HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEIRPalmDesert reducedC ITY OF P ALM D ESERT
G ENERAL P LAN U PDATE &
U NIVERSITY N EIGHBORHOOD
S PECIFIC P LAN
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH#2015081020
Prepared for:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
Prepared by:
9755 CLAIREMONT MESA BOULEVARD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92124
AUGUST 2016
C ITY OF P ALM D ESERT
G ENERAL P LAN U PDATE &
U NIVERSITY N EIGHBORHOOD
S PECIFIC P LAN
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH#2015081020
Prepared for:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
Prepared by:
9755 CLAIREMONT MESA BOULEVARD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92124
CONTACT: MARK TEAGUE, AICP
MTEAGUE@MBAKERINTL.COM
AUGUST 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 Introduction
Environmental Setting/Definition of the Baseline and EIR Assumptions .. 1-1
Purpose of the Program Environmental Impact Report ............................ 1-4
Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies .................................................. 1-7
Required Permits and Approvals ............................................................... 1-8
Public Review of Draft EIR and Lead Agency Contact ................................ 1-8
Scope of This Draft EIR ............................................................................... 1-9
How to Use This Report ............................................................................. 1-9
2 Executive Summary
Project Under Review ................................................................................ 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................... 2-1
Alternatives to the Project ......................................................................... 2-2
Potential Areas of Controversy .................................................................. 2-4
Summary Table .......................................................................................... 2-4
3 Project Description
Project Summary ........................................................................................ 3-1
Background ................................................................................................ 3-1
Planning Area ............................................................................................. 3-3
Key Project Elements ................................................................................. 3-3
Project Characteristics ............................................................................... 3-7
Project Objectives .................................................................................... 3-19
4 Introduction to the Analysis
Baseline Existing Conditions Assumed in the Analysis ........................... 4.0-1
4.1 Aesthetics ...................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources ................................................ 4.2-1
4.3 Air Quality ..................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................... 4.4-1
4.5 Biological Resources...................................................................... 4.5-1
4.6 Cultural Resources ........................................................................ 4.6-1
4.7 Geology and Soils .......................................................................... 4.7-1
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................ 4.8-1
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................... 4.9-1
4.10 Land Use and Planning ................................................................ 4.10-1
4.11 Mineral Resources ...................................................................... 4.11-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II | CITY OF PALM DESERT
4.12 Noise .......................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Population, Employment, and Housing ...................................... 4.13-1
4.14 Public Services and Utilities ........................................................ 4.14-1
4.15 Transportation ............................................................................ 4.15-1
4.16 University Neighborhood Specific Plan ...................................... 4.16-1
5 Other CEQA Required Considerations
Introduction .............................................................................................. 5-1
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................ 5-1
Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects .......................................... 5-1
Growth Inducing Impacts .......................................................................... 5-3
Impacts of Induced Growth ....................................................................... 5-3
Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 5-4
6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Introduction .............................................................................................. 6-1
Development of Project Alternatives ........................................................ 6-2
Project Objectives ..................................................................................... 6-2
Summary of Significant Impacts ................................................................ 6-3
Alternatives Descriptions and Analysis ..................................................... 6-5
Comparison of the Alternatives .............................................................. 6-21
Environmentally Superior Alternative ..................................................... 6-23
7 List of Preparers
Appendices
1.0-1 Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters
3.0-1 City of Palm Desert General Plan
3.0-2 One Eleven Development Code
3.0-3 University Neighborhood Specific Plan
4.0 Technical Background Report
4.4-1 2020 Annual Emissions
4.4-2 2035 Annual Emissions
4.4-3 General Plan Fuel Consumption
4.6-1 AB52 Consultation Request
4.12-1 Noise Levels
4.15 Traffic Data
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | III
Figures
3-1 Regional Location
3-2 Planning Area
3-3 Proposed Land Use Diagram
3-4 Corridor Plan-Location
3-5 University Neighborhood Specific Plan
4.12-1 Existing Noise Contours
4.12-2 Future Noise Contours
4.15-1 Palm Desert Roadways and Classifications
4.15-2 Existing Bicycle and Golf Cart Network
4.15-3 Existing Sidewalk Coverage
4.15-4 Study Intersections
4.15-5 Existing (2014) Intersection Geometries and Peak Hour Volumes
4.15-6 General Plan and Bicycle and Golf Cart Network
4.15-7 Buildout (2035) Intersection Geometries and Peak Hour Volumes
Tables
1-1 Summary of NOP Comments .......................................................... 1-1
2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................. 2-5
3-1 Land Use Designations and Intensities ......................................... 3-10
4.3-1 Current Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards .......... 4.3-3
4.3-2 Palm Desert General Plan Consistency
with SCAQMD Transportation Control Measures ...................... 4.3-11
4.4-1 Coachella Valley 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................... 4.4-3
4.4-2 Palm Desert 2008 Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption ....... 4.4-4
4.4-3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Project Operations ....................... 4.4-18
4.4-4 General Plan Update GHG Emissions per Service Population.... 4.4-20
4.4-5 Coachella Valley 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................... 4.4-21
4.4-6 General Plan Update Energy Consumption Potential ................ 4.4-26
4.5-1 Previously Recorded CNDDB Occurrences of
Special-Status Species within 1 Mile of the Planning Area .......... 4.5-1
4.5-2 Special-Status Plan Species in the Planning Area ......................... 4.5-5
4.5-3 Special-Status Wildlife Species ..................................................... 4.5-8
4.5-4 Acreages of Vegetative Communities
within the Planning Area ............................................................ 4.5-17
4.6-1 Palm Desert Register Listings ....................................................... 4.6-2
4.9-1 Annual Water Balance in the West Valley Portion
of the Whitewater River Subbasin ............................................... 4.9-2
4.9-2 Estimated Groundwater Storage Capacity of the Coachella Valley
Groundwater Basin ...................................................................... 4.9-3
4.9-3 Beneficial Uses for the Receiving Waters for the Salton Sea
Watershed .................................................................................. 4.9-10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IV | CITY OF PALM DESERT
4.12-1 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure –
Land Use Compatibility ............................................................. 4.12-10
4.12-2 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure –
Stationary Noise Sources .......................................................... 4.12-12
4.12-3 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ...................................... 4.12-13
4.12-4 Traffic Noise Levels Existing and Future City of Palm Desert
Conditions ................................................................................. 4.12-22
4.12-5 Representative Vibration Source Levels
for Construction Equipment ..................................................... 4.12-28
4.13-1 Population Growth ..................................................................... 4.13-2
4.13-2 Palm Desert Forecasts for 2040 ................................................. 4.13-3
4.14.3-1 DSUSD Public Schools –
Palm Desert School Enrollment (2012-2013) ........................... 4.14-14
4.14.3-2 School Enrollment Generation Factors and Student Generation of
Proposed Project ...................................................................... 4.14-16
4.14.4-1 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space in Palm Desert –
Total Acreage ............................................................................ 4.14-18
4.14.6-1 Palm Desert Gold Course Irrigation,
Water Usage (2013-2014) ........................................................ 4.14-28
4.14.6-2 Types of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with New
Wastewater Treatment and Supply Infrastructure .................. 4.14-35
4.14.6-3 Water Service Area and Proposed General Plan
Population Forecasts ................................................................ 4.14-40
4.14.7-1 Palm Desert Solid Waste Disposal (2013) ................................ 4.14-42
4.15-1 Palm Desert Roadway Functional Classifications ....................... 4.15-1
4.15-2 Palm Desert Roadways ............................................................... 4.15-2
4.15-3 SunLine Transit Agency Routes .................................................. 4.15-3
4.15-4 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................... 4.15-6
4.15-5 Level of Service Definitions ........................................................ 4.15-9
4.15-6 Study Intersections ..................................................................... 4.15-9
4.15-7 Study Roadway Segments ........................................................ 4.15-11
4.15-8 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Thresholds ................. 4.15-14
4.15-9 Roadway Segment Level of Service Thresholds ....................... 4.15-15
4.15-10 HCM 2010 Roadway Segment Functional Class and Daily LOS
Thresholds ................................................................................ 4.15-15
4.15-11 Basic Freeway Segment Level of Service Thresholds ............... 4.15-16
4.15-12 Indian Wells Daily Roadway Capacity Values ........................... 4.15-17
4.15-13 La Quinta Daily Roadway Capacity Values ............................... 4.15-17
4.15-14 Existing (2014) Intersection Level of Service: Palm Desert ...... 4.15-18
4.15-15 Existing (2014) Intersection Level of Service:
CMP Intersections .................................................................... 4.15-23
4.15-16 Existing (2014) Roadway Segment Level of Service:
Palm Desert .............................................................................. 4.15-23
4.15-17 Existing (2014) Roadway Segment Level of Service: CMP ........ 4.15-25
4.15-18 Existing (2014) Roadway Segment Level of Service:
Rancho Mirage.......................................................................... 4.15-26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | V
4.15-19 Existing (2014) Roadway Segment Level of Service:
Indian Wells .............................................................................. 4.15-26
4.15-20 Existing (2014) Roadway Segment Level of Service:
La Quinta .................................................................................. 4.15-26
4.15-21 Existing (2014) Roadway Segment Level of Service:
County of Riverside .................................................................. 4.15-27
4.15-22 Existing (2014) Freeway Level of Service ................................. 4.15-27
4.15-23 Buildout (2040) Intersection Level of Service: Palm Desert .... 4.15-42
4.15-24 Buildout (2040) Roadway Segment Level of Service:
Palm Desert .............................................................................. 4.15-46
4.15-24 Buildout (2040) Level of Service (with Improvements):
Palm Desert .............................................................................. 4.15-49
4.15-25 Buildout (2040) Intersection Level of Service: Caltrans ........... 4.15-50
4.15-27 Buildout (2040) Freeway Level of Service ................................ 4.15-50
4.15-28 Buildout (2040) Intersection Level of Service:
CMP Intersections .................................................................... 4.15-52
4.15-29 Buildout (2040) Roadway Segment Level of Service: CMP ...... 4.15-53
4.15-30 Buildout (2040) Roadway Segment Level of Service:
Rancho Mirage ......................................................................... 4.15-54
4.15-31 Buildout (2040) Roadway Segment Level of Service:
Indian Wells .............................................................................. 4.15-54
4.15-32 Buildout (2040) Roadway Segment Level of Service:
La Quinta ................................................................................. 4.15-54
4.15-33 Buildout (2040) Roadway Segment Level of Service:
Riverside County ...................................................................... 4.15-55
4.15-34 Palm Desert Weekday VMT ..................................................... 4.15-66
4.15-35 Coachella Valley VMT Comparisons – Future Year .................. 4.15-66
4.16-1 Population & Employment Growth Estimate ........................... 4.16-18
5-1 Population & Employment Growth Estimate .................................. 5-5
6.0-1 Summary of Significant Impacts ...................................................... 6-4
6.0-2 Comparison of Project Objectives ................................................. 6-20
6.0-3 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Alternatives to the
Proposed Project ........................................................................... 6-22
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VI | CITY OF PALM DESERT
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
This section contains an introduction to the environmental analysis, including a
description of the environmental setting. The reader is referred to the individual
technical sections (Sections 4.1 through 4.15) for topic-specific assumptions,
methodologies, and significance criteria used in the impact analysis. A Technical
Background Report (TBR), attached to this document as Appendix 4.0, describes and
analyzes existing conditions in and around the city. The TBR provides a foundation for
the development of goals, policies, and programs in the Palm Desert General Plan
update and a basis for the Environmental Setting section for each environmental issue
area addressed in this EIR. For purposes of this EIR, the Palm Desert General Plan
update (proposed project) refers to the whole of the action described in Section 2.0,
Project Description, of this EIR. Where analysis concerns a portion of the proposed
project the portion of the proposed project will be identified.
Environmental Setting/Definition of the
Baseline and EIR Assumptions
According to Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, an EIR must include a description of the existing physical environmental
conditions in the vicinity of the project to provide the “baseline condition” against
which project-related impacts are compared. Normally the baseline condition is the
physical condition that exists when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published. The
NOP for the EIR was published on August 5, 2015 (see Appendix 1.0). Table 1-1
summarizes the NOP comment letters received (see Appendix 1.0 for full comment
letters).
Table 1-1 Summary of NOP Comments
Commenting
Agency Person
Date of
Comment
Letter Summary of Comments
South Coast
Air Quality
Management
District
(SCAQMD)
Ian MacMillan,
Planning and
Rules Manager
August 13,
2015
The SCAQMD recommends that the
lead agency use the CEQA Air Quality
Handbook as guidance when preparing
its air quality analysis. Further, the lead
agency should identify any potential
adverse air quality impacts that could
occur from all phases of the project
and all air pollutant sources related to
the project. In the event that the
project generates significant adverse
air quality impacts, CEQA requires that
all feasible mitigation measures that go
beyond what is required by law be
utilized during project construction
and operation to minimize or eliminate
these impacts.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Table 1-1, continued
1-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Commenting
Agency Person
Date of
Comment
Letter Summary of Comments
State of
California,
Governor’s
Office of
Planning and
Research
Scott Morgan,
Director, State
Clearinghouse
August 12,
2015
The Office of Planning and Research
states that responsible agencies must
transmit their comments on the scope
and content of the NOP, focusing on
specific information related to their
own statutory responsibility, within 30
days of receipt of the NOP from the
lead agency.
Riverside
County
Department of
Water
Resources
Kinika Hesterly,
Urban/Regional
Planner III
August 25,
2015
The Riverside County Department of
Water Resources states that to assess
waste impacts, the DEIR will need to
include the projected amount of waste
generated by the project, using an
appropriate waste generation factor
for constructing activities and the
project’s types of land uses. Further,
the letter states that the project
proponent is encouraged to consider
incorporating measures to enhance the
City’s efforts to comply with the State’s
mandate of 50 percent solid waste
diversion from landfills.
Soboba Band
of Luiseño
Indians
Joseph
Ontiveros,
Cultural
Resource
Director
September
3, 2015
The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
concluded that although the project is
outside the existing reservation, the
project area does fall within the
bounds of the Tribe’s Tribal Traditional
Use Areas. However, at this time the
Soboba Band does not have any
specific concerns regarding known
cultural resources in the specified
areas that the project encompasses,
but it does request that the
appropriate consultation continue to
take place. In addition, the Tribe
requests that approved Native
American Monitor(s) be present during
any future ground-disturbing
proceedings, including surveys and
archaeological testing, associated with
this project.
Historical
Society, Palm
Desert
Harry Quinn,
Vice President
August 31,
2015
The Historical Society letter describes
confusion about Figure 2, Proposed
General Plan Use Designations, and
enhancing the shopping areas along
Highway 111.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Table 1-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 1-3
Commenting
Agency Person
Date of
Comment
Letter Summary of Comments
Pala Tribal
Historic
Preservation
Office
Shasta C.
Gaughen,
Tribal Historic
Preservation
Officer
September
8, 2015
The project is not within the
boundaries of the recognized Pala
Indian Reservation. The project is also
beyond the boundaries of the territory
that the Tribe considers its Traditional
Use Area (TUA).
Riverside
County Airport
Land Use
Commission
(ALUC)
John J. G.
Guerin,
Principal
Planner
September
9, 2015
The ALUC welcomes the opportunity to
work directly with the City and
encourages the City to endeavor to
establish a General Plan that is
consistent with the 2004 Bermuda
Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan (ALUCP) and with the Countywide
Policies of the 2004 Riverside County
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
policy document.
US
Department of
Homeland
Security; FEMA
Gregor
Blackburn,
CFM, Branch
Chief,
Floodplain
Management
and Insurance
Branch
August 24,
2015
FEMA suggests that the City review the
current effective countywide Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the
County of Riverside (Community
Number 060245) and City of Palm
Desert (Community Number 060629)
Maps, revised on various dates.
Additionally, many National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) participating
communities have adopted floodplain
management building requirements
that are more restrictive than the
minimum federal standards described
in Vol. 44 Code of Regulations.
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
(NAHC)
Katy Sanchez,
Associate
Government
Program
Analyst
August 28,
2015
The NAHC recommends that local
governments conduct record searches
through the NAHC and California
Historic Resources Information System
(CHRIS) to determine if any cultural
places are located within the area(s)
affected by the proposed project. A
Sacred Lands File search was not
completed. Local governments should
be aware that records maintained by
the NAHC and CHRIS are not
exhaustive, and a negative response to
these searches does not preclude the
existence of a cultural place. A tribe
may be the only source of information
regarding the existence of a cultural
place.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Table 1-1, continued
1-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Commenting
Agency Person
Date of
Comment
Letter Summary of Comments
Southern
California Gas
Company
Geoffrey
Danker, Senior
Policy &
Planning
Advisor
no date Southern California Gas provided
comments regarding technology
neutrality, sustainable mobility, and
natural gas technologies.
Southern
California
Association of
Governments
Ping Chang,
Program
Manager II,
Land Use and
Environmental
Planning
September
11, 2015
SCAG recommends that the City review
the SCAG 2012 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS) Final
Program EIR mitigation measures for
guidance, as appropriate.
Coachella
Valley Water
District
(CVWD)
Steve Bigley,
Director of
Environmental
Services
September
9, 2015
CVWD submitted four comments
regarding listing CVWD’s 5-year Capital
Improvement Plan, noting that the
district is embarking on a multiyear
construction program to construct new
infrastructure and facilities to treat
chromium-6; is investigating suitable
locations for future surface water
treatment facilities within the General
Plan area; and has adopted and
periodically updates the Coachella
Valley Water Management Plan
(CVWMP). The goal of the CVWMP is
to prevent long-term overdraft.
Rincon Band of
Luiseno
Indians
Jim
McPherson,
Manager,
Rincon Cultural
Resources
Department
September
8, 2015
The Rincon Band states that the
identified location is not within the
Luiseño Aboriginal Territory.
Purpose of the Program Environmental Impact
Report
According to the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15168[a]), a state or local agency
should prepare a program EIR, rather than a project EIR, when the lead agency
proposes the following:
• A series of related actions that are linked geographically;
• Logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or plans
that govern the conduct of a continuing program; or
• Individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or
regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects that
can be mitigated in similar ways.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 1-5
A program EIR “may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as
one large project and are related...in connection with the issuance of rules,
regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing
program” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[a][3]). This program EIR considers a
series of goals, policies and objectives related to implementation of the proposed
General Plan update.
As a program EIR, this document focuses on the overall effect of the proposed project.
The analyses in this EIR do not examine the effects of site-specific development
projects that may occur within the overall umbrella of this program in the future. The
nature of general plans is such that many proposed policies are intended to be
general, with details to be worked out during implementation. As a result, many of the
impacts and mitigation measures in this EIR can be described only in general or
qualitative terms. Where possible this EIR does quantify impacts related to
transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and others, making
reasonable assumptions as to the amount, type, and character of the change
anticipated with implementation of the proposed project.
Tiering and Streamlining
The City will make use of existing streamlining provided by CEQA, emerging
streamlining techniques, such as those related to implementation of the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) Sustainable Communities Strategy
(Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21155), and other streamlining techniques that
may become available in the future. The City has invested substantial resources in the
proposed General Plan update and this EIR, and wishes to promote fiscally prudent
use of this effort, to accommodate development consistent with the proposed project.
Tiering refers to a multilevel approach to preparing environmental documents set
forth in PRC Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. The analysis in
this program EIR is considered the first tier of environmental review upon which
future, project-specific CEQA documents can build. Environmental analysis for future
projects consistent with the General Plan can be streamlined to allow subsequent
documents to focus on new or site-specific impacts (State CEQA Guidelines Section
15168[d]).
Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 allows a lead agency to narrow the focus of
project-level analysis to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or
project (PRC Section 21083.3(a)). The PRC also limits the effects that can be
considered peculiar in project-level analysis under the program EIR.
Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that where a first-tier EIR has
“adequately addressed” the subject of cumulative impacts, such impacts need not be
revisited in second- and/or third-tier documents. According to Section 15152(f)(3),
significant effects identified in a first-tier EIR are adequately addressed, for purposes
of later approvals, if the lead agency determines that such effects have been either
been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior [EIR] and findings adopted in
connection with that prior [EIR]; or examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior
[EIR] to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site-specific revisions, the
imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the
later project.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
The Public Resources Code provides streamlining coverage to the City of Palm Desert
and other public agencies that have authority to implement the proposed General
Plan update. Public agencies can use uniformly applied policies or standards to
mitigate effects of future projects, avoiding the need to analyze these effects, unless
new information arises that changes the impact analysis (PRC Section 21083.3 (d)). For
this reason, this EIR includes references to General Plan update policies and
implementation actions, where appropriate, to address environmental impacts. Future
CEQA documents can reference the same proposed General Plan update policies and
actions, where appropriate, to demonstrate less than significant impacts. The City may
consider specific plans, area plans, corridor plans, downtown core area plans, or other
documents to implement the proposed General Plan update in a smaller geographic
area of the city.
The City acknowledges and intends to make best use of the advantages to the
programmatic approach to environmental analysis and reporting in this EIR. As noted
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(b):
Use of a program EIR can provide the following advantages. The program EIR can:
(1) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and
alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action;
(2) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-
case analysis;
(3) Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations;
(4) Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide
mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to
deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts; and
(5) Allow reduction in paperwork.
University Neighborhood Specific Plan
In conjunction with the preparation of the General Plan, the City has prepared the
University Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP) that evaluates an area of the City in
greater detail. The intent of the Specific Plan and its evaluation in this EIR, is to allow
subsequent projects to move forward without the need to prepare substantial
environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA Sections 15182 and 15183. As the Specific
Plan is implemented, individual projects will be compared to the impacts evaluated in
this EIR to determine if any additional analysis is warranted. The evaluation process for
individual projects is outlined in CEQA Section 15162. Projects consistent with the
Specific Plan would be considered pursuant to CEQA Section 15168(c) that states:
(c) Use with Later Activities. Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in
the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental
document must be prepared.
(1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program
EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or
a Negative Declaration.
(2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur
or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve
the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program
EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 1-7
(3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives
developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program.
(4) Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency
should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of
the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of
the operation were covered in the program EIR.
(5) A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it
deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as
possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the program, many subsequent
activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the
program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required.
One Eleven Development Code
In conformance with Government Code Section 65860, the proposed project includes
the adoption of the One Eleven Development Code that is intended to implement the
General Plan vision for the Highway 111 corridor. The Development Code regulates
building design and setback consistent with the proposed project.
Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies
Lead Agency
In conformance with Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City
of Palm Desert is the lead agency for preparation of the environmental analysis
associated with the proposed General Plan update. The City, as the lead agency, is
responsible for scoping the analysis, preparing the EIR, and responding to comments
received on the Draft EIR.
Responsible Agencies
Responsible agencies are other state and local public agencies that have authority to
carry out or approve a project or that are required to approve a portion of the project
for which a lead agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or initial study/negative
declaration. Because the proposed project is a General Plan, no agencies other than
the City of Palm Desert have approval or permitting authority for the plan’s adoption.
Implementation of the General Plan update would involve many additional
responsible agencies, depending on the specifics of the nature of subsequent projects.
The following are some of the agencies that may be required to act as responsible
agencies for subsequent projects:
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), including the Division of
Aeronautics
• California Air Resources Board
• California Department of Housing and Community Development
• State Office of Historic Preservation
• State Reclamation Board
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
• State Lands Commission
• California Department of Parks and Recreation
• State Water Resources Control Board
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
• South Coast Air Quality Management District
• Native American Heritage Commission
• Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
Trustee Agencies
Trustee agencies under CEQA are public agencies with legal jurisdiction over natural
resources that are held in trust for the people of California and that would be affected
by a project, whether or not the agencies have authority to approve or implement the
project. Development under the proposed General Plan update would not generally
affect lands under the jurisdiction of a trustee agency; however, the trustee agencies
with jurisdiction that could be affected by subsequent projects include the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California State Lands Commission, and the
California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Required Permits and Approvals
Project approval requires the following actions by the Palm Desert City Council:
• Certification of this program EIR
• Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
• Adoption of the University Neighborhood Specific Plan
• Adoption of the One Eleven Development Code
The EIR will be used in the consideration of subsequent actions, including:
• Zoning amendments
• Subdivision maps
• Community plans
• Specific plans
• Special planning districts
• Special permits
• Historic preservation actions
• Planning actions
• Infrastructure and public facilities siting and project approvals
• Other related actions
Public Review of Draft EIR and Lead Agency
Contact
Upon publication of this Draft EIR, the City will provide public notice of the document’s
availability for public review and invite comment from the general public, agencies,
organizations, and other interested parties. Copies of the Draft EIR will be available on
the City’s website at http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/general-plan-update
and at the following locations:
City of Palm Desert Planning Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(open to the public Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.)
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 1-9
The public review and comment period is 45 days from Friday, August 19, 2016,
through Monday, October 3, 2016. Written public comments on the Draft EIR must be
received no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, October 3, 2016. Written comments or
questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to:
Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
rstendell@cityofpalmdesert.org
Following the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The Final EIR will
respond to written comments received during the public review period. The City
Council will review and consider the Final EIR prior to their decision to approve, revise,
or reject the updated General Plan.
Scope of This Draft EIR
As the lead agency, the City determined that this Draft EIR will address the following
technical issue areas:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural and Forest
Resources
• Air Quality
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Energy Conservation
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population, Employment, and
Housing
• Public Services and Utilities,
including Police, Fire, Schools,
Parks and Recreation, Other
Public Facilities, Water Supply,
Wastewater, and Solid Waste
• Transportation
The specific topics evaluated are described in each of the resource chapters presented
in Chapter 4.0.
How to Use This Report
This report includes eight principal parts: Executive Summary; Project Description;
Environmental Analysis (Impacts and Mitigation Measures); Other CEQA-Required
Considerations; Alternatives; Report Preparers; and Appendices.
The Executive Summary (Chapter 2) presents an overview of the results and
conclusions of the environmental evaluation. This chapter identifies impacts of the
proposed project and available mitigation measures.
