
Existing on-street bike lanes are located on both sides of the roadways along Gerald Ford Drive
(west of Technology Drive), College Drive, and University Park Drive. Sidewalks generally exist
throughout the study area, except for the east side of Cook Street (north of Gerald Ford Drive),
north side of Gerald Ford Drive (between Pacific Avenue & Technology Drive), south side of
Gerald Ford Drive (east of Cook Street), and east and west side of Technology Drive. Sidewalks
currently exist along Gerald Ford Drive, Technology Drive, and College Drive adjacent to the
Project site. The City will require the applicant to restore site-adjacent sidewalks to excellent
condition by the project prior to opening day. Crosswalks at Project access points will be provided
in conjunction with the development of the Project. The Project would not conflict with plans or
policies addressing multimodal facilities.
The Project area is currently served by the Sunline with bus services along Cook Street via route
5 and route 10, however there are no transit stops within the immediate Project vicinity. The nearest
bus stop is approximately 0.35 miles southeast. 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.
-70-
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.
A Project-specific VMT analysis was prepared by Urban Crossroads in December 2022. VMT
projections are based upon the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Modal (RIVTAM),
which the County has identified as the appropriate tool for conducting VMT analysis for land use
projects. According to the VMT analysis, the Project is anticipated to have 363 employees and
generate 4,169 daily trip ends.
The Project is considered a “new local essential service” (such as medical offices), which puts
such services closer to residents. Per County Guidelines, the local essential services are evaluated
by calculating the net regional change in VMT. To determine whether or not there is a significant
impact, the City VMT with the Project employment is compared to without Project conditions. As
shown in the table below, the City VMT without the Project is estimated at 1,081,285, whereas
with the Project employment, the City VMT is estimated at 1,081,459, which is a net increase in
174 VMT. The project’s effect on VMT could potentially be significant without reductions
because it results in a cumulative VMT increases under the plus project condition compared to the
no project condition. However, after accounting for the 6% VMT reduction for virtual patient
appointments set forth in the County Guidelines, there will be a 521 VMT decrease under Project
conditions. 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).
Table 12
Citywide VMT With and Without Project
Category 2012 2040 2022
City VMT w/out Project 934,309 1,345,841 1,081,285
City SP w/out Project 85,236 128,280 100,608
City VMT/SP w/out Project 10.96 10.49 10.75
City VMT with Project 934,653 1,347,169 1,081,459
City SP with Project 85,598 128,643 100,971
City VMT/SP with Project 10.92 10.47 10.71
City VMT with Project with Virtual Appointments (6% Reduction) 1,080,938
City SP with Project with Virtual Appointments 100,971
City VMT/SP with Project with Virtual Appointments 10.71
c) No Impact. The Project is proposed to have access from Gerald Ford Drive, Technology Drive,
and University Park Drive. 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.
-71-
d) No Impact. All three driveways 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.
Mitigation Measures:
TRA.1 In addition to paying the requisite CVAG TUMF fee, and to remedy the LOS deficiency at the
intersections of Cook Street and the I-10 westbound and eastbound ramps, the Project is
responsible for the following fair share contributions:
• Intersection of Cook Street and I-10 Westbound Ramp: Project is responsible for 8.0%
towards a 2nd 200 ft. WB left turn lane.
• Intersection of Cook Street and I-10 Eastbound Ramp: Project is responsible for 9.2%
towards the restriping of existing NB travel lanes to achieve a 12ft. wide NB 200 ft. long
right turn lane, with remaining through travel lanes at 11ft. widths. Ultimately include
northbound free-right turn channelization.
Monitoring:
TRA.A The Project applicant shall coordinate with the City and CVAG the payment of CVAG’s TUMF
fee and the agreed upon fair share contribution for improvements to the intersection of Cook
Street and the I-10 westbound and eastbound ramps.
Responsible Parties: Project applicant, CVAG, City Engineer.
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).
University Medical Office Park Traffic Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, November 7, 2022.
University Medical Office Park VMT Screening Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, December 13,
2022.
-72-
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 consultation
-73-
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 results of consultation will be
included either as mitigation prior to the adoption of the Initial Study, or as conditions of approval.
However, the mitigation measure included in Section V, Cultural Resources, requires that an
archaeologist and Native American monitor be consulted should any resources be identified during
grading, to assure that impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Should a consulting tribe
request additional mitigation, it will be added to this Initial Study or to conditions of approval for
the Project.