The Project Description (Chapter 3) describes the location of the project, existing
conditions in the Planning Area, and the nature and location of specific elements of
the proposed General Plan update.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
The Environmental Analysis (Chapter 4) includes a topic-by-topic analysis of impacts
that would or may result from implementation of the proposed project or alternatives.
The analysis is organized into 16 resource chapters. Each chapter is organized into
major subsections: Environmental Setting and Regulatory Setting (a summary of
existing conditions), and Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The Impacts and
Mitigation Measures subsection also describes cumulative impacts and mitigation
measures. Appendix 4.0, the Palm Desert General Plan Update Technical Background
Report, provides additional detail regarding the environmental and regulatory setting
for each resource chapter.
Other CEQA-Required Considerations (Chapter 5) discusses issues required by CEQA:
unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible environmental changes, growth
inducement, and a summary of cumulative impacts.
Alternatives to the Proposed Project (Chapter 6) includes a description of the project
alternatives. CEQA requires an EIR to provide adequate information for decision
makers to make a reasonable choice between alternatives based on the
environmental aspects of the proposed project and alternatives. The impacts of the
alternatives are qualitatively compared to those of the proposed project. This chapter
also identifies the environmentally superior alternative.
Report Preparers (Chapter 8) includes a list of preparers of the EIR.
The Appendices contain a number of reference items, including an extensive Technical
Background Report (TBR) that provides support and documentation of the analyses
performed for this EIR. The TBR and any other technical studies are included on a CD
inserted in the back cover of this document or available on the City’s website:
(http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org).
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-1
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Under Review
This program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) considers the environmental impacts
likely to occur with adoption and implementation of the Palm Desert General Plan
update. This EIR is designed to inform decision-makers in Palm Desert, other
responsible and trustee agencies, and the general public of the potential
environmental effects of approval and implementation of the proposed project. A
detailed description of the proposed project is provided in Chapter 3, Project
Description. The City of Palm Desert (City) is the lead agency for environmental review
of the proposed project.
The General Plan update defines long-term community goals, decision-making
policies, and implementation programs. The General Plan update will focus on key
areas of the city, including the Highway 111 corridor/City Center and the areas around
the California State University and University of California campuses. The General Plan
update will also include goals and policies that provide the City with the tools to seek
pedestrian-oriented development patterns to diversify the city’s existing primarily
automobile-oriented development patterns and realize both a true City Center and a
vibrant university campus area.
The General Plan will be prepared in compliance with Government Code Section
65300 that states:
Each planning agency shall prepare and the legislative body of each county
and city shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the
physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its
boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its
planning. Chartered cities shall adopt general plans, which contain the
mandatory elements specified in Section 65302.
The content of the General Plan update will describe intended development and
advised changes to be made to the cityscape and community over the next 25 years.
The proposed elements, with their respective goals and policies, address a number of
topics and are titled Land Use & Community Character, Mobility, Health & Wellness,
Environmental Resources, Safety, Noise, and Public Services & Utilities. The City’s
Housing Element is current, has been certified by the State, and will not be included as
a part of this update.
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As shown in Table 2-1, a number of project impacts identified in the EIR were found to
be less than significant, requiring no mitigation. These impacts are found in the
following sections: Aesthetics; Agricultural and Forestry Resources; Biological
Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Population, Employment and
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Housing; Public Services and Utilities; and Transportation. In the course of drafting the
EIR for this project, it was determined that numerous other identified impacts could
be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures described in Chapter 4 of the EIR.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Under CEQA, a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial or
potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area
affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient
noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines, Section
15382). Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in
significant impacts to some of these resources, which are analyzed in Chapters 4.1
through 4.15 of this document and summarized in Table 2-1 (provided at the end of
this chapter).
This EIR discusses mitigation measures that could be implemented by the City to
reduce potential adverse impacts to a level that is considered less than significant.
Such mitigation measures are noted in this document and are found in the following
sections: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Public Services and Utilities and
Transportation. However, even with the application of feasible mitigation measures,
some impacts could not be reduced to less-than-significant levels. The significant and
unavoidable impacts are identified below.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.4-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the
environment and inhibit the goals of Assembly Bill 32. Adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in new
development and redevelopment of property throughout the planning area,
which would result in GHG emissions from construction activities that would
contribute to the cumulative effect of climate change.
Transportation
4.15-2 Conflict with Caltrans Performance Standards. Adoption and implementation
of the General Plan update would not result in unacceptable performance at
the single Caltrans intersection in Palm Desert, but would contribute to
unacceptable performance along six freeway segments.
4.15-10 Cumulative Conflict with Caltrans Performance Standards. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update would not result in unacceptable
performance at the single Caltrans intersection in Palm Desert, but would
contribute to unacceptable performance along six freeway segments.
Alternatives to the Project
Chapter 6, “Alternatives”, of this EIR contains a full description and analysis of four
alternatives to the proposed project that are analyzed in this Draft EIR. The
alternatives are:
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-3
Alternative 1, No Project: This alternative is analyzed in this EIR, as it is
required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). According to Section
15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the “no project” analysis shall discuss
“what is reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project
were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available
infrastructure and community services.”
This alternative assumes that the proposed project would not be adopted
and implemented. Instead, the City would continue to grow and develop
consistent with the existing 2004 General Plan. Alternative 1 would
continue to allow for growth because there is sufficient vacant land within
the Planning Area to accommodate the projected population increase, and
no changes to the General Plan, including the Land Use Map, Circulation
Diagram, goals, policies, or actions, would occur. Alternative 1 assumes that
none of the other proposed General Plan elements would be adopted and
that the City would not adopt the 111 Corridor Plan (City Center Area Plan)
or the University Neighborhood Specific Plan.
Additionally, as has been done in the past, the City would still update its
transportation improvements blueprint and Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) based on current available information without adopting a new
Mobility Element. The City would pursue the same physical improvements
with or without an updated Mobility Element.
Alternative 2, Decreased Density: This alternative assumes that the 111
Corridor Plan will not be adopted and implemented along with the proposed
project. The underutilized commercial area along Highway 111 would remain
and be developed consistent with the 2004 General Plan land use
configuration. In Palm Desert, most portions of Highway 111, including within
the 111 Corridor Plan area, have already been improved to the roadway’s
ultimate six-lane divided standard. However, circulation, access, parking,
landscape, and urban design improvements will not occur. The following list
highlights improvements that would not be implemented:
o Highway 111 – Lane widths will not be reduced to the 10-foot standard,
and no bike or pedestrian facilities would be constructed.
o Highway 111 Boulevard Improvements – Reconfigured frontage roads to
improve vehicular circulation and pedestrian and bicyclist comfort and
safety would not be constructed along Highway 111.
o Downtown District – The Downtown Core Overlay District to facilitate
mixed-use development fronting Highway 111, El Paseo, and cross streets,
as well as more intense development in certain blocks near San Pablo
Street, would not occur.
o San Pablo Avenue – Modifications to the streets to facilitate public and
private development based on the proposed street types would not be
implemented.
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Potential Areas of Controversy
This EIR is a comprehensive document that evaluates each environmental topic that
could be applicable to the proposed project. The environmental topics covered, as
potential areas of controversy, include: Aesthetics; Agricultural and Forest Resources;
Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources;
Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality;
Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Noise; Population, Employment, and
Housing; Public Services and Utilities; and Transportation.
The City published and circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) from August 10, 2015
through September 11, 2015, which was distributed to local, regional, and State
agencies and posted on the City website at http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org. The
NOP and written comments received on the NOP are included in Appendix 1.0-1 of
this EIR. Issues raised by reviewing agencies and the public during the scoping process
can be found in Table 1-1 Summary of NOP Comment in Section 1.0, Introduction.
Summary Table
Information in Table 2-1 has been organized to correspond with the environmental
issues discussed in Chapter 4. The table is arranged in four columns:
environmental impacts,
level of significance prior to mitigation,
mitigation measures, and
the level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures.
If an impact is determined to be significant or potentially significant after
implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies and implementation
programs, mitigation measures are identified, where appropriate and feasible. More
than one mitigation measure may be required to reduce the impact to a less-than-
significant level. This EIR assumes that all applicable plans, policies, and regulations
would be implemented, including, but not necessarily limited to, the proposed
General Plan Update policies and implementation programs, laws, and requirements
or recommendations of the City of Palm Desert. Applicable plans, policies, and
regulations are identified and described in the Regulatory Setting of each resource
chapter and within the relevant impact analysis. Further description of both the
existing environmental setting and existing regulatory setting can be found in the
Technical Background Report (TBR), which is provided as Appendix A to the EIR. A
description of the organization of the environmental analysis, as well as key
foundational assumptions regarding the approach to the analysis, is provided in
Chapter 4.0, “Introduction to the Analysis.”
For a complete description of potential impacts and recommended mitigation
measures, please refer to the specific discussions in Chapter 4.
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.1 Aesthetics
Project-Specific Impacts
4.1-1 Effects on Scenic Vistas. Adoption and
implementation of the proposed General
Plan would include new development in the
planning area, including buildings, structures,
paved areas, roadways, utilities, and other
improvements, potentially altering scenic
vistas in the planning area.
LTS None required. N/A
4.1-2 Degrade Existing Visual Character. Adoption
and implementation of the proposed General
Plan would include new development in the
planning area that could substantially
degrade the existing visual character within
or surrounding the planning area.
LTS None required. N/A
4.1-3 Include Sunlight-blocking Structures.
Adoption and implementation of the
proposed General Plan would include new
development in the planning area that could
include sunlight-blocking structures near
shadow-sensitive uses.
LTS None required. N/A
4.1-4 Create New Sources of Light or Glare.
Adoption and implementation of the
proposed General Plan would include new
development in the planning area that would
create new sources of light and glare.
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Cumulative Impacts
4.1-5 Cumulative effects on Aesthetics. Adoption
and implementation of the General Plan
update would not include new development
that would substantially degrade scenic
vistas from other nearby areas outside the
Planning Area, damage scenic resources
within a state scenic highway, existing visual
character within or surrounding the Planning
Area, or create new sources of light or glare.
Therefore, cumulative aesthetic impacts
would be less than significant.
LCC None required. N/A
4.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources
Project-Specific Impacts
4.2-1 Convert Farmland or Forestland and Conflict
with Existing Zoning for Agricultural or Forest
Use. Adoption and implementation of the
General Plan update could result in new
development and redevelopment of
property throughout the Planning Area.
There is no Prime Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance in the Planning Area.
The Planning Area does contain Unique
Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance;
however, the land is not used as farmland.
NI None required. N/A
Cumulative Impacts
4.2-5 Cumulative Effects on Agricultural and Forest
Resources. Adoption and implementation of
the General Plan update in addition to
anticipated future development in
surrounding cities could cause a substantial
LCC None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-7
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
change in the significance of agricultural and
forest resources as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. The loss of some
agricultural resources may be prevented
through implementation of CEQA review and
surrounding city policies, which would not,
however, ensure that these resources can be
protected and preserved.
4.3 Air Quality
Project-Specific Impacts
4.3-1 Adoption and implementation of the City of
Palm Desert’s General Plan does not include
any specific development proposals.
However, it would allow for new
development and redevelopment of
property throughout the planning area,
which could result in air contaminant
emissions associated with construction and
operation of future and existing land uses
that would affect how the region attains and
maintains air quality standards. Adoption
and implementation of the City of Palm
Desert’s General Plan policies and programs
would comply with the regional Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) and would result
in a less than significant impact.
LTS None required. N/A
4.3-2 Adoption and implementation of the City of
Palm Desert’s General Plan does not include
any specific development proposals.
However, it would allow new development
and redevelopment of property throughout
the planning area, which would generate air
contaminant emissions from short-term
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
construction of planned land uses. These
emissions may result in adverse impacts to
local air quality, and potential impacts to
sensitive receptors, that would be temporary
for each construction project, but could
occur for multiple projects simultaneously.
Adoption and implementation of the City of
Palm Desert’s General Plan policies and
programs and enforcement of current
SCAQMD Rules and Regulations would help
reduce short-term emissions and these
emissions can be mitigated on a specific
development basis. Therefore, construction
emissions would result in a less than
significant impact.
4.3-3 Adoption and implementation of the City of
Palm Desert’s General Plan would generate
air contaminant emissions from long-term
operation of planned land uses. These
emissions may result in adverse impacts to
local air quality, and potential impacts to
sensitive receptors. Adoption and
implementation of the City of Palm Desert’s
General Plan policies and programs and
enforcement of current SCAQMD Rules and
Regulations would help reduce long-term
emissions. Therefore, operational emissions
from long-term operation of the City of Palm
Desert’s General Plan would result in a less
than significant impact.
LTS None required. N/A
4.3-4 Adoption and implementation of the City of
Palm Desert’s General Plan would generate
and contribute vehicle traffic to existing
roadways within the city as a result of
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-9
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
proposed land uses, which could contribute
to potential CO hot spots. However, traffic
volumes anticipated at intersections
throughout the city with implementation of
the City of Palm Desert’s General Plan would
not be large enough to trigger a CO hot spot,
resulting in a less than significant impact.
4.3-5 The proposed City of Palm Desert General
Plan does not include land uses that would
generate substantial odors or expose existing
receptors to odors. Should future needs
arise, adoption and implementation of City
of Palm Desert’s General Plan policies and
programs and compliance with SCAQMD
Rules and Regulations would result in a less
than significant impact.
LTS None required. N/A
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project-Specific and Cumulative Impacts
4.4-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions that may
have a significant impact on the environment
and inhibit the goals of Assembly Bill 32.
Adoption and implementation of the
proposed General Plan would result in new
development and redevelopment of
property throughout the planning area,
which would result in GHG emissions from
construction activities that would contribute
to the cumulative effect of climate change.
SU Implementation of programs and policies, derived largely from the
General Plan, will reduce potential impacts but would not prevent the
generation of GHG emissions. Also, any reductions in emissions would not
be to levels considered less than significant, as it is impossible to quantify
the effectiveness of each measure at the General Plan level. Individual
development projects will be required to undergo project-specific
environmental review, and mitigation measures will be identified at that
time to reduce any significant impacts. The projects must meet SCAQMD,
Palm Desert Strategic Plan, and Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability
Plan requirements.
SU
4.4-2 Develop Land Uses and Patterns That Cause
Wasteful, Inefficient, and Unnecessary
Consumption of Energy or Construct New or
Retrofitted Buildings That Would Have
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Excessive Energy Requirements for Daily
Operation. Implementation of the General
Plan update will result in energy
consumption that would contribute to less
than significant impacts on the environment.
4.5 Biological Resources
Project-Specific Impacts
4.5-1 Impacts to Special-Status Species. Adoption
and implementation of the General Plan
update would result in the loss or
degradation of existing populations or
suitable habitat of special-status plant and
wildlife species. However, adherence with
the CVMSHCP and adoption and
implementation of General Plan policies and
implementation actions would result in a less
than significant impact..
LTS MM 4.5-1 Pertaining to special-status species (identified in
Tables 4.5-1, 4.5-2, and 4.5-3) with the potential to
occur in the Planning Area that are not part of the
CVMSHCP:
Prior to the approval of grading plans for
development associated with the General Plan
update, the project applicant(s) shall retain a
qualified biologist to perform a biological resources
evaluation for private and public development
projects in order to determine the presence/absence
of non-covered special-status plant species with the
potential to occur in and adjacent to (within 100 feet,
where appropriate) the proposed impact area,
including construction access routes. It is required
that such surveys be conducted at the proper time of
year when rare or endangered species are both
evident and identifiable.
For projects in which special-status species are
found, likely to occur, or where the presence of the
species can be reasonably inferred, the City shall
require feasible mitigation of impacts to ensure that
the project does not contribute to the decline of
affected special-species populations in the region to
the extent that their decline would impact the
viability of the regional population. Before the
LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-11
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
approval of grading plans or any ground-breaking
activity for development associated with the General
Plan update, the project applicant(s) shall submit a
mitigation plan concurrently to the CDFW and the
USFWS for review and comment. The plan shall
include mitigation measures for the population(s) to
be directly affected. The actual level of mitigation
may vary depending on the sensitivity of the species,
its prevalence in the area, and the current state of
knowledge about overall population trends and
threats to its survival. The final mitigation strategy
for directly impacted plant species shall be
determined by the CDFW and the USFWS through
the mitigation plan approval process.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to the approval of
grading plans
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert
Planning Department
4.5-2 Impacts to Sensitive Biological Communities
or Riparian Habitat. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
could result in the loss or degradation of
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
communities considered sensitive habitats
under CEQA. However, adoption and
implementation of General Plan update
policies and implementation actions would
result in a less than significant impact.
LTS None required. N/A
4.5-3 Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands. Adoption
and implementation of the proposed General
Plan could result in the loss of jurisdictional
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-12 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
waters of the United States and waters of
the State.
4.5-4 Impacts to the Movement of Native Resident
or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or
Within an Established Migratory Corridor.
Adoption and implementation of the
proposed General Plan could impede wildlife
movement within the planning area.
LTS None required. N/A
4.5-5 Conflict with Any Local Policies or Ordinances
Protecting Biological Resources, such as a
Tree Preservation Policy or Ordinance.
Implementation of the General Plan update
will not result in a conflict with a local policy
or ordinance protecting biological resources,
including but not limited to Title 24,
Environment and Conservation, of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code.
NI None required. N/A
4.5-6 Conflict with an Adopted Plan.
Implementation of the proposed project
could conflict with provisions of the
CVMSHCP. However, compliance with
provisions in the CVMSHCP, including
payment of mitigation fees would result in
less than significant impacts.
LTS None required. N/A
Cumulative Impacts
4.5-7 Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources.
Implementation of the General Plan update,
in combination with existing, approved,
proposed, and reasonably foreseeable
development in the region, will result in the
LCC None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-13
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
conversion of habitat and impact biological
resources.
4.6 Cultural Resources
Project-Specific Impacts
4.6-1 Substantial Change in the Significance of a
Historical Resource. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
could result in new development and
redevelopment of property throughout the
Planning Area, which could cause a
substantial change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.
LTS None required. N/A
4.6-2 Substantial Change in the Significance of a
Unique Archaeological Resource. Adoption
and implementation of the General Plan
update could result in new development and
redevelopment of previously undisturbed
land throughout the Planning Area, which
could cause a substantial change in the
significance of a unique archaeological
resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5
PS MM 4.6-2a For future projects that require excavation activity
(e.g., clearing/grubbing, grading, trenching, or
boring) into native soil and that have the potential to
exhibit native ground surface within or in the
immediate vicinity of the excavation footprint,
project applicants an archaeological study (Phase I
Assessment) shall be required.
Timing/Implementation:
During the environmental review process
Enforcement/Monitoring:
City of Palm Desert Planning Department
MM 4.6-2b If resources are identified, they shall be evaluated for
their eligibility for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic
Places (if applicable), and/or a local listing and to
determine whether the resource qualifies as a unique
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA (Phase II
Assessment). Methodologies for evaluating a
LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-14 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
resource can include, but are not limited to,
subsurface archaeological test excavations,
additional background research, and coordination
with Native Americans and other interested
individuals in the community.
Timing/Implementation:
During the environmental review process
Enforcement/Monitoring:
City of Palm Desert Planning Department
MM 4.6-2c If the resources are determined eligible for listing in
the California Register of Historical Resources,
appropriate mitigation shall be developed and
implemented to mitigate impacts to the resource. If
resource avoidance measures, such as resource
“capping” (covering a resource with a layer of fill soils
before building on the resource) or incorporating a
resource into a park plan or open space, are deemed
not feasible, additional subsurface archaeological
excavations (i.e., data recovery) that serve to recover
significant archaeological resources before they are
damaged or destroyed by the proposed development
shall be implemented (Phase III Assessment).
Documentation (technical reports and California
Department of Parks and Recreation Site Forms) and
recovered materials (artifacts and other specimens)
shall be curated at a suitable repository and/or
museum for future study and research.
Timing/Implementation:
During the environmental review process
Enforcement/Monitoring:
City of Palm Desert Planning Department
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-15
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
MM 4.6-2d Archaeological construction monitoring and
construction personnel awareness training shall be
conducted for development proposals that have a
high potential to encounter previously unknown
buried resources during construction. If resources are
encountered during construction, appropriate
treatment measures shall be developed to preserve
the resource. If it is not feasible to preserve the
resource, a program to remove or recover the
resource from the construction site shall be
implemented.
Timing/Implementation:
During grading and construction
Enforcement/Monitoring:
City of Palm Desert Planning Department
4.6-3 Disturbance of Human Remains. Adoption
and implementation of the General Plan
update could result in new development and
redevelopment of previously undisturbed
land throughout the Planning Area, which
could disturb human remains.
LTS None required. N/A
4.6-4 Substantial Change in the Significance of a
Tribal Cultural Resource. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
could result in new development and
redevelopment of previously undisturbed
land throughout the Planning Area, which
could cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural resource
as defined in Public Resources Code Section
21074.
PS Implement mitigation measures MM 4.6-2a through MM 4.6-2d. LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-16 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Cumulative Impacts
4.6-5 Cumulative Effects on Historical Resources.
Adoption and implementation of the General
Plan update in addition to anticipated future
development in surrounding cities could
cause a substantial change in the significance
of historical resources as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.
LCC None required.
LCC
4.6-6 Cumulative Effects on Archaeological
Resources. Adoption and implementation of
the General Plan Update in addition to
anticipated future development in
surrounding cities could cause a substantial
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.
CC Implement mitigation measures MM 4.6-2a through MM 4.6-2d. LCC
4.6-7 Cumulative Effects on Human Remains.
Adoption and implementation of the General
Plan update in addition to anticipated
regional growth would not result in
cumulative impacts to human remains
because these impacts are inherently site
specific.
LCC None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-17
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.7 Geology and Soils
Project-Specific Impacts
4.7-1 Impacts Associated with Fault Rupture and
Seismic Hazards. Subsequent land use
activities associated with adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
could result in the exposure of more people,
structures, and infrastructure to seismic
hazards.
LTS None required. N/A
4.7-2 Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil.
Implementation of the General Plan update
could result in construction and grading
activities that could expose topsoil to
increased potential for soil erosion.
LTS None required. N/A
4.7-3 Unstable and Expansive Soils. The General
Plan update would not allow development
on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and
therefore would not create substantial risks
to life and property.
LTS None required. N/A
4.7-4 Impacts to Unique Paleontological
Resources. Earthmoving and excavation
activities associated with adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
could damage previously unknown unique
paleontological resources. However, CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) and proposed
General Plan policies would ensure that
paleontological resources are not adversely
impacted by future development under the
proposed General Plan.
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-18 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Cumulative Impacts
4.7-5 Cumulative Geologic and Soil Hazards.
Subsequent land use activities associated
with adoption and implementation of the
General Plan update, in combination with
other existing, planned, proposed, and
reasonably foreseeable development in the
region, may result in cumulative geologic and
soil hazards.
LCC None required. N/A
4.7-6 Cumulative Paleontological Impacts.
Adoption and implementation of the General
Plan update, in addition to existing,
approved, proposed, and reasonably
foreseeable development in the region,
could result in cumulative impacts to
paleontological resources in the region.
LCC None required. N/A
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Project-Specific Impacts
4.8-1 Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous
Materials. Adoption and implementation of
the General Plan update would result in an
increase in the routine transport, use, and/or
disposal of hazardous materials, which could
result in the exposure of the public to such
materials through either routine use or
accidental release.
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-19
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.8-2 Release of Hazardous Materials into the
Environment. Adoption and implementation
of the General Plan update would result in
development that could lead to upset and/or
accidental conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment.
However, compliance with existing federal
and state regulations would reduce risks of
accidental conditions.
LTS None required. N/A
4.8-3 Emission or Handling of Hazardous or Acutely
Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste
within One-Quarter Mile of an Existing or
Proposed School. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
could result in development of uses that
would emit or handle hazardous waste in
proximity to new or existing schools.
LTS None required. N/A
4.8-4 Safety Hazards to People Residing or
Working Within 2 Miles of Bermuda Dunes
Airport. Adoption and implementation of the
General Plan update could result in an
increase of people residing or working within
2 miles of Bermuda Dunes Airport, which
could result in a safety hazard. However,
implementation of the General Plan policies
and action would ensure site-specific
constraints are taken into consideration
during development.
LTS None required. N/A
4.9-5 Interference with an Adopted Emergency
Response Plan. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
would create additional traffic and future
land uses requiring evacuation in the event
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-20 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
of an emergency. However, implementation
of the General Plan policies and actions
would ensure conformance with countywide
emergency response programs and
continued cooperation with emergency
response service providers.
4.8-6 Exposure of Structures to Urban and
Wildland Fire. Adoption and implementation
of the General Plan update would increase
population located in proximity to wildlands,
which would increase the risk from potential
wildland fires. However, implementation of
the General Plan actions would reduce the
potential for exposure of people or
structures to wildland fires.
LTS None required. N/A
Cumulative Impacts
4.8-7 Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Material
Impacts. Implementation of the General Plan
update, in addition to existing, approved,
proposed, and other reasonably foreseeable
projects, would not result in cumulative
hazardous material and human health risk
impacts.
LCC None required. N/A
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Project-Specific Impacts
4.9-1 Violate Water Quality Standards and Waste
Discharge Requirements. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
would potentially increase the amount of
impervious surface in the Planning Area,
thereby increasing the total volume and peak
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-21
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
discharge rate of stormwater runoff and
associated pollutants. Construction activities
resulting from implementation of the
General Plan update could also increase the
amount of sediments and pollutants in
stormwater runoff.
4.9-2 Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Interfere
with Groundwater Recharge. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
would potentially increase the amount of
impervious surface in the planning area,
thereby decreasing the area available to
provide groundwater recharge.
LTS None required. N/A
4.9-3 Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern of the Site
or Area so as to Result in Substantial On- or
Off-Site Erosion or Siltation. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
could increase the amount of impervious
surface in the Planning Area, thereby
increasing the total volume and peak
discharge rate of stormwater runoff and the
potential for erosion and sedimentation.