Mitigation Measures:
See Section V, Cultural Resources.
Monitoring:
See Section V, Cultural Resources.
Sources: Historical/Archeological Resources Survey, University Medical Office Park Project, CRM
TECH, October 17, 2022; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific
Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016 (SCH 2015081020); Project materials.
-74-
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 18-inch water mains within Gerald Ford Drive,
College Drive and Technology 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.
-75-
Wastewater Treatment
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) also provides sewer service to the City of Palm Desert,
including the Project area. The Project site is located in an urban area where the main sewer lines were
laid out under the main roads and streets. The Project will extend sewer lines from an existing 8-inch
sewer main on Technology Drive and construct a 6-inch sewer lines throughout the site.
CVWD maintains sewer trunk lines ranging in size from 4 to 24 inches and five 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.
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. Natural gas is
provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). There are underground lines to the north,
east, and south of the Project site.
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 18-inch water mains beneath College Drive, Technology
Drive, and Gerald Ford Drive and will install new 8-inch water mains onsite. No new water
infrastructure other than onsite extensions will be required which could result in significant
environmental effects.
-76-
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 and University Neighborhood Specific Plan
(UNSP). The Project proposes the development of a medical office center and a Specific Plan
amendment to permit medical office uses in the NC zone of the UNSP. The Specific Plan
amendment would not increase the sites development intensity assumed in the 2016 Specific Plan
and will therefore not increase demand for utilities. Therefore, the Project’s water demand is
consistent with the UWMP’s projected future demands.
As discussed in Section X (Hydrology and Water Quality) of this Initial Study, the Project’s
projected annual water demand at buildout is approximately 79.65 acre-feet, which is 0.05% of
2025 projected water supply and 0.04% 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). Project water consumption will be reduced with low-flow
appliances, water-efficient irrigation practices, and drought-tolerant landscape materials. 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 8-inch sewer main beneath Technology Drive and will install
new 6-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
gallons per day (mgd) and currently treats an average daily flow of approximately 9 mgd.9 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.
9 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Water Systems Consulting, Inc., June 30, 2021, Table
4-16.
-77-
Stormwater Drainage
Compared to current conditions, the proposed Project represents an increase in impervious
surfaces, including buildings, roads, and sidewalks. The proposed Project includes retention and
conveyance facilities to manage storm flows, 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 the existing SCE infrastructure in the Project area.
SCE has existing facilities underground within Gerald Ford Drive, Technology Drive, and College
Drive. The Project will not require the addition or expansion of electric power facilities.
Natural Gas
The Project will provide local connections to the existing SoCalGas infrastructure within Gerald
Ford Drive, Technology Drive, and College Drive. 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 facility10, 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).11
As shown in the following table, the Project would develop 114,700 square feet of medical office
space and generate an estimated 62.8 tons of solid waste per year. This equals 502.4 cubic yards
per year12, which is approximately 0.0026% 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.
10 Riverside County Nondisposal Facility Element by Riverside County Department of Waste Resources (2015),
https://www.rcwaste.org/Portals/0/Files/Planning/CIWMP/NDFE.PDF.
11 CalRecycle SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2246?siteID=2368, accessed November 2022.
12 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.
-78-
Table 13
Estimated Solid Waste Disposal at Buildout
Proposed
Land Use
Disposal Rate*
Proposed
Units
(TSF)
Solid Waste Disposal
(lbs/day)
Projected Solid
Waste Disposal
(tons/year)
Office 6 pounds/1,000 square
feet/day 114.7 688.2 125.60
Subtotal: 125.6
Total (with 50% diversion): 62.80
*Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates by CalRecycle,
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, accessed November 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 November 2022; Project materials.
-79-
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
northern 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 5 miles to the
southwest in the Santa Rosa Mountains.
The Project site is accessed by Gerald Ford Drive, Technology Drive, and College
Drive/University Drive. Gerald Ford Drive is a key evacuation route in the city. 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
-80-
and 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; Fire Hazard Severity
Map, CalFire, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed November 2022.
-81-
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 and BIO.2 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.
-82-
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 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
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
(Available on City website)
C
Appendix C
Preliminary Hydrology Report
(Available on City website)
D
Appendix D
Traffic Impact Analysis
(Available on City website)
E
Appendix E
VMT Analysis
(Available on City website)