LTS None required. N/A
4.9-4 Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage
Pattern of the Site or Area so as to Result in
On- or Off-Site Flooding. Adoption and
implementation of General Plan update
could increase the amount of impervious
surface in the planning area, thereby
increasing the total volume and peak
discharge rate of stormwater runoff and the
potential for flooding.
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-22 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.9-5 Create or Contribute Runoff Water Exceeding
the Capacity of Existing or Planned
Stormwater Drainage Systems or Providing
Substantial Additional Sources of Polluted
Runoff. Adoption and implementation of
General Plan update would increase the
amount of impervious surface in the
Planning Area, thereby increasing the total
volume of stormwater runoff that could
exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage
systems or create substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff.
LTS None required. N/A
4.9-6 Substantially Degrade Water Quality.
Adoption and implementation of the General
Plan update could result in development that
would increase pollutants and cause
degradation of water quality during
construction activities or long-term
operation.
LTS None required. N/A
4.9-7 Place Housing within a 100-Year Flood
Hazard Area. Adoption and implementation
of General Plan update would not place
housing within a 100-year flood hazard area.
LTS None required. N/A
4.9-8 Place within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area
Structures That Would Impede or Redirect
Flood Flows. Adoption and implementation
of the General Plan update could allow
development or expansion of facilities to
support coastal access in the 100-year flood
hazard area.
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-23
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.9-9 Expose People or Structures to a Significant
Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving
Flooding. Adoption and implementation of
the General Plan update would not allow
habitable development in locations
designated as 100-year flood hazard areas,
which generally precludes loss, injury, or
death from flooding, including flooding from
the failure of a dam or levee.
LTS None required. N/A
4.9-10 Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow.
Adoption and implementation of General
Plan update would allow continued
development in locations that may be
subject to inundation by tsunami or
mudflow.
LTS None required. N/A
Cumulative Impacts
4.9-11 Cumulative Effects on Hydrology and Water
Quality. Adoption and implementation of the
General Plan update in addition to potential
regional growth would increase the amount
of impervious surface in the watershed, alter
drainage conditions, rates, volumes, and
water quality, which could result in potential
erosion, flooding, and water quality impacts
in the overall watershed.
LCC None required. N/A
4.10 Land Use and Planning
Project-Specific Impacts
4.10-1 Physically Divide an Established Community.
Adoption and implementation of the General
Plan update would not result in the division
NI None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-24 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
of an existing community, nor would it result
in substantial land use compatibility issues.
4.10-2 Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or
Regulation. Adoption and implementation of
the General Plan update in addition to
anticipated local and regional growth would
increase the number of housing units,
nonresidential square footage, and the
population in Palm Desert in combination
with transportation improvements.
LTS None required. N/A
Cumulative Impacts
4.10-3 Cumulative Land Use. Implementation of the
General Plan update, in addition to existing,
proposed, approved, and reasonably
foreseeable development in the region,
would not contribute to cumulative land use
impacts associated with the division of an
established community or conflicts with land
use plans and regulations that provide
environmental protection.
LCC None required. N/A
4.11 Mineral Resources
4.11-1 Loss of Availability of Mineral Resources.
Adoption and implementation of the General
Plan update would not result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource or of
a locally important mineral resource
recovery site. Local policies would ensure a
less than significant impact to mineral
resources.
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-25
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.13 Noise
Project-Specific Impacts
4.12-1 Short-term construction noise levels
associated with implementation of the
General Plan could exceed applicable City of
Palm Desert standards at nearby noise-
sensitive receptors. In addition, if
construction activities were to occur during
more noise-sensitive hours (outside the
construction hours defined in PDMC Section
9.24.070), construction noise levels could
also create a substantial temporary increase
in ambient noise levels creating a potentially
significant impact.
PS NOI-1 Construction Noise Impacts. Construction resulting
from future developments consistent with the
General Plan update would potentially result in
higher noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors. The
following best management practices (BMPs) would
reduce short-term construction-related noise
impacts:
Notification shall be mailed to owners and occupants
of all developed land uses immediately bordering the
construction site, and posted directly across the
street from the construction site, providing a
schedule for major construction activities that will
occur for the duration of the construction period. In
addition, the notification will include the
identification of and contact number for a
community liaison and a designated construction
manager who would be available on-site to monitor
construction activities. The construction manager will
be located at the on-site construction office during
construction hours for the duration of all
construction activities. Contact information for the
community liaison and the construction manager will
be located at the construction office, City Hall, and
the police department.
During all construction site excavation and grading,
the construction contractor shall equip all
construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with
properly operating and maintained mufflers
consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-26 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
The construction contractor shall place all stationary
construction equipment so that emitted noise is
directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the
construction site.
For off road construction the contractor shall utilize
grading and excavation equipment that is certified to
generate noise levels of no more than 85 dBA at a
distance of 50 feet.
All equipment designed for use on public roads shall
be properly maintained with operating mufflers and
air intake silencers as effective as those installed by
the original manufacturer.
The construction contractor shall locate equipment
staging in areas that will create the greatest distance
between construction-related noise sources and
noise-sensitive receptors nearest the construction
site during all project construction.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to any earth
movement permit or activity
Enforcement/Monitoring: City Planning and Public
Works Departments
4.12-2 Development facilitated by the General Plan
would increase traffic and associated noise
levels along area roadways in and around the
City, which would expose existing and
planned receptors to noise level increases.
However, implementation of City of Palm
Desert General Plan policies and programs
would improve traffic flow, roadway design,
and site design to reduce overall traffic noise
within the city. Based on traffic modeling
conducted for City of Palm Desert General
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-27
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Plan, this impact would be less than
significant.
4.12-3 Implementation of the City of Palm Desert
General Plan would result in increases in on-
site stationary-source noise levels associated
with the proposed residential, commercial,
mixed-use, office/industrial, park, and
educational land uses. These stationary noise
sources could exceed applicable hourly and
maximum noise standards and result in a
substantial increase in ambient noise levels.
However, adherence to and implementation
of General Plan policies and programs and
adherence to the City’s Noise Control
Ordinance would result in a less-than-
significant impact.
LTS None required. N/A
4.12-4 Implementation of the City of Palm Desert
General Plan could result in increased
exposure of sensitive receptors to rail-
generated noise. However, General Plan
policies and programs would reduce
potential noise exposure. Therefore, this
impact is less than significant.
LTS None required. N/A
4.12-5 The City of Palm Desert General Plan
implementation could result in increased
exposure of sensitive receptors to aircraft
generated noise. However, City of Palm
Desert General Plan policies and programs
would reduce potential noise exposure; this
impact would be less than significant.
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-28 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.12-6 Sensitive receptors could be subjected to
operational and construction vibration levels
in excess of established thresholds. However,
adherence to and implementation of General
Plan policies and programs and adherence to
the City’s Municipal Code (9.24.070
Construction Activities) would result in a
less-than-significant impact.
LTS None required. N/A
4.13 Population, Employment and Housing
Project-Specific Impacts
4.13-1 Induce Substantial Population Growth.
Implementation of the General Plan update
would guide future development and reuse
projects in the city in a manner that would
not substantially increase population in Palm
Desert.
LTS None available. N/A
4.13-2 Displace People or Housing. Subsequent land
use activities associated with
implementation of the General Plan update
would not result in the displacement of
substantial numbers of housing or persons.
LTS None required. N/A
Cumulative Impacts
4.13-3 Cumulative Effects on Population,
Employment and Housing. Subsequent land
use activities associated with
implementation of the General Plan update,
in addition to existing, approved, proposed,
and reasonably foreseeable development,
could result in a cumulative increase in
population and housing growth in Palm
Desert as well as in the surrounding region,
LCC None available. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-29
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
along with associated environmental
impacts. Development would not displace
people or housing necessitating the
construction of housing elsewhere. This
cumulative increase in population and
housing is consistent with that projected by
SCAG.
4.14 Public Services and Utilities
Project-Specific Impacts
4.14.1-1 Impacts on Fire Protection. Implementation
of the proposed General Plan update would
result in an increase in population in the city,
which would increase demand for fire
protection services and potentially result in
the need for additional and/or expanded fire
protection facilities.
LTS None required. N/A
4.14.2-1 Increased Demand for Law Enforcement
Services. Implementation of the General Plan
Update would result in an increase in
population in the planning area, which would
increase demand for police protection
services, resulting in the need for additional
and/or expanded police protection facilities.
LTS None required. N/A
4.14.3-1 Demand for Additional School Facilities.
Implementation of the General Plan Update
would result in an increase in population in
the planning area, resulting in the need for
additional and/or expanded school facilities.
However, existing laws and regulations
would require funding for the provision or
expansion of new school facilities to offset
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-30 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
impacts from new residential or
commercial/industrial development.
4.14.4-1 Demand for Additional Park Facilities.
Implementation of the General Plan Update
would result in an increase in population in
the planning area, which would increase
demand for parks and recreation services,
resulting in the need for additional and/or
expanded parks and recreation facilities.
LTS None required. N/A
4.14.4-1a Demand for Expansion Causing an Adverse
Physical Effect on the Environment.
Implementation of the General Plan update
would result in an increase in population in
the Planning Area, which would increase
demand for parks and recreation services,
resulting in the need for additional and/or
expanded parks and recreation facilities.
However, General Plan update policies and
implementation actions would require the
provision of new parks and recreation
facilities and ongoing parkland maintenance
to prevent an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
LTS None required. N/A
4.14.5-1 Demand for Additional Library Facilities.
Implementation of the General Plan Update
would result in an increase in population in
the planning area, which would increase the
demand for library services.
LTS None required. N/A
4.14.6-1 Demand for Wastewater Treatment.
Implementation of the General Plan Update
would result in an increase in population in
the planning area, which would increase the
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-31
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
amount of wastewater treated by the
Coachella Valley Water District.
4.14.6-2 Demand for New or Expanded Water or
Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
Implementation of the General Plan Update
would result in the need for additional water
and wastewater treatment.
LTS None required. N/A
4.14.6-3 Demand for Stormwater Drainage Facilities.
Implementation of the General Plan Update
would result in redevelopment in the
planning area but would generally not
increase the amount of impervious surface.
Adoption and implementation of the General
Plan Update policies and implementation
actions would direct construction of
development projects to include on-site
drainage improvements, which would reduce
the impact on existing stormwater drainage
facilities.
LTS None required. N/A
4.14.6-4 Demand for Water Supplies. Implementation
of the General Plan Update would result in
the need for additional water supply. The
increased population growth projected from
implementation of the General Plan Update
would be less than that anticipated by the
urban water management plans of water
suppliers, and no new entitlements would be
needed.
LTS None available. N/A
4.14.7-1 Demand for Solid Waste Disposal and
Compliance with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste. Implementation of the General Plan
LTS None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-32 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Update would result in additional solid waste
disposal needs. Adequate capacity exists in
the landfills receiving waste generated in
Palm Desert to accommodate these
additional needs.
Cumulative Impacts
4.14.1-2 Cumulative Impacts on Fire Protection.
Implementation of the General Plan Update,
in combination with other existing, planned,
proposed, approved, and reasonably
foreseeable development in Palm Desert,
would increase the demand for fire
protection and emergency medical services
and thus require additional staffing,
equipment, and related facilities under
cumulative conditions.
LCC
None required. N/A
4.14.2-2 Cumulative Demand for Law Enforcement
Services. Implementation of the General Plan
Update, in combination with other existing,
planned, proposed, approved, and
reasonably foreseeable development in the
PDPD service area, would not increase the
demand for law enforcement services and
thus would not require additional staffing,
equipment, and facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts.
LCC
None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-33
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.14.3-2 Cumulative Schools Impacts. Population
growth associated with implementation of
the General Plan Update, in combination
with other existing, planned, proposed,
approved, and reasonably foreseeable
development in the cumulative setting,
would result in a cumulative increase in
student enrollment.
LCC
None required. N/A
4.14.4-2 Cumulative Parks and Recreation Demands.
Implementation of the General Plan Update,
along with other existing, planned, proposed,
approved, and reasonably foreseeable
development, would increase the use of
existing parks and would require additional
park and recreation facilities in the
cumulative setting, the provision of which
could have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
LCC
None required. N/A
4.14.5-2 Cumulative Library Impacts. Population
growth associated with implementation of
the General Plan Update, in combination
with other existing, planned, proposed,
approved, and reasonably foreseeable
development in the cumulative setting,
would not result in a cumulative increase in
demand for library services.
LCC
None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-34 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.14.6-5 Implementation of the proposed General
Plan Update, in combination with other
existing, planned, proposed, approved, and
reasonably foreseeable development in Palm
Desert, would increase the demand for water
supply. The provision of associated facilities
could result in environmental impacts.
LCC
None required. N/A
4.14.7-2 Implementation of the General Plan Update,
in combination with other existing, planned,
proposed, approved, and reasonably
foreseeable development in Palm Desert,
would increase the demand for solid waste
facilities. The provision of these facilities
could result in environmental impacts.
LCC
None required. N/A
4.15 Transportation
Project-Specific Impacts
4.15-1 LOS Performance Standard. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
would result in 2 of 39 intersections and 1 of
40 roadway segments operating below the
LOS D standard.
PS
MM 4.15-1a The City of Palm Desert shall implement Policy 1.7
(System Efficiency) and optimize traffic signals at the
intersections identified in this report that are under
City jurisdiction.
Two City intersections operate below the acceptable
LOS D in the PM peak hour (Washington Street &
Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue & Dinah
Shore Drive) in the Buildout (2035) scenario.
Optimization of the cycle length to 130 seconds at
Washington Street and Country Club Drive (and the
coordinated intersections along Washington Street)
would result in acceptable operations. Optimization
of the cycle length to 130 seconds at Monterey
Avenue & Dinah Shore Drive (and the coordinated
intersections along Monterey Avenue) would result
in acceptable operations when implemented in
LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-35
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
combination with the identified improvements in
mitigation measure MM 4.15-1b. Mitigated level of
service calculation worksheets are included in
Appendix F.
Timing/Implementation: The City of Palm Desert
should monitor operations at these facilities.
Mitigation measures should be implemented when
operations at these intersections reach unacceptable
levels. Signal timing updates are considered standard
maintenance at traffic signals and will be
implemented by the Department of Public Works.
Enforcement/Monitoring: Public Works Department
MM 4.15-1b The City of Palm Desert shall implement the
following intersection and roadway improvements:
Monterey Avenue & Dinah Shore Drive: Provide an
additional (third) westbound through lane and
restripe the eastbound right turn lane to a shared
through-right lane, which would necessitate a third
receiving lane on the intersections eastern leg. This
mitigation measure requires reclassifying Dinah
Shore Drive (between the western city boundary and
Portola Avenue) as a six-lane vehicular-oriented
arterial in the proposed circulation network in the
General Plan Mobility Element. Additionally, right-of-
way acquisition may be required.
Washington Street (north of Country Club Drive):
Provide an additional (fourth) southbound lane
between the I-10 eastbound ramps and the Country
Club Drive intersections. Suitable right-of-way can be
acquired from the existing 23-foot median lane. The
additional lane would transition directly to the outer
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-36 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
southbound left turn lane at the intersection of
Washington Street and Country Club Drive.
Timing/Implementation: The City of Palm Desert
should monitor operations at these facilities.
Mitigation measures should be implemented by the
Department of Public Works when operations at
these facilities reach unacceptable levels.
Enforcement/Monitoring: Engineering Department
4.15-2 Conflict with Caltrans Performance
Standards. Adoption and implementation of
the General Plan update would not result in
unacceptable performance at the single
Caltrans intersection in Palm Desert, but
would contribute to unacceptable
performance along six freeway segments.
PS
The segments of Interstate 10 forming the northern city boundary will
perform unacceptably in the Buildout (2035) scenario. Mitigating the
identified impacts to these segments would require a complete
reconstruction of the freeway and additional travel lanes. Since freeways
are an interconnected system, it would not be possible, nor effective, to
provide isolated spot improvements of one segment of the freeway where
deficient operations are observed.
SU
4.15-3 Conflict with Riverside County Congestion
Management Program. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
would maintain the level of service standard
for CMP intersections and roadways.
LTS
None required. N/A
4.15-4 Conflict with Performance Standards of
Adjacent Jurisdictions. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
would maintain the level of service standards
for facilities in adjacent jurisdictions (Rancho
Mirage, Indian Wells, La Quinta, and
Riverside County).
LTS
None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-37
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.15-5 Air Traffic Patterns. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
would not modify the planning or operations
of Palm Springs International Airport or
introduce land use patterns that may cause
substantial safety risks to or from air
operations.
LTS
None required. N/A
4.15-6 Design Hazards. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
would not increase hazards due to design or
incompatible uses.
LTS
None required. N/A
4.15-7 Result in Inadequate Emergency Access.
Adoption and implementation of policies in
the updated General Plan would reduce
emergency access program-level impacts to
a less than significant level.
LTS None required. N/A
4.15-8 Public Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian
Facilities. Adoption and implementation of
the General Plan update would support the
maintenance and expansion of transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities consistent
with adopted local and regional plans.
LTS None required. N/A
Cumulative Impacts
4.15-9 Cumulative LOS Performance Standard.
Adoption and implementation of the General
Plan update would result in 2 of 39
intersections and 1 of 40 roadway segments
operating below the LOS D standard.
CC
Implement mitigation measures MM 4.15-1a and MM 4.15-1b.
LCC
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
2-38 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.15-10 Cumulative Conflict with Caltrans
Performance Standards. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
would not result in unacceptable
performance at the single Caltrans
intersection in Palm Desert, but would
contribute to unacceptable performance
along six freeway segments.
CC
Mitigating the identified impacts to the I-10 segments would require a
complete reconstruction of the freeway and additional travel lanes. Since
freeways are an interconnected system, it would not be possible, nor
effective, to provide isolated spot improvements of one segment of the
freeway where deficient operations are observed. Furthermore, the
facilities are not controlled by the City of Palm Desert
SU
4.15-11 Cumulative Conflict with Riverside County
Congestion Management Program. Adoption
and implementation of the General Plan
update in addition to anticipated cumulative
growth in the region would maintain the
level of service standard for CMP
intersections and roadways.
LCC
None required. N/A
4.15-12 Cumulative Conflict with Performance
Standards of Adjacent Jurisdictions. Adoption
and implementation of the General Plan
update in addition to anticipated cumulative
growth in the region would maintain the
level of service standards for facilities in
adjacent jurisdictions (Rancho Mirage, Indian
Wells, La Quinta, and Riverside County).
LCC
None required. N/A
4.15-13 Cumulative Air Traffic Patterns. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan updated
in addition to anticipated cumulative growth
in the region would not modify the planning
or operations of Palm Springs International
Airport or introduce land use patterns that
may cause substantial safety risks to or from
air operations.
LCC
None required. N/A
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 2-39
Impact
Level of Significance
Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.15-14 Cumulative Design Hazards. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
in addition to anticipated regional growth
would not increase hazards due to design or
incompatible uses.
LCC
None required. N/A
4.15-15 Cumulatively Result in Inadequate
Emergency Access. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update
policies in addition to anticipated regional
growth would not result in inadequate
emergency access.
LCC None required. N/A
4.15-16 Cumulative Impacts to Public Transit, Bicycle,
and Pedestrian Facilities. The updated
General Plan supports the maintenance and
expansion of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities consistent with adopted local and
regional plans.
LCC None required. N/A
LTS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable N/A = Not Applicable
LCC= Less Than Cumulatively Considerable CC=Cumulatively Considerable
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-40 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 3-1
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Summary
The City of Palm Desert’s General Plan update encompasses future community
development plans with a planning horizon of 2040.
The General Plan will identify long-term goals, provide a basis for decision-making,
provide citizens a forum for input on their community’s direction, and inform citizens,
developers, decision-makers, and other cities of the ground rules for development in
Palm Desert. To provide greater specificity on where and how this growth will occur,
the project also includes a Specific Plan for the development of a walkable, mixed-use
neighborhood west of the California State University, San Bernardino-Palm Desert and
University of California Riverside Palm-Desert Campuses. The project also includes
detailed policy guidance, development standards, and design guidelines for the
transformation of the Highway 111 corridor into a walkable, mixed-use City Center.
The project’s end result will be a comprehensive report on goals and policies that will
enhance the overall well-being for all Palm Desert residents, business owners, and
visitors.
Background
In 2013, more than 100 city residents, business owners, and policymakers came
together to develop a 20-year strategic plan for Palm Desert. The yearlong process and
resulting document, the 2013–2033 Strategic Plan, Envision Palm Desert Forward
Together, laid the groundwork and direction for this General Plan update. The
community members developed an overall community vision, priorities, strategies,
action steps, and measures of success, many of which directly and indirectly pertain to
the city’s built environment. Several strategies were very specific about transforming
parts of the community, including outcomes such as creating an authentic City Center
along the Highway 111 corridor, improving access throughout the community, and
leveraging the universities for economic development. As such, the Strategic Plan
recommended updating the General Plan, including a detailed plan for the
transformation of the Highway 111 corridor, as an implementation mechanism for
achieving the 2013 Strategic Plan vision.
Envision Palm Desert Forward Together identifies nine Strategic Results Areas
ranging from arts and culture to transportation. Each sets out mini-visions, priorities,
strategies, action plans, and measures of success. Below are highlights from all nine.
These mini vision statements have helped guide this General Plan update and will
continue to serve to guide City decision-making.
Arts & Culture: The plan envisions Palm Desert as the cultural core of the Coachella
Valley. Priorities are to assess the current arts and cultural landscape, explore the
viability of creating an arts and culture district, and develop secure and sustainable
funding for arts and culture.
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Economic Development: The vision builds on Palm Desert’s strengths in business,
education, arts, and tourism to provide an inviting economic climate offering lifestyle,
education, and investment opportunities. Priorities are to increase job and business
opportunities, expand quality education to ensure that residents are prepared to serve
in a workforce of the future, create and attract entertainment and events that grow
the economy and improve the quality of life, and enhance and raise awareness of
business-friendly services to retain and attract business.
Education: The Strategic Plan envisions an education destination offering world-class
programs providing lifelong learning opportunities and an engaged and informed
community. Priorities are to create and support a community-based education
coalition that will focus on graduation rates, attract and retain students of all ages by
providing outstanding academic and cultural programs, and create community
awareness of, and support for, the building blocks of student and career success.
Energy & Sustainability: The vision is to be a responsible steward of the city’s natural
resources. Priorities are to reduce per-capita consumption of energy and water,
promote greater use of sustainable materials with an eye upon the needs of future
generations, encourage all new construction to be net zero energy in design and
exceed the Coachella Valley Water District’s efficiency standards, and encourage
property owners to reduce energy and water consumption.
Land Use, Housing & Open Space: The vision is a well-planned and developed city
with a vibrant city core; natural open space; and housing, business, and community
revitalization opportunities. Priorities are to enhance Palm Desert as a first-class
destination for premier shopping and national, regional, and neighborhood retail
businesses, to expand Palm Desert as an educational hub, to facilitate development of
high-quality housing for people of all income levels, and to develop creative and
innovative zoning and incentives that promote education and high-quality residences
and encourage a balance between housing and jobs.
Parks & Recreation: The Strategic Plan envisions parks, open spaces, and recreational
opportunities as drivers of innovation and a high quality of life. Priorities are to fund
park maintenance and plan for future replacement and growth, assure a continuing
flow of innovative ideas through creative partnerships, and provide adequate staffing.
Other priorities include encouraging resident input, promoting healthy community
principles by incorporating recreational and exercise opportunities in all public spaces,
planning and developing the North Sphere Regional Park, and evaluating the need for
expansion of the Palm Desert Aquatic Center.
Public Safety & Emergency Services: The vision is for a high quality of life for Palm
Desert as a result of its comprehensive public safety services. Priorities are to
continually enhance the delivery of public safety services, increase methods of crime
prevention through expanded community participation, and help the community be
more prepared for disasters and public safety emergencies.
Tourism & Marketing: The plan envisions a year-round international resort
destination offering a wellness lifestyle, exemplary hotels, arts, entertainment,
shopping, recreational, and education opportunities for all ages. Priorities are to
improve access to the city and its attractions, to grow existing events and develop new
events to enhance the desirability of Palm Desert year-round, to attract new and
developing markets (culinary, medical, cultural tourism, business, sports, film industry,
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 3-3
emerging international markets and those for younger demographics), and to support
Palm Desert tourism through enhanced marketing.
Transportation: The vision is of a community with safe, convenient, and efficient
transportation options for residents and visitors. Priorities are to create walkable
neighborhoods in residential, retail, and open space areas to reduce the use of low
occupancy vehicles; revitalize the Highway 111 corridor through land use and other
improvements; and emphasize multiple modes of travel including carpooling, bus
riding, cycling, and walking.
Regional Setting
Palm Desert is located in Riverside County in the Coachella Valley. The city
encompasses approximately 27.0 square miles, or 17,280 acres, generally bounded by
the City of Rancho Mirage and Haystack Mountain to the west, Interstate 10 to the
north, the suburban unincorporated community of Bermuda Dunes to the east, and
Indian Wells and undeveloped mountains to the south (Exhibit 1, Regional Location
Map). The US Census Bureau estimated the 2013 population of Palm Desert at 50,508.
The city is located on the Palm Desert, CA, USGS 7.5-Minute Quad Map, 33˚43'45"
North, 116˚22'20" West.
Planning Area
The Planning Area covers 42,488 acres (69.6 square miles), of which, 17,226 acres are
within the corporate boundaries of the City of Palm Desert and 27,277 acres (42.6
square miles) are in the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence (SOI). The city is bordered by
cities of Rancho Mirage to the west and Indian Wells to the south and east, and by the
unincorporated community of Bermuda Dunes to the east.
The existing city limits generally extend southward from Interstate 10, past Highway
111 and along Route 74 to the foot of the Santa Rosa Mountains between Monterey
Avenue and Washington Street. The SOI encompasses areas to the north and south of
the city, including portions of the Santa Rosa mountains south of the city limits and
the unincorporated community of Bermuda Dunes to the east, and Sun City Palm
Desert north of Interstate 10. Figure 1.1 and 10.1 in the TBR depicts the Palm Desert
city limits, SOI, and location relative to other nearby cities or communities. The
Planning Area, shown on Figure 3-2, includes the entire corporate limits of the city.
Key Project Elements
General Plan Update
The City of Palm Desert is preparing an update to its existing General Plan, which was
extensively updated in 1980 and again in 2004. The update will focus on key areas of
the city, including the Highway 111 corridor/City Center and the areas around the
California State University and University of California campuses. The General Plan
update will also include goals and policies that provide the City with the tools to seek
pedestrian-oriented development patterns to diversify the city’s existing primarily
automobile-oriented development patterns and realize both a true City Center and a
vibrant university campus area.
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
The General Plan will be prepared in compliance with Government Code Section
65300 that states:
Each planning agency shall prepare and the legislative body of each county and city shall
adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the
county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s
judgment bears relation to its planning. Chartered cities shall adopt general plans, which
contain the mandatory elements specified in Section 65302.
The content of the General Plan update will describe intended development and
advised changes to be made to the cityscape and community over the next 25 years.
The proposed elements, with their respective goals and policies, address a number of
topics and are titled Land Use & Community Character, Mobility, Health & Wellness,
Environmental Resources, Safety, Noise, and Public Services & Utilities. The City’s
Housing Element is current, has been certified by the State, and will not be included as
a part of this update.
111 Corridor Plan
The 2013 Strategic Plan identified the need to revitalize the Highway 111 corridor into
a true downtown-type City Center. As such, the General Plan will include detailed
policies and actions to chart a path for the revitalization of this area of the city. To
implement this plan, the project will also include new development standards and
design guidelines. The Highway 111 planning area, Figure 3-4, is included later in this
chapter.
University Neighborhood Specific Plan
Both the 2004 General Plan and the 2013 Strategic Plan identify the area around the
California State University campus as a strategic opportunity for the City. To take full
advantage of the university, the surrounding lands are intended to be developed in
relation to the campus with great connectivity, a mix of housing types, and new
commercial opportunities. In concert with this General Plan, the City initiated a
Specific Plan for a 170-acre parcel at the northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Frank
Sinatra Drive. Many of the property owners to the north and east of the City’s
property expressed interest in joining the City in the master planning process and will
be included in the City’s Specific Plan. This Specific Plan, approximately 397 acres, will
present a plan for single-family, multi-family, and commercial uses, as well as parks,
and will serve as an implementation tool of the General Plan update. Refer to Figure 3-
3 for the Specific Plan land use plan.
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 3-5
Figure 3-1 Regional Location
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Figure 3-2 Planning Area
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 3-7
Project Characteristics
The proposed project consists of three components: the City of Palm Desert General
Plan update, the 111 Corridor Plan, and the University Neighborhood Specific Plan.
The three components are described below.
General Plan Update
The Palm Desert General Plan is the principal tool for guiding the physical form and
development of the city. At the same time, it is a visionary document that lays out the
community’s long-term goals and objectives for the future. The environmental impact
analysis in this program EIR is defined primarily by the change between existing
conditions and those associated with future land uses proposed in the General Plan
update. It contains the City’s official policies on land use and community design,
mobility, housing, infrastructure, economics, health, and public facilities and services.
Its purpose is to identify planning goals; provide a basis for decision-making; and
inform citizens, developers, decision-makers, and other cities of the ground rules for
development in Palm Desert. The full text of the General Plan update is available for
public review on the City’s website at http://www.palmdesert.org/our-city/general-
plan-update.
The General Plan update consists of nine elements, or chapters, that together meet
state requirements for a general plan. These elements are:
• Land Use & Community
• Mobility
• Health & Wellness
• Environmental Resources
• Noise
• Safety
• Public Utilities & Services
• City Center Area Plan
• Housing
The General Plan update also includes a Vision chapter, an Introduction chapter, and a
Work Plan chapter that presents implementation actions for each element.
General Plan Elements
• The Land Use & Community Character Element designates the general
distribution and intensity of residential, commercial, industrial, open space,
public/quasi-public, and other categories of public and private land uses.
Through place-type-based land use designations organized around
neighborhoods, districts, and centers, the Land Use Element will preserve the
city’s existing neighborhoods, enhance key commercial corridors, and provide
strategic guidance for the transformation of the Highway 111 corridor into a
true downtown. Similarly, the Land Use Element will provide direction and the
policy foundation for creating a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood near the
university.
• The Mobility Element seeks to create a balanced transportation system that
accommodates all modes of travel safely and efficiently, without prioritizing
automobile travel. Through complete streets, traffic calming, and a network of
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
bike paths, trails, and roads, the element will connect all modes of
transportation to facilities and recreation.
• The Health &Wellness Element will encourage a physical, social, and civic
environment that supports residents’ health. This element will address the
requirement and location of parks and recreational facilities throughout the
city. The element will create community programs, local food systems, and
educational facilities to increase awareness and practice of healthy living.
• The Environmental Resources Element will present goals and policies for the
community of Palm Desert that will minimize risks of climate change, promote
resource efficient and environmentally respectful communities, and offer
access to open space and parkland. Heat island mitigation, alternative energy
uses, and water recycling programs are also presented in the element to
sustain an environmentally sound city for years to come.
• The Noise Element establishes standards and policies to protect the
community from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive
noise levels. This element includes strategies to reduce land use conflicts that
may result in exposure to unacceptable noise levels.
• The Safety Element establishes policies and programs to protect the
community from risk associated with known hazards (i.e., geologic, flood, and
fire) and sets standards for emergency preparedness.
• The Public Utilities & Services Element establishes the City’s long-term goals
and policies for producing, managing, and maintaining its infrastructure
systems and public utilities.
• The City Center Area Plan is an in-depth plan aimed at establishing a true City
Center in Palm Desert by creating a framework, design objectives, and
implementation techniques for future development.
• The Housing Element is a stand-alone volume that is updated more frequently
than the other elements. It can be found under separate cover.
Growth Projections
The proposed General Plan anticipates and plans for growth in the city in a flexible
manner, understanding that ultimately market forces, demographics, and migration
will dictate how much growth is actually realized in the city. For the purposes of this
EIR and other planning, the General Plan anticipates growth as follows:
2012 2035 2040 Net
Population 49,786 60,226 61,691 11,905
Households 23,352 30,666 31,401 8,049
Employment 36,874 49,352 50,536 13,662
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 3-9
Goals, Policies, and Action Items
Each element of the Palm Desert General Plan will contain a series of goals, policies,
and action items that provide guidance to the City on how to direct change, manage
growth, and manage resources over the expected 25-year horizon of the General Plan.
• A goal is a description of the general desired result that the City seeks to
create through the implementation of the General Plan.
• A policy is a specific statement that guides decision-making as the City works
to achieve its goals and objectives. The General Plan’s policies set out the
standards that will be used by City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City
Council in their review of land development projects, resource protection
activities, infrastructure improvements, and other City actions. Policies are
ongoing and require no specific action on behalf of the City.
• An action item is an implementation measure, procedure, technique, or
specific program to be undertaken by the City to help achieve a specified goal
or implement an adopted policy. The City must take additional steps to
implement each action item in the General Plan. An action item is something
that can and will be completed.
Land Use Designations
The General Plan update incorporates a vision for how Palm Desert will look and
function in decades to come. The Zoning Ordinance establishes requirements for how
land can be developed and used today. By requiring land to be used and developed in
ways that are consistent with the General Plan update, the Zoning Ordinance
implements the plan over time. All land in Palm Desert has a land use designation and
is located in a zone. Land use designations establish broad policy and intent for how
land should be used and developed. Zones allow or prohibit specific uses and establish
setbacks, minimum parking requirements, and other development requirements. One
or more zones specify detailed use and development standards for each land use
designation.
Each land use designation generally describes the intended land uses for a parcel or
parcels and establishes a permitted range of density or intensity of development. The
maximum allowable density or intensity at any given location may be affected by such
factors as the physical characteristics of a parcel, access and infrastructure issues, and
compatibility with surrounding uses. Dwelling unit per acre (DU/acre) densities
describe the maximum permitted intensity of residential uses, and floor area ratios
(FAR) describe the maximum permitted intensity and size of commercial and industrial
uses. For most commercial and industrial designations, both densities (DU/acre) and
intensities (FAR) are established, although future residential uses within such
designated areas would require discretionary approval. Where a range is established,
the minimum value represents the least intense land use permitted in the area, while
the maximum value represents the most intense land use permitted. Table 3-1
summarizes the proposed land use designations and their corresponding density
ranges.
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 3-1 Land Use Designations and Intensities
Land Use
Category Allowed Land Uses
Max.
Density/Intensity
Rural Neighborhood Single-family residential. Limited
commercial activity may be allowed in
the form of focused specialty lodging
such as a bed and breakfast inn with
minor commercial/retail. Uses such as
guest houses, churches, schools, family
day care homes, public facilities, and
others which are determined to be
compatible with and oriented toward
serving the needs of rural, low-density
neighborhoods may also be allowed.
DU/acre: 0.05 to 1.0
Commercial FAR:
N/A
Golf Course and
Resort
Neighborhood
A variety of single-family houses and
limited multi-family dwellings organized
around golf courses and other open
space with focused commercial/retail.
Uses such as retail, personal service,
care, public facilities, and others which
are determined to be compatible with
and oriented toward serving the needs
of resort-oriented living and recreation
may also be allowed.
DU/acre: up to 8.0
Commercial FAR:
N/A
Conventional
Suburban
Neighborhood
Single-family houses and small multi-
family dwellings organized along
walkable streetscapes with
commercial/retail activity nearby.
DU/acre: 3.0 to 8.0
Commercial FAR:
N/A
Small Town
Neighborhood
A variety of single-family houses and
small multi-family dwellings organized
along walkable streetscapes with limited
commercial/retail activity within walking
distance. House-scale multi-family is
allowed on a limited basis, primarily
along corridors. Uses such as retail, care,
public facilities, guest houses, churches,
schools, family day care homes, and
others which are determined to be
compatible with and oriented toward
serving the needs of neighborhoods may
also be allowed and should be focused
along corridors.
DU/acre: 3.0 to 10.0
Commercial FAR: up
to 0.75
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Table 3-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 3-11
Land Use
Category Allowed Land Uses
Max.
Density/Intensity
Town Center
Neighborhood
A range of single-family and multi-family
residential uses including duplex, triplex,
quadruplex, rowhouses, townhouses,
courtyard multi-family buildings, and
small-scale multi-family buildings
organized along walkable streetscapes
with focused commercial/retail activity
within walking distance. Uses such as
retail, personal service, care, public
facilities, guest houses, churches,
schools, family day care homes, public
facilities, and others which are
determined to be compatible with and
oriented toward serving the needs of
neighborhoods may also be allowed and
should be focused along corridors and
main streets.
DU/acre: 7.0 to 22
Commercial FAR: 0.5
to 0.75
Employment
District
A wide variety of office and limited
commercial activity along with multi-
family dwellings organized along
walkable streetscapes. Uses would
include professional and medical office,
and traditional business park.
DU/acre: N/A
Commercial FAR: up
to 0.75
Industrial District A wide variety of industrial and limited
commercial activity organized on
utilitarian industrial streets. Industrial
and research and development uses,
with support retail and office uses,
would be allowed.
DU/acre: N/A
Commercial FAR: up
to 0.75
Public
Facility/Institutional
District
Government buildings and facilities and
a wide range of public uses such as
public and private schools, higher
educational facilities, community
centers, and other similar uses.
DU/acre: N/A
Commercial FAR: up
to 0.5
Resort and
Entertainment
District
Lodging, recreation, support retail, and
commercial services with specialized
entertainment.
DU/acre: up to 10.0
Commercial FAR:
maximum of 0.10;
exceptions may be
made for certain
entertainment uses
such as theme parks
Regional Retail A variety of large-format retail,
commercial services, lodging,
entertainment, and restaurant activity
organized along walkable streetscapes.
DU/acre: 10.0 to
15.0
Commercial FAR:
0.35 to 1.0
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Table 3-1, continued
3-12 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Land Use
Category Allowed Land Uses
Max.
Density/Intensity
Suburban Retail
Center
Primarily retail and services, sometimes
with commercial uses on upper floors,
and flexibility of adding housing.
DU/acre: 10.0 to
15.0 (if housing is
included)
Commercial FAR: 0.2
to 1.0
Neighborhood
Center
Primarily neighborhood-serving retail
and services. Allowed uses include retail,
professional office, local-oriented uses,
including supermarkets, retail stores,
theaters, restaurants, professional and
medical offices, and specialty retail
stores, and flexibility of adding housing.
Residential uses are secondary uses
found on upper floors of mixed-use
buildings and in multi-family buildings at
the edge of the center where it
transitions to the adjoining
neighborhood.
DU/acre: 10.0 to
15.0
Commercial FAR: up
to 0.5
Downtown A variety of civic, cultural,
entertainment, retail, restaurant, and
commercial services activity along with
multi-family dwellings organized along
walkable streetscapes. Ground-floor
uses include retail, restaurant, service,
and office uses, while upper floors
accommodate residential and office
uses. Residential uses are prohibited on
ground floors.
DU/acre: 12.0 to
20.0
Commercial FAR: up
to 2.5
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 3-13
Figure 3-3 Proposed Land Use Diagram
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-14 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
111 Corridor Plan
City Center Area Plan
The Strategic Plan made a very strong case for both the desire for a true City Center
and the economic and community benefits of having such a center. A City Center, or
downtown, is compact and moderate in scale, has a mix of uses, has a range of
housing types, and is easy and comfortable to navigate on foot. The City Center is the
heart of the town and the center of social, civic, and commercial activity. Few cities in
Southern California have authentic downtowns, and the creation of one in Palm
Desert will be a distinguishing milestone on the path toward creating a stronger sense
of place and a more competitive city. Because this strategy is such an important
component of the Envision Palm Desert Strategic Plan, it will be critical for the City to
focus efforts and resources on the successful implementation of the plan. Similarly,
the City will focus on creating a spark of excitement by starting the evolution of the
City Center with the transformation of the San Pablo Center.
The City Center Area Plan is an element of the General Plan and presents a vision for
the future of the greater Highway 111 corridor area, including El Paseo, the San Pablo
corridor, and the Civic Center. It also provides a summary of the community input,
guiding principles, goals, and policies for transforming the Highway 111 corridor into
Palm Desert’s downtown. Implementation actions for the City Center Area Plan are
contained in General Plan Chapter 12.
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 3-15
Figure 3-4 Corridor Plan-Location
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-16 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
University Neighborhood Specific Plan
Background
Through the 2013 Strategic Plan process and 2015 General Plan update process, the
community identified opportunities to re-center its civic life around activity centers in
the historic downtown on Highway 111 and the University District in north Palm
Desert. The creation of both a California State University and a University of California
campus in Palm Desert is an enormous economic opportunity for both the city and the
entire Coachella Valley. The campuses offer new opportunities for educating
residents, attracting new talent to the valley in the way of both faculty and students,
and attracting investment related to university operations. The City will need to
continue to work with and support the development of these universities. More
importantly, the City will need to ensure that the lands around the universities are
developed in a way that maximizes connectivity and accessibility. Through a strategy
of connectivity and accessibility, the City will capitalize on the greatest possible value
of creating a university area.
To help achieve this outcome, the City has prepared a University Neighborhood
Specific Plan, which provides detailed design guidance for the neighborhoods near the
universities and the roads that connect the area internally and with the rest of the
city.
Location
The University Neighborhood Specific Plan area is located on the northern edge of the
city, south of Interstate 10 (see Figure 3-5).
Specific Plan Overview
The University Neighborhood Specific Plan covers approximately 400 acres within the
city limits, 3 miles north of the city’s downtown and civic center. The Specific Plan area
is bordered by Gerald Ford Drive on the north, Frank Sinatra Drive on the south,
Portola Avenue on the west, and Cook Street on the east. A half mile from Interstate
10, the site is a primary gateway to Palm Desert and the larger Coachella Valley.
The Specific Plan area is relatively flat, with slight rolling topography, and slopes gently
toward the east. It is bounded by development on the west and south sides consisting
of the following:
• University of California, Riverside, Palm Desert Campus (±35 acres)
immediately east of the Specific Plan area
• California State University, San Bernardino, Palm Desert Campus
• University-owned planning area (±155 acres), east of the Specific Plan area
(still under development)
• Desert Willow Gold Resort to the south
• Single-family developments to the west
The land to the north and east is currently undeveloped, but contains the Millennium
Palm Desert Specific Plan, a 150 acre multi-use specific plan, which will includes up to
690 residential units, and 27 acres for a new regional park.
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 3-17
The planning and design of the University Neighborhood Specific Plan is based on a
pre-existing urban development pattern and street network adopted by a General
Plan Revision, known as the University Park Plan (Community Facilities District
2005-1). The plan established 17 parcels on approximately 268 acres of undeveloped
land to consist of mixed-use, residential and commercial uses, a golf course, and other
open spaces. The collector streets existing today (College Drive, University Park Drive,
Technology Drive, and Pacific Avenue) and related backbone infrastructure were
constructed between 2006 and 2007. However, the subsequent economic recession
prevented completion of University Park. Since 2007, the Specific Plan area has
remained largely undeveloped, with the exception of two community parks that
together total 5 acres.
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-18 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Figure 3-5 University Neighborhood Specific Plan
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 3-19
Project Objectives
The City has several objectives that the General Plan update is intended to achieve:
• Anticipate new demographics and market trends to expand economic
competitiveness and attract new employers.
• Continue to serve as a destination that entices visitors and to endure as a
community with a high quality of life that attracts the best and the brightest
residents, students, and businesses.
• Create a greater range of development patterns to offer existing and future
residents additional options for the types of place they live in, maintaining a
moderate density and scale: just enough to create interest and activity, but
not so much as to overwhelm people and not so little as to dilute the sense of
place or inhibit walking and bicycling.
• Create safe and comfortable places for pedestrians with convenient, safe, and
easy street crossings and convenient, close access to buildings.
• Reduce automobile dependence through the enhanced active transportation
options.
• Create an authentic, walkable downtown along the Highway 111 corridor.
• Create a mixed-use, mixed-housing walkable neighborhood in the vicinity of
the California State University campus.
• Create lively centers for residents and visitors to congregate throughout the
city.
• Create a layered transportation network that will expand transportation
opportunities for walking, bicycling, and transit, while recognizing the
importance of the automobile, to expand access to the city and throughout
the city.
• Maintain the city’s unique geographic setting by protecting existing open
space and expanding the types of open space and recreational areas within
the city.
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-20 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
(This page is intentionally left blank)
CHAPTER 4: INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4-1
4. INTRODUCTION TO THE
ANALYSIS
Baseline Existing Conditions Assumed in
the Analysis
Each resource chapter in this EIR (see Chapters 4.1 through 4.15) summarizes the
environmental setting specific to that resource topic. The environmental setting
summary is based on information that was prepared as part of the Technical
Background Report (TBR). The TBR is included as Appendix 4.0 to this EIR.
Scope
Chapters 4.1 through 4.15 present the environmental impact analysis for the
anticipated effects of implementation of the General Plan update. Topics evaluated in
these resource chapters are described in Chapter 1, Introduction, and were identified
in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1.0).
Structure
Each resource chapter presents an evaluation of a particular environmental topic and
includes a summary of existing conditions (both physical and regulatory), potential
environmental impacts, feasible mitigation measures proposed to reduce significant
environmental impacts (where necessary), and a determination of the level of
significance after mitigation measures are implemented.
Environmental Setting
This subsection provides summary information about the existing physical
environment related to the resource topic. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15125, the discussion of the physical environment describes existing
conditions in the Planning Area at the time the NOP was filed in August 2015. The
basis for the environmental setting is the information in Appendix 1.0.
Regulatory Setting
This subsection summarizes federal, state, regional, and local plans, policies, laws, and
regulations that apply to the resource. A full description of the regulatory setting for
each resource chapter is included in Appendix 1.0.
Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance that will serve as the basis for judging impact
significance are identified in each resource chapter. Thresholds of significance used for
the evaluation of impacts include those thresholds currently used by the City when
reviewing individual projects and are based upon and consistent with Appendix G to
CHAPTER 4: INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS
4-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
the State CEQA Guidelines. The City of Palm Desert considers these thresholds
appropriate for evaluating the significance of impacts in the city.
Impacts
The discussion of impacts describes potential consequences to each resource that
would result from implementation of the General Plan update. Potential
environmental impacts have been classified in the following categories:
• The term no impact is used when the environmental resource being discussed
would not or may not be adversely affected by implementation of the General
Plan update. This impact level does not require mitigation.
• A less than significant impact would or may cause a minor but acceptable
adverse change in the physical environment. This impact level does not
require mitigation under CEQA.
• A significant impact would or may have a substantial adverse effect on the
physical environment, but could be reduced to a less than significant level with
mitigation. Impacts may also be considered potentially significant if the
analysis cannot definitively conclude that an impact would occur with
implementation of the General Plan update. Under CEQA, mitigation measures
must be provided, where feasible, to reduce the magnitude of significant or
potentially significant impacts.
• A significant and unavoidable impact would or may cause a substantial
adverse effect on the environment, and no known feasible mitigation
measures are available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level, or
implementation of feasible mitigation measures would not reduce impacts to
a less than significant level. Under CEQA, a project with significant and
unavoidable impacts could proceed, but the City would be required to prepare
a statement of overriding considerations in accordance with State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093, explaining why the City would proceed with the
project despite potential for significant impacts.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
If impacts are considered significant and it is determined that implementation of the
General Plan update policies would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level,
mitigation measures are proposed to reduce or avoid these impacts. This section also
describes an impact’s level of significance following mitigation. Impacts are then
defined either as significant but mitigable or as significant and unavoidable. Significant
but mitigable impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation.
Significant and unavoidable impacts would remain significant either because feasible
mitigation to reduce impacts is unavailable or because proposed mitigation measures
would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Format of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Throughout the discussion, impacts are identified numerically and sequentially. For
example, impacts discussed in Chapter 4.1 are identified as 4.1-1, 4.1-2, and so on.
Mitigation measures, where needed, are identified numerically to correspond to the
number of the impact being reduced by the measure. For example, Mitigation
Measure 4.1-1 would mitigate Impact 4.1-1.
CHAPTER 4: INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4-3
The format used to present the evaluation of impacts and mitigation measures is as
follows:
IMPACT
4.0-1
Impact Title. An impact summary heading appears before the impact
discussion. The heading contains the impact number and title. The impact
statement briefly summarizes the findings of the impact discussion
below. The level of significance is included at the end of the summary
heading. Levels of significance listed in this EIR (as described above) are
no impact, less than significant, potentially significant, or significant.
The impact discussion is contained in the paragraphs following the impact statement.
The analysis compares implementation of the General Plan update to existing
conditions by:
• Identifying federal, state, regional, and local regulations that would reduce or
mitigate the impact;
• Identifying the General Plan update policies and implementation programs
that would reduce or mitigate the impact; and
• Describing the potential impact with implementation of applicable regulations
and the General Plan update policies and implementation programs.
Mitigation Measures
After the impact discussion, if necessary, feasible mitigation measures are identified
that would reduce the impact. If no mitigation is necessary or feasible, a statement to
that effect is included.
Feasible Mitigation
The State CEQA Guidelines define feasible as follows:
15364. FEASIBLE
“Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within
a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental,
legal, social, and technological factors.
For purposes of this EIR, the City will consider a mitigation measure feasible if it:
a. Is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Palm Desert.
b. Can be implemented by the City of Palm Desert, requiring no discretionary
act by any other participating agency.
c. Can be objectively measured.
When to Mitigate
Mitigation is a modification of a project recommended to address an identified
environmental impact. Every project is assumed to follow federal, state and local laws
regarding development. Mitigation measures will be recommended only if there is no
existing law that would adequately address an impact, of if a specific issue needs to be
addressed while complying with the law.
CHAPTER 4: INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS
4-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Condition of Approval vs. Mitigation Measure
While all mitigation measures are conditions of approval, conditions of approval can
be negotiated with the applicant and do not need to be based on an identified impact.
Mitigation measures are only possible if the environmental document identifies a
significant impact, and the proposed mitigation is a means of reducing the impact. If
there is no impact then CEQA does not provide a mechanism to modify the project.
CHAPTER 4.1: AESTHETICS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.1-1
4.1. Aesthetics
Introduction
This chapter evaluates the potential environmental impacts related to aesthetics
associated with implementation of the Palm Desert General Plan update (proposed
project). The analysis includes a review of scenic vistas, visual character, shadow, and
light and glare in Palm Desert. The General Plan update Environmental Resources
Element policies and the implementation actions presented in General Plan Chapter
12, Work Plan, guide develop and facilitate consideration of open space and aesthetic
resources during the City’s development review process.
NOP Comments: No comment letters in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP)
addressed aesthetics issues.
References and Background Information: Information for this resource chapter is
based on the Technical Background Report (TBR) prepared for the General Plan
update. The TBR is attached to this document as Appendix 4.0. This EIR, including the
TBR, is also available electronically on the City’s website
(http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/general-plan-update).
Environmental Setting
Section 2 of the TBR describes scenic vistas, scenic resources, the visual character,
light and glare, and shade and shadow in Palm Desert. The text below summarizes the
key information presented in Appendix 4.0 that is useful to the analysis.
Natural Scenic Resources
• Major scenic viewsheds include the Santa Rosa, San Jacinto, and San
Bernardino mountain ranges.
Natural Scenic Vistas
• The lack of towering buildings and the wide boulevard-style streets provide
ample views to the mountains that surround the city. Appropriate landscaping
materials are low and do not obscure the adjacent views.
Built Environment
Building Heights
• Within the context of existing development and appropriate design, new
structures should be similar in height to and compatible with other buildings in
the vicinity, with the goal of preserving and enhancing design qualities of the
built environment while maintaining important viewsheds. Most of the
development in the city is two stories or less, which, coupled with height
restrictions that limit new buildings to three stories or less, ensures that new
development will fit into the surrounding areas of the city and not detract
from the views of the many scenic resources in the region.
Building Setbacks
• The City of Palm Desert Zoning Code addresses the development standards per
each zone, including setbacks. Assigned setbacks should be harmonious with
the streetscape, surrounding structures, and scenic resources. Variations in
CHAPTER 4.1: AESTHETICS
4.1-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
building massing are encouraged but should reflect a sense of compatibility as
a group. In addition, building proportions should not dominate the street or
other structures and should limit the fragmentation of viewsheds to the
greatest degree practical.
Overhead Power Lines
• Overhead power lines obscure views and detract from the visual quality within
older neighborhoods in the city. Many of these neighborhoods were
developed prior to the placement of electrical utilities underground. As a
result, certain parts of the city look different from others, which impacts
aesthetics. Placing this infrastructure underground would reduce this
exposure.
• Estimated costs to place these lines underground is approximately $235
million; the City has no plans in place to make these improvements at this
time. However, Palm Desert residents have access to an established, citizen-
initiated, democratic process by which neighborhoods can pursue utility
undergrounding through the formation of assessment districts.
Desert Landscape Design
• Chapter 25.52 of the Zoning code addresses the landscaping regulations for
the City. In addition, the City’s Landscape Design Manual recommends using
aesthetically pleasing color choices when choosing cobble and decomposed
granite as decorative elements. This design aspect is used to stabilize sandy
soils and to assist surface water to drain rather than to evaporate from the
soil’s surface. Furthermore, the 2004 General Plan states that landscape design
can also create microclimates providing protection from strong winds, shade
from the sun, and reduced outdoor and indoor temperatures.
Bus Shelter Improvement Program
• On October 28, 1999, the City Council approved the Bus Shelter Improvement
Program, which provides more aesthetic and environmentally efficient bus
shelters throughout the city. Features include solar-powered security lighting
and the elimination of advertisements on all new bus shelters within the city
limits.
Traffic Calming
• Traffic calming is typically accomplished by imposing constraints on vehicle
movement and by providing less generous roadway paved sections. Such
design features as curvilinear streets, narrow travel lanes, and landscaped
median islands act to slow traffic and require greater driver awareness. More
generous parkway landscaping resulting from narrower paved streets also
improves neighborhood aesthetics. Regulations and standards to support
traffic calming can be found in the City Zoning code and the City’s Landscape
Design Manual.
Landmarks and Focal Points
• The City implements a thematic entry signage program, which uses Arizona
sandstone and Native American imagery.
Signage and Viewsheds of Public Rights-of-Way
• Chapter 25.56 of the City Zoning Code addresses sign regulations. Commercial
signage along major roadways provides important business identification but
CHAPTER 4.1: AESTHETICS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.1-3
also can degrade the value of the viewshed along public rights-of-way.
Balancing the needs of business with the importance of preserving scenic
views is an ongoing process in the city.
Art in Public Places Program
• Palm Desert’s Art in Public Places program integrates public art with native
landscaping to reflect the surrounding mountains and desert dunes and
washes. It can include the attentive design and placement of public buildings,
as well as placement of man-made monumental sculpture on public lands or
within the rights-of-way of major roadways.
Scenic Roadways/Highways
• There are a series of scenic roadways/highways within the Planning Area. The
only official route designated by the State of California is State Route 74, which
is considered the Palms to Pines Scenic Byway. This highway runs from the
west boundary of the San Bernardino National Forest to Highway 111, with
3.5 miles of the scenic highway in Palm Desert.
Local Scenic Roadways
• The following are identified as local scenic roadways:
‒ Highway 111
‒ Cook Street
‒ Portola Avenue
‒ Fred Waring Drive
‒ Washington Street
‒ Frank Sinatra Drive
‒ Gerald Ford Drive
‒ Country Club Drive
• The intent of scenic roadway designation is to require special setbacks and
landscaping where applicable.
Light and Glare
• The existing General Plan states that desert colors and tones that are
integrated into the attractiveness of the community are important to both
residents and visitors. Desert colors and tones are integrated into street signs,
traffic signals, and lighting standards to soften the city’s impact on the
surrounding views. The City preserves the value of the community’s night sky
by avoiding unnecessary lighting and glare from signage, building and
landscape illumination, or other sources of outdoor lighting. Standards for
lighting establish the maximum height and number of fixtures, and the
intensity of lighting needed to provide sufficient parking lot and building
security and identification for public safety, and to enhance landscaping and
other site aesthetics.
Shade and Shadow
• Program 6.B in the City of Palm Desert General Plan states: The City shall
encourage the incorporation of energy-efficient design measures into site
plans, including appropriate site orientation to assure solar access, and the use
of shade and windbreak trees, to enhance the use of alternative energy
systems, and to reduce the need for excessive heating and cooling.
• Furthermore, the General Plan indicates that residential living space can be
enhanced through the use of porches and verandas that offer protection from
sun and wind.
CHAPTER 4.1: AESTHETICS
4.1-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Regulatory Setting
Federal
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to aesthetics apply to the
Planning Area.
State
California State Scenic Highway Designation
The state laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in the Streets and
Highways Code, Sections 260 through 263. State Route 74 is the only designated
scenic highway in the Planning Area. While the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) has determined that Highway 111 is an eligible state scenic
highway, Highway 111 does not have a scenic designation.
Drought Proclamation
Governor Brown’s April 1, 2015, declaration of a drought emergency (B-29-15)
charged the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) with mandating water
restrictions for California. The SWRCB adopted statewide mandates on May 6, 2015,
requiring water agencies to increase conservation efforts and reduce water
consumption by 28 percent when compared to 2013 water usage. The SWRCB also
directed urban water suppliers to develop rate structures and other pricing
mechanisms, including but not limited to surcharges, fees, and penalties, to maximize
water conservation consistent with statewide water restrictions.
In addition to required goals for the preservation of drinking water, the SWRCB was
tasked with updating the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and
mandating its application through expedited regulation. Water conservation in
landscape design has a profound effect on Palm Desert’s community design. Thus,
environmentally and aesthetically sensitive design is essential to the preservation and
values of the community.
Regional and Local
Palm Desert Municipal Code
Section 4.10.080, Approval for Placement of Artwork on Private Property
The Public Art Department reviews the completed application and makes a
recommendation to the Art in Public Places Commission concerning the proposed
artwork and its proposed location, considering the aesthetic quality and harmony with
the proposed project, and the public accessibility to the artwork, including any
recommended conditions of approval.
Section 8.16.035, Storage of Containers in Residential Districts
Following completion of the normal collection of solid waste, as defined in Section
8.16.030, every person in charge of a residence is required to store refuse containers
in such a manner as not to be viewable by the public from a public right-of-way in
order to maintain the aesthetic and property values of surrounding property.
Section 8.20.020, Unlawful Property Nuisances
It is unlawful and a public nuisance for any person who owns, leases, rents, occupies,
has charge of, or possesses any property in the city to maintain such property such
that maintenance of the property is so out of harmony or conformity with the
maintenance standards of adjacent properties as to interfere with the reasonable
CHAPTER 4.1: AESTHETICS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.1-5
enjoyment of property by neighbors and depreciate the aesthetic and property values
of surrounding property.
Section 8.70.150, Neighborhood Compatibility
Property must be maintained in reasonable consistency and compatibility with the
maintenance standards of adjacent properties so as not to interfere with the
reasonable enjoyment of such properties or to depreciate their aesthetic or property
values. This section may not be construed as relieving a property owner, manager, or
occupier from complying with any property maintenance provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance or applicable state law.
Chapter 24.04, Water-Efficient Landscape
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) has created a water-efficient landscape
ordinance in compliance with the California Department of Water Resources Model
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance; Attachment A of Ordinance 1302.1, Landscape
and Irrigation System Design Criteria (CVWD Ordinance). The City has adopted by
reference CVWD Ordinance No. 1302 (in its most current edition as of the date of plan
submittal) as the City’s water-efficient landscape criteria. It is the City Council’s intent
to defer technical irrigation review and approval process to the CVWD consistent with
the CVWD ordinance. The City will have full authority over aesthetic (plant choice,
spacing, and design).
Chapter 24.16, Outdoor Lighting Requirements
This chapter defines the City’s outdoor lighting requirements in order to minimize light
pollution and light trespass and to preserve the nighttime environment. Lighting
requirements are established for outdoor lighting systems and include a site plan,
fixture cutoffs, and a photometric plan illustrating that the proposed outdoor lighting
system complies with the requirements outlined in the ordinance.
Title 25, Zoning
Title 25 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code contains the zoning regulations that govern
development in the city. Within the code are development standards for building
heights, building setbacks, landscaping standards, building and roofing materials,
signage requirements, and parking requirements for residential, commercial, and
industrial uses in the city. These standards are reviewed at the time of development
application and are verified with building inspections conducted by the City.
Section 25.28.080, Scenic Preservation Overlay District
The purpose of the Scenic Preservation Overlay (SP) district is to designate scenic
corridors that have a special aesthetic quality and to establish special development
standards for development in these areas. Examples include preservation of scenic
vistas, setbacks, landscaping, building heights, signs, and mitigation of excessive noise
impacts. The overlay may be applied according to the procedures established in
Section 25.78.030, Amendments—Zoning Ordinance.
Section 25.34.130, Communication Tower and Antenna Regulations
This section regulates the construction of communication towers and establishes
findings for placement. A conditional use permit as established by Section 25.72.050,
Conditional Use Permit, is required for all wireless communication facilities. The
ordinance allows the City to deny a tower if there are negative aesthetic concerns. All
communication towers must be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission for
building design to meet the requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Once all
CHAPTER 4.1: AESTHETICS
4.1-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
requirements are met, the project is reviewed for approval based on the findings and
conditions of approval.
Section 25.56.050, Prohibited Signs
The City prohibits a number of signs, including advertising devices, awnings that are
back-lit, business and identification signs that mention more than two good or services
sold or available on the premises, cabinet or can signs that are internally illuminated,
electronic changeable signs, commercial mascots, neon signs (except those placed in
windows), billboards, pole signs, roof signs, signs that rotate, move, flash, or blink,
signs on public property, in the public right-of-way, or on public utility poles,
temporary or portable freestanding signs, and vehicle signs.
Section 25.56.080, Standard for Specific Types of Permanent Signs
The Architectural Review Commission implements this section through findings
affirming that the approval will “visually enhance the aesthetic quality of the property
on which the sign is to be located.” The ordinance also regulates the location and size
of signs.
Section 27.12.090, Design Review
All land alteration must take into consideration the effect on surrounding property.
The Zoning Ordinance requires particular attention to be given in the design to the
protection of views from adjoining property across the area to be graded. If in the
opinion of the City Engineer, views will be substantially damaged by the proposed
grading, he or she shall refer the proposed grading plan to the Design Review Board
for conceptual approval. The City will not issue a permit until conceptual approval is
obtained.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
The analysis of impacts is based on the likely consequences of adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update compared to existing conditions.
Analysis of impacts is based on an evaluation of the changes to existing visual
resources that would result from implementation of the proposed project. In making a
determination of the extent and effects of the visual changes, the impact analysis
considers the following:
• Specific changes in the visual composition, character, and valued qualities of
the affected environment;
• The visual context of the affected environment; and
• The extent to which the affected environment contains places or features that
have been designated in plans and policies for protection or special
consideration.
The City of Palm Desert does not have an adopted definition for scenic vistas or a map
designating local scenic views. In general, scenic vistas can be defined as viewpoints
from publicly accessible areas, such as parks and roadways, that provide expansive
views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the public. For purposes of this
analysis, scenic vistas in Palm Desert are limited to the Santa Rosa, San Jacinto, and
San Bernardino mountain ranges surrounding the city.
CHAPTER 4.1: AESTHETICS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.1-7
Draft Palm Desert General Plan Update Policies and Implementation
Actions
Updated General Plan policies and implementation actions that reduce potential
aesthetic impacts include:
Policies
Land Use & Community Character Element
• Policy 1.1: Scale of development. Require new development along the city’s
corridors to use design techniques to moderate height and use and ensure
compatible fit with surrounding development.
• Policy 2.3: Landscaping. Require development projects to incorporate high
quality landscaping in order to extend and enhance the green space network
of the city.
• Policy 2.4: Tree planting. Encourage the planting of trees that appropriately
shade the sidewalk and improve the pedestrian experience throughout the
city.
• Policy 2.5: Streetscape. Enhance the pedestrian experience through
streetscape improvements that could include new street lighting, tree
planting, and easement dedications to increase the size of the sidewalks and
pedestrian amenities.
• Policy 2.6: Lighting. Require all new street lights in commercial areas to be
pedestrian-oriented and scaled, attractively designed, compatible in design
with other street furniture, and to provide adequate visibility and security in
accordance with best practices for night sky protection.
Environmental Resources Element
• Policy 2.1: View corridor preservation. Protect and preserve existing,
signature views of the hills and mountains from the city.
• Policy 2.2: Scenic roadways. Continue to minimize the impact on views by
restricting new billboards along the city’s roads and highways. Electronic and
animated billboards should be prohibited except in rare and special
circumstances.
• Policy 2.3: Hillside grading. Continue to require the preparation of a grading
analysis on hillside development to pre-determine where development should
occur so as to minimize the impact of new development on view of the city’s
hillsides.
• Policy 2.4: Public facilities. Plan public facilities, roads, and private
development to take advantage of the city’s mountain and hillside views,
especially as the City Center develops.
• Policy 2.5: Dark sky. Limit light pollution from outdoor sources, especially in
rural, hillside and mountain areas, and open spaces, to maintain darkness for
night sky viewing.
CHAPTER 4.1: AESTHETICS
4.1-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
• Action 2.30. Develop and regularly update parking management plans for all
applicable areas along the 111 corridor.
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, impacts on aesthetics are considered significant if
adoption and implementation of the Palm Desert General Plan update would:
Threshold Determination
1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista Less Than Significant
2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway
Less Than Significant
3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings
Less Than Significant
4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area
Less Than Significant
5. Cumulative effects Less Than Significant
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.1-1
Effects on Scenic Vistas. Adoption and implementation of the General
Plan update would allow for new development in the Planning Area,
including buildings, structures, paved areas, roadways, utilities, and
other improvements, potentially altering scenic vistas in the Planning
Area. However, adoption and implementation of the General Plan
update policies and programs and compliance with the Palm Desert
Municipal Code would result in a less than significant impact.
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would include physical
improvements to city transportation infrastructure including parking, roadways, traffic
signals, and other improvements, potentially altering or obstructing scenic vistas from
public spaces or along the identified vistas in the Planning Area. The General Plan
update policies and programs would reduce impacts on scenic vistas at the
programmatic level. Land Use & Community Character Element Policies 2.1, 2.3, and
2.4 require the City to consider and address preservation of scenic views.
Environmental Resources Element Policy 2.1 would protect and preserve existing,
signature views of the hills and mountains from the city. Policy 2.3 would continue to
require the preparation of a grading analysis on hillside development to predetermine
where development should occur so as to minimize the impact of new development
on view of the city’s hillsides. Policy 2.4 would plan public facilities, roads, and private
development to take advantage of the city’s mountain and hillside views, especially as
the City Center develops.
In addition, Municipal Code Section 25.28.080, Scenic Preservation Overlay District,
establishes development standards for scenic corridors. It is the purpose of the Scenic
Preservation Overlay district to designate those scenic corridors that have a special
aesthetic quality and to provide the opportunity for special standards for development
in these areas to protect that quality.
CHAPTER 4.1: AESTHETICS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.1-9
Implementation of the General Plan update policies and compliance with the
Municipal Code would reduce potential impacts on scenic vistas in the Planning Area
because the City would identify scenic vistas and implement development standards
of the underlying base district to ensure that the aesthetic quality of the scenic
corridor is preserved. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.1-2
Damage to Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway. Adoption
and implementation of the General Plan update would include new
development in the Planning Area that could substantially damage
scenic resources within a state scenic highway. However, adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update policies and programs and
compliance with the Palm Desert Municipal Code would result in a less
than significant impact.
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would revitalize the
Highway 111 corridor into a downtown-type City Center. State of California designated
state scenic highway State Route 74 and eligible state scenic highway Highway 111
would be protected by Policy 2.2 that would continue to minimize the impact on views
by restricting new billboards along the city’s roads and highways, Policy 2.1 that would
protect and preserve existing, signature views of the hills and mountains from the city,
and Policy 2.3 that would continue to require the preparation of a grading analysis on
hillside development to predetermine where development should occur so as to
minimize the impact of new development on view of the city’s hillsides. In addition,
Action 2.30 would develop and regularly update parking management plans for all
applicable areas along the Highway 111 corridor.
Implementation of the General Plan update policies and implementation actions
would reduce the impact associated with state scenic highways to a less than
significant level because City regulations would ensure consideration of state scenic
highways during review of future development projects. Therefore, the impact would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.1-3
Degrade Existing Visual Character and Quality. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update would include new
development that could substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality within or surrounding the Planning Area. However,
adoption and implementation of the General Plan update policies and
compliance with the Palm Desert Municipal Code would result in a less
than significant impact.
Palm Desert is characterized as an urbanized collection of residential and commercial
neighborhoods set against the backdrop of mountainous natural open space areas.
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would not substantially
alter the visual quality or character of any of these built-out neighborhoods or areas of
the city.
CHAPTER 4.1: AESTHETICS
4.1-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Future land uses consistent with the General Plan update would allow new
development in similar locations to, and with character similar to, the existing
downtown, residential neighborhoods, commercial corridors, and industrial uses. Land
Use & Community Character Element Policy 1.1 requires new development along the
city’s corridors to use design techniques to moderate height and use and ensure
compatible fit with surrounding development. In addition, Land Use & Community
Character Element Policies 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 and Environmental Resources Element
Policies 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 ensure future development will be consistent with
the city’s existing visual character.
Implementation of the General Plan update policies and compliance with the
Municipal Code would reduce the impact associated with visual character and quality
to a less than significant level because City regulations would ensure consideration of
visual character during review of future development projects. Therefore, the impact
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.1-4
Create New Sources of Substantial Light or Glare. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update would include new
development in the Planning Area that would create new sources of
light and glare. However, implementation of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code would result in a less than significant impact.
Most of Palm Desert is urbanized and consists of typical sources of light and glare
found in urban areas. Implementation of the General Plan update would include
physical improvements to city transportation infrastructure including parking,
roadways, and traffic signals. Land Use & Community Character Element Policy 2.6
would require all new streetlights in commercial areas to be pedestrian-oriented and
scaled, attractively designed, compatible in design with other street furniture, and to
provide adequate visibility and security in accordance with best practices for night sky
protection. In addition, Environmental Resources Element Policy 2.5 would limit light
pollution from outdoor sources, especially in rural, hillside and mountain areas, and
open spaces, to maintain darkness for night sky viewing.
Municipal Code Chapter 24.16, Outdoor Lighting Requirements, defines outdoor
lighting requirements for lighting systems and requires a site plan, fixture cutoffs, and
a photometric plan illustrating that the proposed outdoor lighting system complies
with the requirements outlined in the ordinance. These requirements would
adequately ensure that light spillover and glare would not occur.
Implementation of the General Plan update policies and compliance with the
Municipal Code would result in less than significant light and glare impacts.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative aesthetics impacts is the
Planning Area and new development in surrounding cities affecting the Planning Area.
CHAPTER 4.1: AESTHETICS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.1-11
IMPACT
4.1-5
Cumulative Effects on Aesthetics. Adoption and implementation of the
General Plan update would not include new development that would
substantially degrade scenic vistas from other nearby areas outside the
Planning Area, damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway,
existing visual character within or surrounding the Planning Area, or
create new sources of light or glare. Therefore, cumulative aesthetic
impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Scenic vistas in and around Palm Desert include the Santa Rosa, San Jacinto, and San
Bernardino mountains. The General Plan update includes policies that would prevent
development of hillside areas that are important visual resources seen from
viewpoints in Palm Desert and surrounding cities. Policies described in Impact 4.1-1
would reduce the potential for new development in the Planning Area to obstruct
views of the Santa Rosa, San Jacinto, and San Bernardino mountains from outside the
Planning Area.
California designated state scenic highway State Route 74 and California eligible state
scenic highway Highway 111 would be protected by the General Plan update. Policies
described in Impact 4.1-2 would reduce the potential for new development in the
Planning Area to damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
Visual character in Rancho Mirage and La Quinta adjacent to the Planning Area is
similar to the visual character of Palm Desert. Projected regional growth in adjacent
jurisdictions could potentially alter the existing visual character or degrade the
inherent sense of place in certain areas. However, the General Plan update includes
measures to avoid or reduce contributions to this potential significant cumulative
impact. The visual character of the Planning Area, including its edges, would be
protected through citywide development standards and other requirements noted in
policies and implementation programs of the General Plan Update described in Impact
4.1-3.
Furthermore, Palm Desert is an urbanized area with numerous sources of light and
glare. The cumulative effect of light and glare would be limited, since two or more
projects would need to be built in proximity to each other to create a combined light
and glare impact. These effects are inherently local and are related to the construction
of specific buildings or groups of buildings. Therefore, adoption and implementation of
the General Plan update would not include new development that would substantially
degrade scenic vistas from other nearby areas outside the Planning Area, damage
scenic resources within a state scenic highway, existing visual character within or
surrounding the Planning Area, or create new sources of light or glare and cumulative
impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.1: AESTHETICS
4.1-12 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
(This page is intentionally left blank)
CHAPTER 4.2: AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.2-1
4.2. Agricultural and Forest Resources
Introduction
This chapter evaluates the potential environmental effects related to agricultural and
forest resources associated with implementation of the General Plan update. The
General Plan update Environmental Resources Element policies and the
implementation actions presented in General Plan Chapter 12, Work Plan, guide,
develop, and facilitate consideration of agricultural and forest resources during the
City’s development review process.
NOP Comments: No comment letters in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP)
addressed concerns related to agricultural or forest resources.
Reference Information: Information for this resource chapter is based on multiple
references, including the General Plan Update Technical Background Report (TBR), the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), and other publicly available
documents. The TBR is attached to this document as Appendix A. This EIR, including
the TBR, is also available electronically on the City’s website
(http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/general-plan-update).
Environmental Setting
Section 3 of the TBR identifies existing conditions, regulations, and key agricultural
resource issues in Palm Desert’s Planning Area. Section 3 is summarized below.
Agricultural operations are a significant feature in the economy of Riverside County
and the Coachella Valley. According to the County’s 2012 Coachella Valley Acreage and
Agricultural Crop Report, the estimated gross value of agricultural production in
Riverside County for 2012 was over $1.2 billion. This is a $188.6 million increase over
the 2010 gross valuation. Of this valuation, approximately $544 million of agricultural
production occurred in the Coachella Valley.
Palm Desert is an incorporated charter city that is predominantly built out with
existing urban uses. While the city is nearly fully developed, the Riverside County Land
Information System (RCLIS) identifies farmland in the city limits and within the
adopted Sphere of Influence (SOI) (see Figure 3-1). The Planning Area, which is made
up of the city boundary and the Sphere of Influence, does not contain any land
designated for agricultural uses or land zoned for agricultural uses (TBR).
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
As identified by the California Department of Conservation’s (2014) Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program (FMMP), there is no Prime Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance in the Planning Area. However, the Planning Area does contain
Unique Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance. The portion identified as Unique
Farmland is an Armstrong Growers Nursery Facility located off Hidden River Road. Of
the two areas of Farmland of Local Importance, the portion located within the city
limits appears to have been used for agricultural purposes at one time and is now in
the process of being converted into a combined Cal State and UC Riverside branch
campus and residential subdivisions. The other area is located within the City’s Sphere
of Influence and contains vacant land that at one time appeared to be used for row
crops of some sort.
CHAPTER 4.2: AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
4.2-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
A full discussion of soils in the Planning Area is contained in Chapter 4.7, Geology and
Soils. According to the Storie Index rating, 1,447 acres of Grade 1 excellent farmland in
the Planning Area is considered Prime Farmland by LAFCo. In addition, 1,313 acres of
Grade 1 excellent farmland are in the city limits, representing 9 percent of the total
city, and 134 acres of Grade 1 excellent farmland are in the SOI, representing 37
percent of the total Sphere of Influence. Although both the FMMP and LAFCo (based
on Storie Index rating system) recognize important farmland and Prime Farmland,
respectively, within the Planning Area, no land uses have been identified or zoned for
agricultural production by the City of Palm Desert.
Williamson Act Contract Lands
As of 2009, there were 59,307 acres of land in Riverside County under Williamson Act
contract (DOC 2010). An extension of the Williamson Act, called the Farmland Security
Zone program, permits farmers and ranchers to garner an additional 35 percent
property tax reduction by keeping their land in agriculture for a minimal initial term of
20 years; however, the County of Riverside has not adopted the program. There are no
Williamson Act contracted lands in the Planning Area.
Regulatory Setting
The regulatory setting for agricultural and forest resources is discussed in detail in
Appendix A. Following is a summary of key regulations affecting agricultural resources
in Palm Desert.
Federal
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to agricultural resources apply
to the Planning Area.
State
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section
21060.1) defines agricultural land as follows:
Agricultural land means prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or
unique farmland, as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture
land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Under CEQA, the lead agency is required to evaluate agricultural resources in
environmental assessments at least in part based on the FMMP. The state’s system
was designed to document how much agricultural land in California was being
converted to nonagricultural land or transferred into Williamson Act contracts.
Williamson Act
The Williamson Act is an agricultural conservation tool. Under the Williamson Act,
local governments can enter into contracts with private property owners to protect
land for agricultural and open space purposes. As of 2012, there are no Williamson Act
contracts in the Planning Area.
LAFCo Agricultural and Open Space Land Conservation
Land in the SOI but outside of the city limits will need to be annexed prior to
development consistent with the General Plan. The Riverside Local Agency Formation
CHAPTER 4.2: AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.2-3
Commission (LAFCo) must approve annexation requests by the City and must consider
the potential for agricultural land conversion.
Local
Riverside County General Plan
The following policies apply to properties designated as Agriculture on Riverside
County’s (2008) General Plan and area plan land use maps, including land currently
within the City’s sphere of influence, but outside of the City’s corporate boundaries.
LU 16.1. Encourage retaining agriculturally designated lands where agricultural
activity can be sustained at an operational scale, where it accommodates
lifestyle choice, and in locations where impacts to and from potentially
incompatible uses, such as residential uses, are minimized, through incentives
such as tax credits.
LU 16.2. Protect agricultural uses, including those with industrial
characteristics (dairies, poultry, hog farms, etc.) by discouraging inappropriate
land division in the immediate proximity and allowing only uses and intensities
that are compatible with agricultural uses.
LU 16.4. Encourage conservation of productive agricultural lands. Preserve
prime agricultural lands for high-value crop production.
LU 16.5. Continue to participate in the California Land Conservation Act (the
Williamson Act) of 1965.
LU 16.6. Require consideration of State agricultural land classification
specifications when a 2½-year Agriculture Foundation amendment to the
General Plan is reviewed that would result in a shift from an agricultural to a
non-agricultural use.
LU 16.7. Adhere to Riverside County’s Right-to-Farm Ordinance.
LU 16.8. Support and participate in ongoing public education programs by
organizations such as the County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office,
University of California Cooperative Extension, Farm Bureau, and industry
organizations to help the public better understand the importance of the
agricultural industry.
LU 16.10. Allow agriculturally related retail uses such as feed stores and
permanent produce stands in all areas and land use designations. It is not the
County's intent pursuant to this policy to subject agricultural related uses to
any discretionary permit requirements other than those in existence at the
time of adoption of the General Plan. Where a discretionary permit or other
discretionary approval is required under the County zoning ordinances in
effect as of December 2, 2002, then allow such retail uses with the approval of
such a discretionary permit or other approval. The following criteria shall be
considered in approving any discretionary permit or other discretionary
approval required for these uses:
a. Whether the use provides a needed service to the surrounding
agricultural area that cannot be provided more efficiently within urban
areas or requires location in a non-urban area because of unusual site
requirements or operational characteristics;
CHAPTER 4.2: AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
4.2-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
b. Whether the use is sited on productive agricultural lands and less
productive land is available in the vicinity;
c. Whether the operational or physical characteristics of the use will have a
detrimental impact on water resources or the use or management of
surrounding properties within at least 1/4 mile radius;
d. Whether a probable workforce is located nearby or is readily available.
LU-16.11. The County shall pursue the creation of new incentive programs,
such as tax credits, that encourage the continued viability of agricultural
activities.
Palm Desert Municipal Code
The following Municipal Code provisions address the cultural aspects of previous
agricultural uses as well as requirements for urban agriculture.
Section 29.40.010, Landmark Designation Criteria. A cultural resource may be
designated as a landmark by the City Council if, with written consent of property
owner, after completion of a certified survey and upon the recommendation of the
committee, it is determined that it retains integrity as defined in Chapter 29.20 and at
a local, state, regional, or national level:
F. Reflects distinctive examples of community planning or significant
development patterns, including those associated with different eras of
settlement and growth, agriculture, or transportation.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
The analysis of impacts is based on the likely consequences of adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update, compared to existing conditions.
Draft General Plan Update Policies and Implementation Actions
Updated General Plan policies and implementation actions that protect and support
agriculture and the City’s environment include:
Policies
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 5.10: Urban forest. Protect the city’s healthy trees and plant new ones
to provide shade, increase carbon sequestration and purify the air.
Implementation Actions
Health & Wellness Element
Action 5-07. Work to establish Community Supported Agriculture programs to
serve Palm Desert residents.
Action 5-08. Develop incubators for medical and agriculture industries.
Environmental Resources Element
Action 6-11. Develop a comprehensive community agriculture program that
includes schools and parks.
CHAPTER 4.2: AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.2-5
Land Use Element
While not directly related to agriculture and forest uses, the proposed General
Plan includes a potential for golf course reuse that may allow community scale
agricultural use.
8.10 Adaptive reuse of golf courses. Support the conversion of struggling golf
courses into new, complementary uses. Changes of use will be considered
based on their merits and benefits to the surrounding community and city
at large and must demonstrate excellence in design and connectivity. The
City will consider uses such as:
• Active recreational space,
• Natural habitat restoration,
• Passive open space and trails,
• Community scale agriculture,
• Neighborhood supportive commercial and service uses,
• High quality neighborhoods.
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, impacts on agricultural or forest resources are considered
significant if adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would:
Threshold Determination
1. 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 nonagricultural use
No Impact
2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract
No Impact
3. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code Section
51104(g))
No Impact
4. Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of
forestland to non-forest use
No Impact
5. Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or
conversion of forestland to non-forest use
No Impact
6. Cumulative effects Less than Significant
CHAPTER 4.2: AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
4.2-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.2-1
Convert Farmland or Forestland and Conflict with Existing Zoning for
Agricultural or Forest Use. Adoption and implementation of the
General Plan update could result in new development and
redevelopment of property throughout the Planning Area. There is no
Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the Planning
Area. The Planning Area does contain Unique Farmland and Farmland
of Local Importance; however, the land is not used as farmland.
Therefore, no impact will occur.
As identified by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), there is no
Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the Planning Area. However,
the Planning Area does contain Unique Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance.
The portion identified as Unique Farmland is an Armstrong Growers Nursery Facility
located off Hidden River Road. Of the two areas of Farmland of Local Importance, the
portion located within the city limits appears to have been used for agricultural
purposes at one time and is now in the process of being converted into a combined
Cal State and UC Riverside branch campus and residential subdivisions. The other area
is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence and contains vacant land that at one
time appeared to be used for row crops. These two areas are currently zoned
Residential and Public Facility. The proposed project includes a policy that would
allow existing golf courses to be used for community scale agriculture (community
gardens, boutique agriculture, etc.). As this land is currently developed as a golf course
it is not designated agriculture and therefore does not result in the conversion of
agricultural land to urban uses. The Planning Area does not contain any Williamson Act
contracted lands or forestland.
Since the land identified as Unique Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance is not
currently being used for agricultural uses, is not zoned for agricultural use, and the
land use designations on these parcels will not change as a result of the proposed
project. The General Plan update would not convert any agricultural lands.
Furthermore, no land uses have been identified or zoned for agricultural production
by the City of Palm Desert. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The geographic context for cumulative impacts on agricultural and forest resources is
future development in surrounding cities affecting the Planning Area.
IMPACT
4.2-5
Cumulative Effects on Agricultural and Forest Resources. Adoption
and implementation of the General Plan update in addition to
anticipated future development in surrounding cities could cause a
substantial change in the significance of agricultural and forest
resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The loss of
some agricultural resources may be prevented through implementation
of CEQA review and surrounding city policies, which would not,
however, ensure that these resources can be protected and preserved.
This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable.
CHAPTER 4.2: AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.2-7
Agricultural resources in surrounding cities have similar soil types. Potential future
development in the surrounding region could include conversion of farmland.
Although some agricultural resources may be listed as Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance or under a Williamson Act contract,
the listing itself does not ensure protection of the resource. Future discretionary
development in surrounding cities would be subject to the requirements of CEQA. The
cumulative effect of future development would be the continued loss of farmland and
local food sources. Implementation of the General Plan update would be less than
cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.2: AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
4.2-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.3-1
4.3. Air Quality
Introduction
This resource chapter of the EIR describes the existing air quality condition within
Palm Desert and evaluates potential air quality effects associated with implementation
of the proposed project. Information in this section is based in part on data from the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).
Reference Information: Information for this resource chapter is based on numerous
references, including the City of Palm Desert’s General Plan Technical Background
Report (TBR), traffic report, and other publicly available documents. The TBR is
attached as Appendix 4.0. This EIR, including the TBR, is also available electronically on
the City’s website (http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/general-plan-update).
Environmental Setting
Section 4 of Appendix 4.0 (Existing Conditions Report) describes the natural factors
(i.e., topography, climate, and meteorology) that affect air quality in the region;
current regional air quality conditions in the project area; and the federal, state, and
local air quality regulatory framework. A summary of that information is provided
below.
Palm Desert is located in the Salton Sea Air Basin (Basin) and the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the air pollution control district principally
responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Basin.
The Basin includes the central portion of Riverside County and all of Imperial
County to the southeast. The regional climate within the basin is typical of a
desert regime, with large daily and seasonal fluctuations in temperature and
relatively high annual average temperatures. Temperature highs frequently
exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) during the summer months. During the
winter, temperatures can drop to near freezing. Throughout the year, average
daily relative humidity is low, as are average rainfall values. Daytime winds
during the summer (May through October) are predominantly from the south-
southeast. This differs from daytime winds during the wintertime (November
through April), which demonstrates a strong split between winds from the
northwest and from the south-southeast. Evening and nighttime winds are
almost exclusively from the northwest year round. The diurnal shift in wind
directions is typical of wind patterns found near land-sea transitions.
CARB and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently focus on
the following criteria air pollutants (CAP) as indicators of ambient air quality:
ozone, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb).
Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are airborne substances that are capable of
causing chronic (i.e., of long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short
duration) adverse effects on human health. They include both organic and
inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common
sources including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial
operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. While
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
4.3-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Palm Desert does not contain any large scale sources of TACs, it does contain
some of these “common sources” (such as gas stations), although an individual
use’s potential to generate TACs can only be determined on a case-by-case
basis. Toxic air contaminants are different than the “criteria” pollutants
previously discussed in that ambient air quality standards have not been
established for them, largely because there are hundreds of air toxins and
their effects on health tend to be local rather than regional.
Current federal and State standards for criteria pollutants, as well as a
summary of recent exceedances of these standards at local air quality
monitoring stations, are provided in Appendix 4.0. The Riverside County
portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (Basin), in which Palm Desert is located, is a
non-attainment area for both the federal and state standards for ozone and
PM10. The area’s attainment status for all applicable criteria pollutants is listed
below.
o Ozone is a photochemical oxidant and the primary component of smog. It
is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor
emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in
the presence of sunlight. Palm Desert is located in both a federal and state
non-attainment area for ozone, as local air quality conditions exceed the
federal 8-hour ozone standard and the state 1-hour and 8-hour ozone
standards. It should be noted that the presence of ozone in the Coachella
Valley is predominately due to transport of emissions from the South
Coast Air Basin to the west, rather than to activity within the local Basin,
and maximum ozone concentrations in recent years have been below the
health advisory level.
o Palm Desert is located in both a federal and state non-attainment area for
PM10.
o Palm Desert is located in a federal unclassified/attainment area and state
attainment area for PM2.5.
o Palm Desert is located in an area that meets both federal and state CO
standards.
o Palm Desert is located in a federal unclassified/attainment area and state
attainment area for NO2.
o Palm Desert is located in an area that meets both federal and state SO2
standards.
o Palm Desert is located in both a federal and state attainment area for
lead.
Ambient air quality standards have been established to represent the levels of air
quality considered sufficient, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public
health and welfare. They are designed to protect that segment of the public most
susceptible to respiratory distress, such as children under 14; the elderly over 65;
persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise; and people with cardiovascular and
chronic respiratory diseases. The majority of sensitive receptor locations in Palm
Desert are therefore residences, schools and nursing homes. The location of existing
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.3-3
land uses in Palm Desert are described in Section 10, Land Use and Planning, of
Appendix 4.0.
Regulatory Setting
Federal, state, and local plans, policies, laws, and regulations provide a framework for
addressing aspects of air quality that would be affected by implementation of the City
of Palm Desert’s General Plan. The regulatory setting for air quality is discussed in
detail in Appendix 4.0. A summary of that information as it relates to the impact
analysis is provided below. In addition, the current federal and state ambient air
quality standards are included in Table 4.3-1.
The federal and state governments have been empowered by the federal and
state Clean Air Acts to regulate the emission of airborne pollutants. The EPA is
the federal agency designated to administer air quality regulation, while the
Air Resources Board (CARB) is the state equivalent.
SCAQMD requires all projects in the air basin to implement Rules 403 (Fugitive
Dust), Rule 403.1 (Supplemental Fugitive Dust Control Requirements for
Coachella Valley Sources), Rule 401 (Visible Dust), and Rule 1113 (Architectural
Coatings) during construction activities.
SCAQMD requires all projects to comply with Rule 402 (Nuisance) during both
construction and operational activities.
Under state law, the SCAQMD is required to prepare an overall plan for air
quality improvement, known as the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), for
the South Coast Air Basin, and the Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea
Air Basin. AQMPs are required to be updated every three years. Each iteration
of the plan is an update of the previous plan and has a 20-year horizon.
CARB developed the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health
Perspective to guide the siting and design of new land uses in order to avoid
exposing sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminant emissions (CARB 2005).
Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, the EPA established
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS were established
for six major criteria pollutants, which are those pollutants for which the
federal and state governments have established AAQS, or criteria, for outdoor
concentrations in order to protect public health. The current AAQS plus the
California standards (which are generally more stringent than federal
standards) are shown in Table 4.3-1.
Table 4.3-1. Current Federal and State Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Pollutant Federal Standard California Standard
Ozone 0.070 ppm (8-hr avg)
0.09 ppm (1-hr avg)
0.07 ppm (8-hr avg)
Carbon Monoxide
9.0 ppm (8-hr avg)
35.0 ppm (1-hr avg)
9.0 ppm (8-hr avg)
20.0 ppm (1-hr avg)
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
Table 4.3-1, continued
4.3-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Pollutant Federal Standard California Standard
Nitrogen Dioxide 0.053 ppm (annual avg)
0.18 ppm (1-hr avg)
0.030 ppm (annual avg)
Sulfur Dioxide
0.14 ppm (24-hr avg)
0.075 ppm (1-hr avg)
0.04 ppm (24-hr avg)
0.25 ppm (1-hr avg)
Lead 0.15 g/m3 (3-month avg) 1.5 g/m3 (30-day avg)
Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 g/m3 (24-hr avg)
20 g/m3 (annual avg)
50 g/m3 (24-hr avg)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
12 g/m3 (annual avg)
35 g/m3 (24-hr avg)
12 g/m3 (annual avg)
ppm= parts per million
g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf,
2015.
Draft City of Palm Desert’s General Plan Goals and Policies that
Reduce Potential Impacts on Air Quality
Policies and goals from the Health and Wellness, Mobility, and Environmental
Resources Elements that would mitigate potential impacts on air quality are described
below.
Health and Wellness Element
Goal 6: Air Quality. A city with clean, healthy air.
Policy 6.1: Near-source air quality impacts. Avoid locating new air quality-
sensitive uses (schools, child care centers, senior centers, medical facilities,
and residences) in proximity to sources of localized air pollution (e.g.,
Interstate 10, high traffic roads, certain industrial facilities), and vice versa.
Where such uses are located within 500 feet of each other, require
preparation of a health impact assessment (HIA) or similarly effective health
analysis, as part of the CEQA environmental review process, to analyze the
significance of the health impact on sensitive land uses and incorporate
project-specific mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. For sensitive
land uses that cannot be avoided within 500 feet of sources of localized air
pollution, potential design mitigation options include:
o Providing residential units with individual HVAC systems in order to allow
adequate ventilation with windows closed;
o Locating air intake systems for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) systems as far away from existing air pollution sources as
possible;
o Using HEPA air filters in the HVAC system and developing a maintenance
plan to ensure the filtering system is properly maintained; and
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.3-5
o Utilizing only fixed windows next to any existing sources of pollution.
o Using sound walls, berms, and vegetation as physical barriers.
o Notifying new potential home buyers of risks from air pollution.
Policy 6.2: Healthy buildings. Require new development to meet the State’s
Green Building Code standards for indoor air quality performance, and
promote green building practices that support “healthy buildings,” such as low
VOC materials, environmental tobacco smoke control, and indoor air quality
construction pollution prevention techniques.
Policy 6.3: Sensitive receptors. Avoid the siting of new projects and land uses
that would produce localized air pollution in a way that would adversely
impact existing air quality-sensitive receptors including schools, childcare
centers, senior housing, and subsidized affordable housing. The recommended
minimum distance separating these uses should be 500 feet. When a
minimum distance of 500 feet cannot be avoided, a health impact assessment
(HIA) shall be completed in compliance with Policy 5.1.
Environmental Resources Element
Goal 8: Air Quality. A city with limited sources of air pollution.
Policy 8.1: Sources of Pollutants. Minimize the creation of new sources of air
pollutants within the city.
Policy 8.2: Land use patterns. Promote compact, mixed-use, energy efficient
and transit-oriented development to reduce air pollutants associated with
energy and vehicular use.
Policy 8.3: Single-occupant vehicle trip reductions. Provide disincentives for
single-occupant vehicle trips through parking supply and pricing controls in
areas where parking supply is limited and alternative transportation modes are
available.
Policy 8.4: Electric vehicles. Encourage the use of electric vehicles (EV),
including golf carts and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV), by encouraging
developments to provide EV and NEV charging stations, street systems, and
other infrastructure that support the use of EVs. Similarly, encourage the use
of renewable energy sources to power EV plug-in stations.
Policy 8.5: Construction-related emissions. Require construction activities,
including on-site building and the transport of materials, to limit emissions and
dust.
Policy 8.6: Traffic congestion. In the instance where a significant health hazard
may be created, consider designs for new intersections to function in a
manner that reduces air pollutant emissions from stop and start and idling
traffic conditions.
Policy 8.7: Transportation demand management. Encourage employers to
provide transit subsidies, bicycle facilities, alternative work schedules,
ridesharing, telecommuting, work-at-home programs, employee education
and preferential parking for carpools/vanpools.
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
4.3-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Policy 8.8: Transportation management associations. Encourage commercial,
retail and residential developments to create and participate in transportation
management associations. 8.9 Deliveries. Encourage business owners to
schedule deliveries at off-peak traffic periods.
Mobility Element
Goal 1: Livable Streets. A balanced transportation system that accommodates all
modes of travel safely and efficiently.
Policy 1.1: Complete Streets. Consider all modes of travel in planning, design,
and construction of all transportation projects to create safe, livable, and
inviting environments for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transit
users of all ages and capabilities.
Policy 1.2: Transportation System Impacts. Evaluate transportation and
development projects in a manner that addresses the impacts of all travel
modes on all other travel modes through the best available practices.
Policy 1.3: Facility Service Levels. Determine appropriate service levels for all
modes of transportation and develop guidelines to evaluate impacts to these
modes for all related public and private projects.
Policy 1.4: Transportation Improvements. Consider improvements that add
roadway or intersection capacity for vehicles only after considering
improvements to other modes of travel.
Policy 1.5: Transportation Network Consistency. Perform a formal evaluation
of any transportation projects to verify consistency with the goals and policies
in the General Plan prior to approving funding for those projects.
Policy 1.7: System Efficiency. Prioritize transportation systems management
(TSM) strategies such as signal coordination, signal retiming, and other
applicable techniques to limit unnecessary delay and congestion for vehicles.
Goal 3: Pedestrian Facilities. Integrated pedestrian pathways that connect residences,
businesses, and educational and community uses.
Policy 3.1: Pedestrian Network. Provide a safe and convenient circulation
system for pedestrians that include sidewalks, crosswalks, place to sit and
gather, appropriate street lighting, buffers from moving vehicles, shading, and
amenities for people of all ages.
Goal 4: Bicycle Networks. Well-connected bicycle network that facilitates bicycling for
commuting, school, shopping, and recreational trips.
Policy 4.1: Bicycle Networks. Provide bicycle facilities along all roadways to
implement the proposed network of facilities outlined in the General Plan.
Goal 8: Transportation Innovation. A transportation system that leverages emerging
technologies to improve mobility for residents, employees, and visitors.
Policy 8.1: Alternative Fueled City Owned Vehicles. Encourage the purchase
of City vehicles which use fuel sources other than fossil fuels while considering
factors such as cost effectiveness, environmental impacts, and the availability
of local maintenance.
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.3-7
Policy 8.6: Electric Vehicles. Encourage the use of electric vehicles (EV),
including golf carts and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV) by supporting
the use of EVs and encouraging NEV charging stations to be powered with
renewable resources.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following section describes the thresholds, impacts, and mitigation measures
associated with the project.
Thresholds
Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, air quality impacts related to the proposed
General Plan would be significant if the General Plan would:
Threshold Determination
1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
regional air quality management plan;
Less Than Significant Impact
2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation;
Less Than Significant Impact
3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors);
Less Than Significant Impact
4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
concentrations; or
Less Than Significant Impact
5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people.
Less Than Significant Impact
Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to the above thresholds, the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance
Thresholds (LST) in response to the Governing Board’s Environmental Justice
Enhancement Initiative (1-4), which was prepared to update SCAQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, which was in turn developed and approved by the SCAQMD in
1993 to provide guidance in preparing air quality analyses. The impact analysis below
is consistent with this guidance.
LSTs were devised in response to concern regarding exposure of individuals to criteria
pollutants in local communities. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project
that will not cause or contribute to an air quality exceedance of the most stringent
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive
receptor, taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each source receptor
area (SRA), project size, distance to the sensitive receptor, and other factors. However,
LSTs only apply to emissions within a fixed stationary location. LSTs have been
developed for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs do not apply to on-site mobile sources
such as cars on a roadway (SCAQMD 2009). As such, LSTs are not typically a
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
4.3-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
consideration for project operation since the majority of operational emissions are
usually generated by cars on roadways.
LSTs have been developed for emissions within construction areas up to five acres in
size. The SCAQMD provides lookup tables for sites that measure one, two, or five
acres.
Methodology
Short-Term Emissions Methodology
Emissions from construction activities represent temporary impacts that are typically
short in duration, depending on the size, phasing, and type of project. Air quality
impacts can nevertheless be acute during construction periods, resulting in significant
localized impacts to air quality. SCAQMD has adopted significance thresholds for
construction-related emissions. However, construction-related emissions are
speculative at the General Plan level because such emissions are dependent on the
characteristics of individual development projects. Nonetheless, because construction
associated with buildout under General Plan Update would generate temporary
criteria pollutant emissions, primarily due to the operation of construction equipment
(e.g., PM10 from grading) and truck trips, a qualitative analysis is provided below.
Long-Term Emissions Methodology
The methodology for determining the significance of air quality impacts is to compare
2015 existing conditions to the General Plan Update conditions in the year 2040, as
required in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a). State and federal clean air laws
require that emissions of pollutants for which federal or state ambient air quality
standards are violated be reduced from current levels. Therefore, the project’s long-
term impacts to air quality is considered significant if the project results in mobile
source emissions that significantly exceed existing levels. In this case, the pollutants of
concern are ozone precursors (NOx and ROG) and particulate matter (PM2.5 and
PM10), as these are the primary pollutants associated with land development and
vehicle transportation. However, similar to construction-related emissions,
operational emissions are speculative at the General Plan level because such
emissions are dependent on the characteristics of individual projects. Nonetheless,
because operation associated with buildout under the General Plan Update would
generate operational criteria pollutant emissions, a qualitative analysis is provided
below. Each impact below is given a descriptive title, with the CEQA thresholds to
which it relates listed in parentheses.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.3-1
Consistency with Air Quality Plans (Thresholds 1, 2, 3). Adoption
and implementation of the City of Palm Desert’s General Plan does not
include any specific development proposals. However, it would allow
for new development and redevelopment of property throughout the
planning area, which could result in air contaminant emissions
associated with construction and operation of future and existing land
uses that would affect how the region attains and maintains air quality
standards. Adoption and implementation of the City of Palm Desert’s
General Plan policies and programs would comply with the regional Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and would result in a less than
significant impact.
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.3-9
The discussions that follow address consistency of the proposed project with the
growth and emissions forecasts upon which the AQMP is based, and with applicable
AQMP control measures.
Consistency with AQMP Growth Forecast
Vehicle use, energy consumption, and associated air pollutant emissions are directly
related to population growth. A project may be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would
generate population, housing or employment growth exceeding the forecasts used in
the development of the AQMP. According to Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) growth forecasts in their Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), Palm Desert will have a resident
population of 61,700 in 2040. Development facilitated by the proposed General Plan,
including development proposed as part of the University Neighborhood Specific Plan,
would add an estimated 11,905 permanent residents between 2012 and 2040,
bringing the city’s total population to 61,691, which is within SCAG’s 2040 population
forecasts of 61,700 from the 2016 RTP/SCS (SCAG 2016) (see Section 4.11, Population
and Housing, for further detail). Therefore, the proposed General Plan would be
consistent with SCAG projections.
Consistency with AQMP Control Measures
Consistency with the 2012 AQMP is also a function of consistency with applicable
AQMP control measures. The AQMP includes specific control measures to reduce air
pollutant emissions in order meet federal and state air quality standards. One of the
most important methods the AQMP relies on to achieve its goals is the use of emission
control measures, many of which were established as part of the previous AQMP
adopted in 2007. Between 2008 and 2011, twelve control measures or rules were
adopted or amended by the SCAQMD. Adoption of these measures was intended to
result in a reduction of 22.5 tons per day of VOC, 7.6 tons per day of NOx, 4.0 tons per
day of SOX, and 1.0 ton per day of PM2.5 by 2014. Additional reductions from these
adopted rules were to be achieved by 2023. Every 3 years, the SCAQMD prepares a
new AQMP, updating the previous plan and having a 20-year horizon. The SCAQMD
adopted the Final 2012 AQMP on December 7, 2012 and forwarded it to the CARB for
review in February 2013. Although the control measures contained in the Final 2012
AQMP apply specifically to the South Coast Air Basin, they would also contribute
toward the attainment of air quality standards for ozone in the Coachella Valley, due
to the air pollution pathway discussed under Current Ambient Air Quality. These
control measures for ozone can be categorized as follows:
8-hour Ozone Measures. Measures that provide for necessary actions to
maintain progress towards meeting the 2023 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including
regulatory measures, technology assessments, key investments, and
incentives.
Transportation Control Measures. Measures generally designed to reduce
vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as included in SCAG’s 2012 Regional
Transportation Plan.
Many of the control measures proposed are not regulatory in form, but instead focus
on incentives, outreach, and education to bring about emissions reductions through
voluntary participation and behavioral changes needed to complement regulations.
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
4.3-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Currently, the SCAQMD staff is in the process of developing the 2016 AQMP, which
was released to the public for review and comment on June 30, 2016 and will be a
comprehensive and integrated Plan primarily focused on addressing the ozone
standards. The Plan will be a regional and multi-agency effort (SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG,
and EPA). State and federal planning requirements include developing control
strategies, attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress, and maintenance
plans. The 2016 AQMP will incorporate the latest scientific and technical information
and planning assumptions, including the latest applicable growth assumptions,
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and updated
emission inventory methodologies for various source categories.
The 2012 AQMP emission control measures most applicable to the proposed project
are the transportation control measures (TCMs), which are based on SCAG’s adopted
2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
and 2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The measures
proposed improve emissions from every component of the regional multi-modal
transportation system, including:
Active transportation
Goods movement
Highways
Aviation and airport ground
access
Transit
Arterials
Passenger and high-speed rail
Operations and maintenance
Transportation demand
management (TDM)
Transportation system
management (TSM)
Table 4.3-2 lists applicable TCMs and the corresponding Palm Desert General Plan
policies that support each TCM.
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.3-11
Table 4.3-2 Palm Desert General Plan Consistency with
SCAQMD Transportation Control Measures
Transportation
Control Measure Palm Desert General Plan Policy
Section 108 (f) (A)(i).
Programs for
improved use of
public transit
Land Use and Community Element
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.
Policy 5.4 Access to transit. Encourage the development of
commercial and mixed use centers that are located on existing
or planned transit stops in order to facilitate and take
advantage of transit service, reduce vehicle trips and allow
residents without private vehicles to access services.
Mobility Element
Goal 5. Transit Facilities. An integrated transportation system
that supports opportunities to use public and private transit
systems.
Policy 5.1 Transit Service. Promote public transit service in
areas of the City with appropriate levels of density, mix of
residential and employment uses, and connections to bicycle
and pedestrian networks.
Policy 5.2 Bus Stop Location. Regularly review bus stop
locations in conjunction with Sunline Transit to ensure that bus
stops reflect current land use and transportation networks.
Policy 5.3 Private Transit. Encourage the implementation of
private transit services in a manner which minimizes negative
impacts on public transportation facilities.
Policy 5.4 Senior Transit. Encourage existing para transit
services in the City to provide transit access for seniors and
persons with disabilities.
Policy 5.5 Private Development Access to Transit. Review
development proposals to limit impacts on existing or proposed
transit facilities.
Policy 5.6 Safe Routes to Transit. Regularly review transit stop
locations to maintain safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Goal 6. Sustainable Transportation. Sustainable
Transportation. A transportation network that can be built,
operated, and maintained within the City’s resource
limitations.
Policy 6.1 Fair Share Costs. Require that new development pay
for its fair share of construction costs related to new and/or
upgraded infrastructure needed to accommodate the
development.
Policy 6.2 Multi-Modal Impacts. Develop and apply funding
mechanisms that require the fair share contributions for
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
Table 4.3-2, continued
4.3-12 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Transportation
Control Measure Palm Desert General Plan Policy
impacts to all modes of transportation associated with
development or redevelopment.
Policy 6.3 Operations and Maintenance Costs. Evaluate
potential changes in Citywide operations and maintenance
costs for transportation facilities prior to the construction of
any new facilities.
Policy 6.4 Development Contribution to Operations and
Maintenance Costs. Consider funding strategies that require
private development to contribute to the ongoing operations
and maintenance of transportation infrastructure within the
City.
Policy 6.5 Cap-and-Trade Funds. Take advantage of funds from
the State’s cap-and trade program to apply to projects and
programs in the City, when possible.
Goal 7. Monitoring. Monitoring. A process to regularly
monitor the performance of City transportation facilities.
Policy 7.1 Ongoing Monitoring. Regularly monitor the
performance of all major transportation facilities within the City
including major roadways, pedestrian facilities, bicycle lanes,
and transit stops.
Policy 7.2 Safety Review. Continue to coordinate with law
enforcement agencies to identify major accident locations
including those affecting vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Regularly publish reports regarding traffic safety conditions in
the city.
Goal 9. Regional Coordination. The City transportation system
operates as an integral element of the larger regional system.
Policy 9.2 Regional Transit. Collaborate with RCTC, CVAG, and
Sunline Transit in the planning, design, and construction of
regional transportation facilities, emphasizing the construction
of a Metrolink station in Palm Desert. Policy 9.5 Regional
Priorities. Identify and prioritize desired regional roadway,
transit, and non-motorized improvements to focus the City’s
outreach with agencies such as Caltrans, CVAG, RCTC, and
elected officials.
Section 108 (f) (A)(v).
Traffic flow
improvement
programs that
achieve emission
reductions;
Land Use and Community Element
Goal 6. Corridors and Connectivity. A network of
transportation and open space corridors throughout the city
that provides a high level of connectivity for vehicles,
bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Policy 6.3 Connections between development projects.
Require the continuation of the street network between
adjacent development projects and discourage the use of cul-
de-sacs except where necessary because connections cannot be
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
Table 4.3-2, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.3-13
Transportation
Control Measure Palm Desert General Plan Policy
made due to existing development, topographic conditions or
limited access to transportation systems
Policy 6.4 Cook Street. Facilitate the development of Cook
Street into a multimodal street that serves as community
amenity, connecting both east and west sides of the street, as
well as the north and south ends of the city.
Mobility Element
Goal 8. Transportation Innovation. Transportation Innovation.
A transportation system that leverages emerging technologies
to improve mobility for residents, employees, and visitors.
Policy 8.2 Innovative Vehicle Technologies. Regularly monitor
and evaluate new vehicle technologies such as autonomous and
connected vehicles for use by City Staff.
Policy 8.3 Emerging Mobility Strategies. Encourage the
deployment of emerging transportation approaches such as
transportation network companies, mobility hubs and
comprehensive mobility providers by private vendors.
Policy 8.4 Big Data. Regularly evaluate new data sources
including but not limited to real time traffic and parking
information for use by City Staff and residents.
Policy 8.5 Analysis Tools. Regularly evaluate state of the
practice transportation analysis tools and procedures to
determine their utility in the analysis of existing and future
transportation conditions.
Section 108 (f) (A)(x).
Programs for secure
bicycle storage
facilities and other
facilities, including
bicycle lanes, for the
convenience and
protection of
bicyclists, in both
public and private
areas.
Mobility Element
Goal 4. Bicycle Networks. Well-connected bicycle network that
facilitates bicycling for commuting, school, shopping, and
recreational trips.
Policy 4.1 Bicycle Networks. Provide bicycle facilities where
shown on Figure 4.2 along all roadways to implement the
proposed network of facilities outlined in the General Plan.
Policy 4.2 Prioritized Improvements. Prioritize and capitalize on
opportunities to provide bicycle facilities that connect
community facilities, supportive land use patterns, pedestrian
routes, and transit stations.
Policy 4.3 Bicycle Parking. Require public and private
development to provide sufficient bicycle parking.
Policy 4.4 Bicycle Education. Develop educational programs
that educate bicyclists on lawful/responsible riding.
Policy 4.5 Regional Bicycle Safety. Support regional efforts to
educate all travelers on measures to improve safety for
bicyclists.
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
Table 4.3-2, continued
4.3-14 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Transportation
Control Measure Palm Desert General Plan Policy
Goal 9. Regional Coordination. The City transportation system
operates as an integral element of the larger regional system
Policy 9.2 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities.
Coordinate with CVAG and other agencies on the planning,
design, and construction of regional non-motorized routes such
as CV Link.
Section 108 (f)
(A)(xv). Programs for
new construction
and major
reconstruction of
paths, tracks or areas
solely for the use by
pedestrian or other
non-motorized
means of
transportation, when
economically feasible
and in the public
interest.
Land Use and Community Element
Goal 3. Neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that provide a variety
of housing types, densities, designs and mix of uses and
services that support healthy and active lifestyles.
Policy 3.1 Complete neighborhoods. Through the development
entitlement process, ensure that all new Neighborhoods (areas
with a “Neighborhood” General Plan Designation) are complete
and well structured such that the physical layout and land use
mix promote walking to services, biking and transit use, are
family friendly and address the needs of multiple ages and
physical abilities. New neighborhoods should have the following
characteristics:
Contain short, walkable block lengths.
Contain a high level of connectivity for pedestrians,
bicycles and vehicles where practicable.
Are organized around a central focal point such as a
park, school, civic building or neighborhood retail such
that most homes are no more than one quarter-mile
from this focal point.
Have goods and services within a short walking
distance.
Contain a diversity of housing types, where possible.
Have homes with entries and windows facing the
street.
Have a grid or modified grid street network (except
where topography necessitates another street
network layout).
Provide a diversity of architectural styles.
Policy 3.11 Connections to key destinations. Require direct
pedestrian connections between residential areas and nearby
commercial and public/institutional areas.
Policy 3.14 Access to daily activities. Require development
patterns such that the majority of residents are within one-half
mile walking distance to a variety of neighborhood goods and
services, such as supermarkets, restaurants, churches, cafes,
dry cleaners, laundromats, farmers markets, banks, hair care,
pharmacies and similar uses
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
Table 4.3-2, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.3-15
Transportation
Control Measure Palm Desert General Plan Policy
Goal 4. Districts. A series of unique, destination oriented
districts that provide space for large-format retail, industrial
and resort uses in order to increase access to jobs, provide
amenities for residents, and enhance the fiscal stability of the
City.
Policy 4.9 School location and design. Encourage school
districts to size, design and locate schools to better enable
students to walk or bicycle to them.
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.
Policy 5.5 Changing retail format. Provide incentives to
transform existing, auto-oriented suburban centers into
neighborhood destinations by adding a diversity of uses,
providing new pedestrian connections to adjacent residential
areas, reducing the visual prominence of parking lots, making
the centers more pedestrian-friendly and enhance the
definition and character of street frontage and associated
streetscapes.
Policy 5.6 Neighborhood center design. Design new
neighborhood centers to be walkable and pedestrian-friendly
with buildings that front internal streets and public sidewalks
and with buildings facing major roadways. No more than 50
percent of the frontage on streets may be parking lots.
Goal 6. Corridors and Connectivity. A network of
transportation and open space corridors throughout the city
that provides a high level of connectivity for vehicles,
bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Policy 6.3 Connections between development projects.
Require the continuation of the street network between
adjacent development projects and discourage the use of cul-
de-sacs except where necessary because connections cannot be
made due to existing development, topographic conditions or
limited access to transportation systems
Policy 6.4 Cook Street. Facilitate the development of Cook
Street into a multimodal street that serves as community
amenity, connecting both east and west sides of the street, as
well as the north and south ends of the city.
Mobility Element
Goal 3. Pedestrian Facilities. Integrated pedestrian pathways
that connect residences, businesses, and educational and
community uses.
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
Table 4.3-2, continued
4.3-16 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Transportation
Control Measure Palm Desert General Plan Policy
Policy 3.1 Pedestrian Network. Provide a safe and convenient
circulation system for pedestrians that include sidewalks,
crosswalks, place to sit and gather, appropriate street lighting,
buffers from moving vehicles, shading, and amenities for
people of all ages.
Policy 3.2 Prioritized Improvements. Prioritize pedestrian
improvements in areas of the city with community and/or
education facilities, supportive land use patterns, and non-
automotive connections such as multi-use trails and transit
stops.
Policy 3.3 Roadway Sidewalks. Where feasible, provide
adequate sidewalks along all public roadways.
Policy 3.4 Access to Development. Require that all new
development projects or redevelopment projects provide
connections from the site to the external pedestrian network.
3.5 Pedestrian Education and Awareness. Support regional
efforts to encourage walking and also to reduce
vehicular/pedestrian collisions. 3.6 Safe Pedestrian Routes to
School. Consider school access as a priority over vehicular
movements when any such conflicts occur.
Goal 9. Regional Coordination. The City transportation system
operates as an integral element of the larger regional system.
Policy 9.2 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities.
Coordinate with CVAG and other agencies on the planning,
design, and construction of regional non-motorized routes such
as CV Link.
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2012 Air Quality Management Plan,
Appendix IV-C, Attachment B: 2012 South Coast PM2.5 AQMP Reasonably Available Control
Measure (RACM) Analysis – TCMs
Mitigation Measure
None required.
IMPACT
4.3-2
Short-term Construction Emissions (Thresholds 2, 3, 4).
Adoption and implementation of the City of Palm Desert’s General Plan
does not include any specific development proposals. However, it
would allow new development and redevelopment of property
throughout the planning area, which would generate air contaminant
emissions from short-term construction of planned land uses. These
emissions may result in adverse impacts to local air quality, and
potential impacts to sensitive receptors, that would be temporary for
each construction project, but could occur for multiple projects
simultaneously. Adoption and implementation of the City of Palm
Desert’s General Plan policies and programs and enforcement of
current SCAQMD Rules and Regulations would help reduce short-term
emissions and these emissions can be mitigated on a specific
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.3-17
development basis. Therefore, construction emissions would result in a
less than significant impact.
Construction activity facilitated by the City of Palm Desert’s General Plan Update
would cause temporary emissions of various air pollutants. Ozone precursors NOX and
CO would be emitted by the operation of construction equipment, while fugitive dust
(PM10) would be emitted by activities that disturb the soil, such as grading and
excavation, road construction and building construction. As previously stated, Palm
Desert is located in part of the Basin that is in non-attainment for the federal and state
standards for ozone and PM10. Information regarding specific development projects,
soil types, and the locations of receptors would be needed in order to quantify the
level of impact associated with individual construction projects.
Construction activity carried out under the City of Palm Desert’s General Plan Update
could occur throughout the City of Palm Desert. However, it is anticipated that the
highest amount of construction activity would occur in areas that have been identified
for the most change under the updated General Plan, including the Highway 111
corridor, the undeveloped lands west of the Cal State and UCR campuses, and San
Pablo Avenue from Magnesia Falls Drive to El Paseo. Individual developments in these
and other areas of the city would be subject to independent environmental review
under CEQA, at which time SCAQMD project-level thresholds would be used to assess
the potential construction-related air quality impacts of the proposal. Depending upon
the development type and size, maximum daily emissions associated with individual
projects could potentially exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds, resulting in a
significant air quality impact.
LSTs only apply to those emissions generated by on-site construction activities, such as
emissions from on-site grading, and do not apply to off-site mobile emissions. Because
they are localized, and depend on project-level information such as quantities of
demolition, grading, and construction, application of LST thresholds is only
appropriate for project-level CEQA analysis, not in the program-level CEQA analysis of
this EIR. City of Palm Desert General Plan Policy 6.1 would require siting of sensitive
receptors and site planning to minimize the exposure to localized air pollution, and
analysis of the potential for exceedances of LST thresholds would be carried out on a
project-by-project basis, as necessary and appropriate.
The SCAQMD has established Rules 402 and 403, which require that air pollutant
emissions not be a nuisance off-site, and reduce the ambient entrainment of fugitive
dust. Rule 403 includes best available control measures (BACM) for all construction
activity, contingency control measures for large operations, and conservation
management practices for confined animal facilities. Major categories addressed by
Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust include earth moving, disturbed surface areas,
unpaved roads, open storage piles, demolition, and other various construction
activities. During construction, individual property owners, developers, or contractors
would be required to comply with applicable SCAQMD rules, which reduce temporary
construction-related air pollutant emissions. In addition, to reduce the impacts of local
fugitive dust and PM10 emissions, the City of Palm Desert adopted a Fugitive Dust
(PM10) Control Ordinance (Chapter 24.12 of the Palm Desert City Municipal Code). The
ordinance establishes minimum dust control requirements for construction and
demolition activities and other specified land uses, including measures such as:
Preparation and approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
4.3-18 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Application of water to sites greater than one acre during dust-generating
construction activities
Stabilizing surfaces during construction through short-term means such as
watering and chemical stabilizers, and after construction through long-term
means such as revegetation
Preventing track-out of dust from construction sites by construction vehicles.
Further, if required, individual projects that could occur under the proposed project
would be required to implement additional mitigation if site-specific analysis identifies
the potential to exceed applicable thresholds. Adherence to SCAQMD rules and local
policies would reduce potential construction-related impacts to a less than significant
level.
Mitigation Measure
None required.
IMPACT
4.3-3
Long-term Operational Emissions (Thresholds 2, 3, 4). Adoption
and implementation of the City of Palm Desert’s General Plan would
generate air contaminant emissions from long-term operation of
planned land uses. These emissions may result in adverse impacts to
local air quality, and potential impacts to sensitive receptors. Adoption
and implementation of the City of Palm Desert’s General Plan policies
and programs and enforcement of current SCAQMD Rules and
Regulations would help reduce long-term emissions. Therefore,
operational emissions from long-term operation of the City of Palm
Desert’s General Plan would result in a less than significant impact.
Long-term emissions associated with future development in the City of Palm Desert in
accordance with the proposed General Plan are those associated with vehicle trips and
stationary sources (electricity and natural gas). Emissions associated with individual
projects, depending on project type and size, could exceed project-specific thresholds
established by the SCAQMD. However, such projects would be required to undergo
independent project-level CEQA review and to include mitigation measures to address
potentially significant project-level impacts. As discussed under Impact AQ-4.2-1,
overall growth within City of Palm Desert would be within SCAG regional growth
forecasts upon which regional air quality planning is based.
The City of Palm Desert’s General Plan includes policies that would reduce vehicle use
and vehicle miles traveled and result in a reduction in fuel consumption and resulting
air pollutant emissions. The following Land Use and Transportation, Mobility, and
Health and Safety Element policies are designed to decrease the generation of air
pollution and greenhouse gases through the reduction of vehicle miles traveled by
promoting infill development in the developed areas of the city. These policies also
emphasize pedestrian and bicycle travel.
Land Use Element
3.1 Complete neighborhoods. Through the development entitlement process,
ensure that all new Neighborhoods (areas with a “Neighborhood” General
Plan Designation) are complete and well structured such that the physical
layout and land use mix promote walking to services, biking and transit use,
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.3-19
are family friendly and address the needs of multiple ages and physical
abilities. New neighborhoods should have the following characteristics:
o Contain short, walkable block lengths.
o Contain a high level of connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles
where practicable.
o Are organized around a central focal point such as a park, school, civic
building or neighborhood retail such that most homes are no more than
one quarter-mile from this focal point.
o Have goods and services within a short walking distance.
o Contain a diversity of housing types, where possible.
o Have homes with entries and windows facing the street.
o Have a grid or modified grid street network (except where topography
necessitates another street network layout).
o Provide a diversity of architectural styles.
3.8 Neighborhood intersection density. Require new neighborhoods to
provide high levels of intersection density. Town Center and Small Town
Neighborhoods should strive for 400 intersections per square mile.
Conventional Suburban Neighborhoods should strive for at least 200
intersections per square mile.
3.11 Connections to key destinations. Require direct pedestrian connections
between residential areas and nearby commercial and public/institutional
areas.
3.14 Access to daily activities. Require development patterns such that the
majority of residents are within one-half mile walking distance to a variety of
neighborhood goods and services, such as supermarkets, restaurants,
churches, cafes, dry cleaners, laundromats, farmers markets, banks, hair care,
pharmacies and similar uses.
3.21 Infill neighborhoods. In existing developed areas of the city, encourage
development that repairs connectivity, adds destinations, and encourages
complete neighborhoods. This can be achieved by increasing intersection
density, reducing block size, providing new community amenities and
destinations.
4.9 School location and design. Encourage school districts to size, design and
locate schools to better enable students to walk or bicycle to them.
5.4 Access to transit. Encourage the development of commercial and mixed
use centers that are located on existing or planned transit stops in order to
facilitate and take advantage of transit service, reduce vehicle trips and allow
residents without private vehicles to access services.
5.5 Changing retail format. Provide incentives to transform existing,
autooriented suburban centers into neighborhood destinations by adding a
diversity of uses, providing new pedestrian connections to adjacent residential
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
4.3-20 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
areas, reducing the visual prominence of parking lots, making the centers
more pedestrian-friendly and enhance the definition and character of street
frontage and associated streetscapes.
5.6 Neighborhood center design. Design new neighborhood centers to be
walkable and pedestrian-friendly with buildings that front internal streets and
public sidewalks and with buildings facing major roadways. No more than 50
percent of the frontage on streets may be parking lots.
6.3 Connections between development projects. Require the continuation of
the street network between adjacent development projects and discourage
the use of cul-de-sacs except where necessary because connections cannot be
made due to existing development, topographic conditions or limited access to
transportation systems.
7.3 Artists’ colony. Encourage the establishment of an artist’s colony near the
downtown, supporting live-work studios as a form of mixed-use.
Mobility Element
1.7 System Efficiency. Prioritize transportation systems management (TSM)
strategies such as signal coordination, signal retiming, and other applicable
techniques to limit unnecessary delay and congestion for vehicles.
3.1 Pedestrian Network. Provide a safe and convenient circulation system for
pedestrians that include sidewalks, crosswalks, place to sit and gather,
appropriate street lighting, buffers from moving vehicles, shading, and
amenities for people of all ages.
3.2 Prioritized Improvements. Prioritize pedestrian improvements in areas of
the city with community and/or education facilities, supportive land use
patterns, and non-automotive connections such as multi-use trails and transit
stops.
3.3 Roadway Sidewalks. Where feasible, provide adequate sidewalks along all
public roadways.
3.4 Access to Development. Require that all new development projects or
redevelopment projects provide connections from the site to the external
pedestrian network.
3.5 Pedestrian Education and Awareness. Support regional efforts to
encourage walking and also to reduce vehicular/pedestrian collisions.
3.6 Safe Pedestrian Routes to School. Consider school access as a priority over
vehicular movements when any such conflicts occur.
4.1 Bicycle Networks. Provide bicycle facilities where shown on Figure 4.2
along all roadways to implement the proposed network of facilities outlined in
the General Plan. 4.2 Prioritized Improvements. Prioritize and capitalize on
opportunities to provide bicycle facilities that connect community facilities,
supportive land use patterns, pedestrian routes, and transit stations. 4.3
Bicycle Parking. Require public and private development to provide sufficient
bicycle parking. 4.4 Bicycle Education. Develop educational programs that
educate bicyclists on lawful/responsible riding. 4.5 Regional Bicycle Safety.
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.3-21
Support regional efforts to educate all travelers on measures to improve safety
for bicyclists.
5.1 Transit Service. Promote public transit service in areas of the City with
appropriate levels of density, mix of residential and employment uses, and
connections to bicycle and pedestrian networks. 5.2 Bus Stop Location.
Regularly review bus stop locations in conjunction with Sunline Transit to
ensure that bus stops reflect current land use and transportation networks.
8.6 Electric Vehicles. Encourage the use of electric vehicles (EV), including golf
carts and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV) by supporting the use of EVs
and encouraging NEV charging stations to be powered with renewable
resources.
9.1 Regional Vehicular Traffic. Be mindful of local impacts from regional
“through” traffic. Consider but don’t prioritize the movement of through
vehicles through Palm Desert roadways.
Health and Wellness Element
7.3 Pedestrian barriers. Discourage physical barriers to walking and bicycling
between and within neighborhoods and neighborhood centers. If physical
barriers are unavoidable, provide safe and comfortable crossings for
pedestrians and cyclists. Physical barriers may include arterial streets with
speed limits above 35 mph, transit or utility rights-of-way, very long blocks
without through-streets, and sound walls, amongst others.
Adherence to the goals and policies outlined in the City of Palm Desert General Plan
would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
None required.
IMPACT
4.3-4
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Hot Spots (Threshold 4). Adoption and
implementation of the City of Palm Desert’s General Plan would
generate and contribute vehicle traffic to existing roadways within the
city as a result of proposed land uses, which could contribute to
potential CO hot spots. However, traffic volumes anticipated at
intersections throughout the city with implementation of the City of
Palm Desert’s General Plan would not be large enough to trigger a CO
hot spot, resulting in a less than significant impact.
The SCAQMD defines typical sensitive receptors as residences, schools, playgrounds,
childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation
centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. When evaluating potential long-
term air quality impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD is primarily concerned
with high localized concentrations of CO. Motor vehicles, and traffic-congested
roadways and intersections are the primary source of high localized CO
concentrations. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or
state standards for CO are termed CO “hotspots.”
Implementation of the proposed project would not expose existing or future sensitive
uses within the city to substantial CO concentrations. The Basin is in attainment of
state and federal CO standards and has been for several years. Background levels of
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
4.3-22 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
carbon monoxide are generally low in the basin. The highest recorded 8-hour average
concentration of CO in the basin in 2011 was 0.6 ppm, which is well below the state
and federal 8-hour standard of 9 ppm. A review of data for 2015 showed state and
federal standards for CO were not exceeded (SCAQMD, May 2016). Although CO is not
expected to be a major air quality concern in Riverside County over the planning
horizon, elevated CO levels can occur at or near intersections that experience severe
traffic congestion. However, as discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, the
proposed project’s potential traffic congestion impacts would be less than significant.
As a result, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
None required.
IMPACT
4.3-5
Odors (Threshold 5). The proposed City of Palm Desert General Plan
does not include land uses that would generate substantial odors or
expose existing receptors to odors. Should future needs arise, adoption
and implementation of City of Palm Desert’s General Plan policies and
programs and compliance with SCAQMD Rules and Regulations would
result in a less than significant impact.
The proposed project would facilitate development within Palm Desert. Some
commercial and industrial uses developed under the City of Palm Desert’s General
Plan Update may generate odor nuisance effects to the public. Examples of
commercial uses that have the potential to cause odor impacts include fast food
restaurants, photographic studios, and laundry facilities. Industrial uses may also
generate odors. However, the City of Palm Desert’s General Plan Policies 6.1, 6.2 and
6.3 would require siting of sensitive receptors and site planning to minimize the
exposure to odors. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) would prohibit any land
use (except agricultural land uses) from generating odors that “endanger the comfort,
repose, health or safety of any such persons of the public” (SCAQMD 1976).
Agricultural land uses are not permitted within the incorporated city and therefore
would not generate substantial odors within the city. Therefore, implementation of
the City of Palm Desert’s General Plan and compliance with SCAQMD Rules and
Regulations would ensure that a substantial number of receptors are not exposed to
substantial odor emissions. As such, significant odor impacts are not anticipated.
Construction activity would also generate temporary airborne odors associated with
the operation of construction vehicles (i.e., diesel exhaust) and the application of
architectural coatings. However, these odors are not generally considered to be
especially offensive. Emissions would be temporary and would be confined to the
immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
None required.
Cumulative Impacts
Because the proposed project is comprised of a General Plan Update, cumulative
impacts are treated somewhat differently than would be the case for a project-specific
development. Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides the following
direction relative to cumulative impact analysis:
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.3-23
Impacts should be based on a summary of projections contained in an adopted
general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental
document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated
regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact…
By its nature, a General Plan considers cumulative impacts insofar as it considers
cumulative development that could occur within a city’s plan area. Therefore, the
analysis of project impacts also constitutes the cumulative analysis. As demonstrated
in the impact analysis in this section of the EIR, after incorporation of mitigation
measures, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts relating to
air quality, either compared to applicable SCAQMD thresholds, or in terms of policy
consistency. The SCAQMD thresholds used in this analysis are from the AQMP, which
is designed to bring the region into attainment with federal and state health based
standards and to comply with Clean Air Act requirements. All other agencies in the
region are subject to the AQMP, and the proposed project’s less than significant air
quality impacts, when combined with emissions from other sources in the region,
would therefore not be cumulatively significant.
CHAPTER 4.3: AIR QUALITY
4.3-24 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.4-1
4.4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Introduction
This resource chapter evaluates potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions effects
associated with implementation of the General Plan update. General Plan policies and
implementation actions guide development, infrastructure, and day-to-day
operational practices to minimize GHG emissions. The GHG emissions associated with
implementation of the General Plan update are quantified and analyzed. The results of
the GHG emission calculations and estimates are provided in Appendix 4.4.
GHG emissions have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such
emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to global climate change. Therefore, the
proper context for addressing this issue in an EIR is in an assessment of cumulative
impacts, because although it is unlikely that a single project will contribute
significantly to climate change, cumulative emissions from many projects could impact
global GHG concentrations and the climate system. Unlike criteria air pollutants and
toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of localized or regional concern,
the location where GHG emissions are generated is of relatively little importance.
Rather, it is the total amount and type of GHG emissions that ultimately result in
climate change effects.
In addition, this resource chapter evaluates energy consumption associated with
implementation of the General Plan update. Public Resources Code Section
21100(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 require EIRs to describe, where
relevant, the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by
a project. In 1975, largely in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s, the California
legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 1575, which created the California Energy
Commission (CEC). The statutory mission of the CEC is to forecast future energy needs,
license thermal power plants of 50 megawatts or larger, develop energy technologies
and renewable energy resources, plan for and direct state responses to energy
emergencies, and—perhaps most importantly—promote energy efficiency through
the adoption and enforcement of appliance and building energy efficiency standards.
AB 1575 also amended Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) to require EIRs to
consider the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by a
project. Thereafter, the State Resources Agency created Appendix F of the CEQA
Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines Appendix F is an advisory document that assists EIR
preparers in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and
unnecessary consumption of energy. For the reasons set forth below, this EIR
concludes that the proposed project would not result in this type of energy
consumption and therefore would not create a significant impact on energy resources.
The results of the energy consumption calculations and estimates are provided in
Appendix 4.4.
NOP Comments: No comments were received on the Notice of Preparation (NOP)
related to greenhouse gas emissions.
Reference Information: Information for this resource chapter is based on numerous
references, including the General Plan Update Technical Background Report (TBR), the
General Plan Update Traffic Analysis Report (Appendix 4.0), and other publicly
available documents. This EIR, including the TBR, and the traffic analysis report are
also available electronically on the City’s website (http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org).
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.4-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Environmental Setting
Section 16 of the TBR (Appendix 4.0) describes the natural factors (i.e., topography,
climate, and meteorology) and scientific background for climate change and GHG
emissions, as well as current GHG emissions and sources in the Planning Area. The
following components of the TBR provide useful background information to support
environmental impact analysis:
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in
determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s
atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface
and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. This absorbed
radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. Most
solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these
gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is
instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon,
known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on
earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the earth would not be able to support life as
we know it.
Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations
are believed responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend
of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global
warming. It is “extremely likely” that more than half of the observed increase in global
average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic
increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic factors together (IPCC 2014,
pp. 3 and 5).
Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are the three main GHG
pollutants with respect to land use development projects. These three GHG pollutants
will be the focus of the GHG impact analysis. Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb
heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in
the atmosphere. CH4 traps over 25 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O
absorbs 298 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Often, estimates of GHG
emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weigh each gas
by its global warming potential (GWP). Expressing GHG emissions in CO2e takes the
contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a
single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part
to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/manufacturing,
utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural emissions sectors (CARB 2015).
California is a significant emitter of CO2e in the world and produced 459 million gross
metric tons of CO2e in 2013 (CARB 2015). In the state, the transportation sector is the
largest emitter of GHGs, followed by industrial operations such as manufacturing and
oil and gas extraction (CARB 2015). Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil fuel
combustion. CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off-gassing (the release
of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure
conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. N2O is
also largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. CO2 sinks, or
reservoirs, include vegetation and the ocean, which absorb CO2 through sequestration
and dissolution (CO2 dissolving into the water), respectively, two of the most common
processes for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.4-3
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme
to provide the world with a scientific view on climate change and its potential effects.
According to the IPCC, global average temperature is expected to increase relative to
the 1986–2005 period by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (°C) (0.5–8.6 degrees Fahrenheit
[°F]) by the end of the twenty-first century (2081–2100), depending on future GHG
emission scenarios (IPCC 2014). According to the California Natural Resources Agency
(2012, p. 2), temperatures in California are projected to increase 2.7°F above 2000
averages by 2050 and, depending on emission levels, 4.1–8.6°F by 2100. Temperatures
in the Palm Desert region on average are projected to rise 4–7°F by 2100, with the
range based on low and high emissions scenarios (Cal-Adapt 2016).
Physical conditions beyond average temperatures could be indirectly affected by the
accumulation of GHG emissions. For example, changes in weather patterns resulting
from increases in global average temperature are expected to result in a decreased
volume of precipitation falling as snow in California and an overall reduction in
snowpack in the Sierra Nevada. Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada provides both water
supply (runoff) and storage (within the snowpack before melting), which is a major
source of supply for the state. Based on historical data and modeling, the California
Department of Water Resources projects that the Sierra snowpack will experience a
25–40 percent reduction from its historic average by 2050 (DWR 2008, p. 4). By 2100,
the snowpack portion of the water supply could potentially decline by 30–90 percent.
Although current forecasts are uncertain, it is evident that this phenomenon could
lead to significant challenges in securing an adequate water supply for a growing
population.
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), in partnership with the
South Coast Air Quality Management District, prepared a 2005 GHG inventory for the
Coachella Valley and a forecast of 2020 emissions (see Table 4.4-1). In 2005, GHG
emissions in the Coachella Valley were found to be 4.31 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalents (MMT CO2e). By 2020, emissions are expected to increase
approximately 29 percent to 5.58 MMT CO2e.
Table 4.4-1. Coachella Valley 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source Category MMT CO2e Percentage
Fuel Combustion 0.28 6%
Waste Disposal 0.15 3%
Cleaning and Surface Coatings 0.00 0%
Petroleum Production and Marketing 0.00 0%
Industrial Processes 0.00 0%
Solvent Evaporation 0.04 1%
Miscellaneous Processes 0.28 6%
On-Road Motor Vehicles 3.26 76%
Other Mobile Sources 0.30 7%
Total 4.31
Source: City of Palm Desert General Plan Update (Appendix 3.0)
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.4-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Palm Desert prepared a citywide GHG inventory which calculated the emission of
621,225 metric tons of CO2e in 2008.
In Palm Desert, electrical services are provided by Southern California Edison (SCE)
through State-regulated public utility contracts and natural gas is provided by
Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), which is owned by Sempra Energy.
Table 4.4-2 shows electricity and natural gas consumption for Palm Desert in 2008.
Table 4.4-2. Palm Desert 2008 Electricity and Natural Gas
Consumption
Sector Electricity (kWh)
Natural Gas Use
(Therms)
Residential 336,791,782 13,749,419
Commercial 249,556,770 3,187,971
Industrial
(Resorts and golf courses) 173,427,756 2,254,595
Total 759,776,308 19,191,985
Source: City of Palm Desert General Plan Update (Appendix 3.0)
Regulatory Setting
Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies provide a regulatory framework
for addressing GHG emissions under the General Plan update. The regulatory setting
for GHG emissions is discussed in detail in Appendix 4.0. Key laws, regulations, and
policies influencing the General Plan update are summarized below.
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05
EO S-3-05 recognizes California’s vulnerability to reduced snowpack, exacerbation of
air quality problems, and potential sea level rise due to a changing climate. To address
these concerns, the governor established targets to reduce statewide GHG emissions
to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by
2050.
Assembly Bill (AB) 32
AB 32 mandates that the State reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by year 2020. The
Climate Change Scoping Plan is a statewide planning document and GHG reduction
plan that outlines actions and measures to achieve the statewide GHG emission
reduction target.
California Executive Order B-30-15
Executive Order B-30-15 seeks to achieve a reduction of GHG emissions of 40 percent
below 1990 levels by 2030.
Senate Bill (SB) 375
SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets,
and land use and housing allocations. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or
Alternative Planning Strategy (APS), which will prescribe land use allocation in that
MPO’s regional transportation plan (RTP).
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.4-5
California Green Building Standards
The California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24,
Part 11), commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory
construction code that was developed and adopted by the California Building
Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development.
The CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply
with mandatory measures under the topics of planning and design, energy efficiency,
water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and
environmental quality. CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local
governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five
green building topics. The most recent update to the CALGreen Code went into effect
July 1, 2014.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
The SCAQMD began a process of providing guidance to local lead agencies on
determining the significance of GHG emissions identified in CEQA documents. The
SCAQMD established a working group to develop CEQA significance thresholds for
GHG emissions. These thresholds would be used as interim guidance until CARB, or the
created statewide guidance on assessing the significance of GHG emissions under
CEQA, are updated.
Palm Desert Strategic Plan
The City Council adopted a Strategic Plan in 2014. This plan outlined four priorities in
the areas of energy and sustainability for the next 20 years.
Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan
The City completed an Environmental Sustainability Plan in 2010. This plan presents
three phases of planned activities that deliver the greatest energy, consumer, and
carbon savings set to take place over 10 years.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
The analysis of impacts is based on the likely consequences of adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update compared to existing conditions. The
following analysis of GHG emissions impacts is both qualitative and quantitative. The
analysis assumes that all future and existing development in the Planning Area
complies with all applicable laws, regulations, design standards, and plans. Qualitative
analysis is based on information from the existing regulatory framework and the
General Plan update. Quantitative analysis was performed by modeling the General
Plan update’s operational emissions using methods similar to those described in
Chapter 4.3, Air Quality. As discussed in Subsection 4.4.1, Introduction, all analyses for
greenhouse gas emissions are inherently cumulative due to the nature of GHG
emissions and climate change.
In terms of energy consumption, the impact analysis focuses on the three sources of
energy that are relevant to the proposed project: electricity, natural gas, and
transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with the likely consequences of
adoption and implementation of the General Plan update compared to existing
conditions.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.4-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Draft General Plan Update Policies and Implementation Programs
Policies
Updated General Plan policies and implementation actions that address GHG
emissions include:
Land Use & Community Character Element
Policy 1.3: Traffic generation. Balance medium and high intensity/density
development with pedestrian-oriented and bicycle friendly design features so
as to maximize trip and VMT reduction.
Policy 2.1: Pedestrian focus. Design the streetscape of high volume corridors
to balance regional traffic flow with pedestrian movement and safety and the
unique physical environment of the area.
Policy 2.4: Tree planting. Encourage the planting of trees that appropriately
shade the sidewalk and improve the pedestrian experience throughout the city
Policy 2.5: Streetscape. Enhance the pedestrian experience through
streetscape improvements that could include new street lighting, tree
planting, and easement dedications to increase the size of the sidewalks and
pedestrian amenities.
Policy 2.9: Commercial requirements. Require development projects in
nonresidential and mixed use areas to provide for enhanced pedestrian
activity.
Policy 2.11: Roadway scale. In pedestrian prioritized areas of the city, limit
roadway size and design techniques that emphasize and/or prioritize
automobile operation at the expense of pedestrian and bicycle operation.
Policy 2.12: Destination Accessibility. Direct the development of new centers,
parks, schools, and similar destinations so as to provide all residences within
town ¼ mile to at least two amenities.
Policy 3.1: Complete neighborhoods. Through the development entitlement
process, ensure that all new Neighborhoods (areas with a “Neighborhood”
General Plan Designation) are complete and well-structured such that the
physical layout and land use mix promote walking to services, biking and
transit use, are family friendly and address the needs of multiple ages and
physical abilities.
Policy 3.7: Walkable neighborhoods. Require that all new neighborhoods be
designed and constructed to be pedestrian friendly and include features such
as short blocks, wide sidewalks, tree-shaded streets, buildings that define and
are oriented to streets or public spaces, traffic-calming features, convenient
pedestrian street crossings, and safe streets that are designed for pedestrians,
cyclists and vehicles.
Policy 3.8: Neighborhood intersection density. Require new neighborhoods to
provide high levels of intersection density. Town Center and Small Town
Neighborhoods should strive for 400 intersections per square mile.
Conventional Suburban Neighborhoods should strive for at least 200
intersections per square mile.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.4-7
Policy 3.9: Street layout. Design streets and lot layouts to provide a majority
of lots within 20 degrees of a north-south orientation for increased energy
conservation.
Policy 3.11: Connections to key destinations. Require direct pedestrian
connections between residential areas and nearby commercial and
public/institutional areas.
Policy 3.14: Access to daily activities. Require development patterns such that
the majority of residents are within one-half mile walking distance to a variety
of neighborhood goods and services, such as supermarkets, restaurants,
churches, cafes, dry cleaners, laundromats, farmers markets, banks, hair care,
pharmacies and similar uses.
Policy 3.15: Access to parks and open spaces. Require the design of new
neighborhoods and, where feasible, retrofit existing neighborhoods, so that 60
percent of dwelling units are within a ¼ mile walking distance of a usable open
space such as a tot-lot, neighborhood park, community park or plaza/green.
Policy 3.21: Infill neighborhoods. In existing developed areas of the city,
encourage development that repairs connectivity, adds destinations, and
encourages complete neighborhoods. This can be achieved by increasing
intersection density, reducing block size, providing new community amenities
and destinations.
Policy 4.2: Resort design and connectivity. Allow resorts to be designed as
isolated and gated developments as long as through traffic and external
connectivity occurs at distances of no greater than 1,300 feet. Exceptions to
this may be made where external connection is not possible because of steep
slopes, or natural or man-made barriers.
Policy 4.3: Regional retail districts. Facilitate major regional serving
commercial centers that provide a mix of uses in a pedestrian oriented format
and become vibrant destinations for people to live, work, shop and
congregate. Allow a wide variety of uses to locate in Regional Retail Districts
including destination retail centers, mixed-use town centers, and hotels,
among other uses.
Policy 4.4: Regional retail district design. Allow for significant flexibility in the
design of Regional Retail Districts so long as city-wide and project-level
connectivity standards are met, the uses do not adversely affect adjacent uses
and accommodations are made for pedestrians, bicycle and transit users.
Design internal streets and parking into blocks and require sidewalks along
both sides of these streets.
Policy 4.5: Suburban retail design. Design new suburban retail to be
pedestrian friendly with buildings that front internal streets and public
sidewalks and with buildings facing major roadways. No more than 50 percent
of the frontage on streets may be parking lots.
Policy 4.9: School location and design. Encourage school districts to size,
design and locate schools to better enable students to walk or bicycle to them.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.4-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Policy 5.4: Access to transit. Encourage the development of commercial and
mixed use centers that are located on existing or planned transit stops in order
to facilitate and take advantage of transit service, reduce vehicle trips and
allow residents without private vehicles to access services.
Policy 5.5: Changing retail format. Provide incentives to transform existing,
auto-oriented suburban centers into neighborhood destinations by adding a
diversity of uses, providing new pedestrian connections to adjacent residential
areas, reducing the visual prominence of parking lots, making the centers
more pedestrian-friendly and enhance the definition and character of street
frontage and associated streetscapes.
Policy 5.6: Neighborhood center design. Design new neighborhood centers to
be walkable and pedestrian-friendly with buildings that front internal streets
and public sidewalks and with buildings facing major roadways. No more than
50 percent of the frontage on streets may be parking lots.
Policy 6.1: Citywide connectivity. Establish and preserve a citywide street
network throughout the city where through roads occur approximately every
one-quarter mile, except where connections cannot be made because of
previous large development projects or physical constraints such as railroads,
waterways, steep slopes, limited access roadways and similar natural and
man-made barriers.
Policy 6.2: Subarea connectivity. Ensure a high-level of connectivity in all
Neighborhoods, Centers and Districts throughout the city. The connectivity
shall be measured as block perimeter and in external connectivity on the
perimeter of a new development project.
Policy 6.3: Connections between development projects. Require the
continuation of the street network between adjacent development projects
and discourage the use of cul-de-sacs except where necessary because
connections cannot be made due to existing development, topographic
conditions or limited access to transportation systems.
Policy 6.5: Unbundled Parking. Allow and encourage strategies that unbundle
parking, reducing or eliminating requirements for on-site parking.
Mobility Element
Policy 1.1: Complete Streets. Consider all modes of travel in planning, design,
and construction of all transportation projects to create safe, livable, and
inviting environments for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transit
users of all ages and capabilities.
Policy 1.2: Transportation System Impacts. Evaluate transportation and
development projects in a manner that addresses the impacts of all travel
modes on all other travel modes through the best available practices.
Policy 3.1: Pedestrian Network. Provide a safe and convenient circulation
system for pedestrians that include sidewalks, crosswalks, place to sit and
gather, appropriate street lighting, buffers from moving vehicles, shading, and
amenities for people of all ages.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.4-9
Policy 3.2: Prioritized Improvements. Prioritize pedestrian improvements in
areas of the city with community and/or education facilities, supportive land
use patterns, and non-automotive connections such as multi-use trails and
transit stops.
Policy 3.4: Access to Development. Require that all new development projects
or redevelopment projects provide connections from the site to the external
pedestrian network.
Policy 3.5: Pedestrian Education and Awareness. Support regional efforts to
encourage walking and also to reduce vehicular/pedestrian collisions.
Policy 3.6: Safe Pedestrian Routes to School. Consider school access as a
priority over vehicular movements when any such conflicts occur.
Policy 4.1: Bicycle Networks. Provide bicycle facilities where shown on Figure
4.2 along all roadways to implement the proposed network of facilities
outlined in the General Plan.
Policy 4.2: Prioritized Improvements. Prioritize and capitalize on opportunities
to provide bicycle facilities that connect community facilities, supportive land
use patterns, pedestrian routes, and transit stations.
Policy 4.3: Bicycle Parking. Require public and private development to provide
sufficient bicycle parking.
Policy 5.1: Transit Service. Promote public transit service in areas of the City
with appropriate levels of density, mix of residential and employment uses,
and connections to bicycle and pedestrian networks.
Policy 5.2: Bus Stop Location. Regularly review bus stop locations in
conjunction with Sunline Transit to ensure that bus stops reflect current land
use and transportation networks.
Policy 8.1: Alternative Fueled City Owned Vehicles. Encourage the purchase
of City vehicles which use fuel sources other than fossil fuels while considering
factors such as cost effectiveness, environmental impacts, and the availability
of local maintenance.
Policy 8.3: Emerging Mobility Strategies. Encourage the deployment of
emerging transportation approaches such as transportation network
companies, mobility hubs and comprehensive mobility providers by private
vendors.
Policy 8.6: Electric Vehicles. Encourage the use of electric vehicles (EV),
including golf carts and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV) by supporting
the use of EVs and encouraging NEV charging stations to be powered with
renewable resources.
Policy 9.2: Regional Roadways. Coordinate with Caltrans, RCTC, CVAG, and
other agencies on the planning, design, and construction of regional roadways
to provide an appropriate level of regional connectivity.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.4-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Policy 9.3: Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Coordinate with CVAG
and other agencies on the planning, design, and construction of regional non-
motorized routes such as CV Link.
Policy 9.4: Regional Transit. Collaborate with RCTC, CVAG, and Sunline Transit
in the planning, design, and construction of regional transportation facilities,
emphasizing the construction of a Metrolink station in Palm Desert.
Policy 9.5: Regional Priorities. Identify and prioritize desired regional roadway,
transit, and non-motorized improvements to focus the City’s outreach with
agencies such as Caltrans, CVAG, RCTC, and elected officials.
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 1.1: Water conservation technologies. Promote indoor and outdoor
water conservation and reuse practices including water recycling, grey water
re-use and rainwater harvesting.
Policy 1.3: Conservation performance targeted to new construction.
Incentivize new construction to exceed the state’s Green Building Code for
water conservation by an additional 10 percent.
Policy 1.4: Greywater. Allow the use of greywater and establish criteria and
standards to permit its safe and effective use (also known as on-site water
recycling).
Policy 5.1: Municipal operations. Conduct city operations so as to continually
reduce municipal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and lead the community in
reducing GHG emissions.
Policy 5.2: GHG reductions. Promote land use and development patterns that
reduce the community’s dependence on, and length of, automobile trips.
Policy 5.3: Existing GHG emissions. Work with community members and
businesses to support their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Policy 5.4: Monitoring progress. Monitor and update periodically the city’s
target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Policy 5.5: GHG Inventory. Periodically update the City’s greenhouse gas
inventory.
Policy 5.6: Climate-appropriate building types. Seek out and promote
alternative building types that are more sensitive to the arid environment
found in the Coachella Valley. Consider the use of courtyard housing and
commercial buildings to provide micro-climates that are usable year round,
reducing the need for mechanically cooled spaces and reducing energy
consumption.
Policy 5.7: GHG reduction incentives. Support and incentivize projects that
innovatively and aggressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Policy 5.10: Urban forest. Protect the city’s healthy trees and plant new ones
to provide shade, increase carbon sequestration and purify the air.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.4-11
Policy 5.16: Reducing GHG emissions. In consulting with applicants and
designing new facilities, prioritize the selection of green building design
features that enhance the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Policy 5.17: Efficiency incentives. Provide incentives for households to
improve resource efficiency, such as rebate programs, and giveaways for items
such as low-flow showerheads and electrical outlet insulation.
Policy 6.1: Passive solar design. Require new buildings to incorporate energy
efficient building and site design strategies for the desert environment that
include appropriate solar orientation, thermal mass, use of natural daylight
and ventilation, and shading.
Policy 6.2: Alternative energy. Continue to promote the incorporation of
alternative energy generation (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) in public and private
development.
Policy 6.3: Energy Efficient Buildings. Encourage new buildings and buildings
undergoing major retrofits to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards.
Policy 6.4: Community development–subdivisions. When reviewing
applications for new subdivisions, require all residences be oriented along an
east-west access, minimizing western sun exposure, to maximize energy
efficiency.
Policy 6.5: Renewable energy–open space areas. Allow the installation of
renewable energy systems in areas designated for open space.
Policy 6.6: Publicly funded buildings. Require energy conservation as the
primary strategy to reduce energy demand in new and renovation projects
using public funds.
Policy 6.7: Solar access. Prohibit new development and renovations that
impair adjacent buildings’ solar access, unless it can be demonstrated that the
shading benefits substantially offset the impacts of solar energy generation
potential.
Policy 6.8: Use of passive open space. Allow renewable energy projects in
areas zoned for open space, where consistent with other uses and values.
Policy 6.9: Public buildings. Require that any new building constructed in
whole or in part with City funds incorporate passive solar design features, such
as daylighting and passive solar heating, where feasible.
Policy 6.10: Municipal building energy efficiency. Strive for high levels of
energy efficiency in municipal facilities.
Policy 6.11: Energy-efficient infrastructure. Whenever possible, use energy-
efficient models and technology when replacing or providing new city
infrastructure such as streetlights, traffic signals, water conveyance pumps, or
other public infrastructure.
Policy 7.1: Affordable housing – green design. Require affordable housing
developments to prioritize green building design features that reduce monthly
utility costs, enhance occupant health and lower the overall cost of housing.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.4-12 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Policy 7.2: Education. Continue to provide technical support and information
to educate the development community about green building.
Policy 7.3: Reducing GHG emissions. In consulting with applicants and
designing new facilities, prioritize the selection of green building design
features that enhance the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Policy 8.3: Single-occupant vehicle trip reductions. Provide disincentives for
single-occupant vehicle trips through parking supply and pricing controls in
areas where parking supply is limited and alternative transportation modes are
available.
Policy 8.4: Electric vehicles. Encourage the use of electric vehicles (EV),
including golf carts and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV), by encouraging
developments to provide EV and NEV charging stations, street systems, and
other infrastructure that support the use of EVs. Similarly, encourage the use
of renewable energy sources to power EV plug-in stations.
Policy 8.5: Construction-related emissions. Require construction activities,
including on-site building and the transport of materials, to limit emissions and
dust.
Policy 8.7: Transportation demand management. Encourage employers to
provide transit subsidies, bicycle facilities, alternative work schedules,
ridesharing, telecommuting, work-at-home programs, employee education
and preferential parking for carpools/vanpools.
Policy 8.8: Transportation management associations. Encourage commercial,
retail and residential developments to create and participate in transportation
management associations.
Public Utilities & Services Element
Policy 4.1: Provide waste and recycling services. Provide solid waste,
recycling, and green waste services to the community at a reasonable rate.
Policy 4.2: Zero waste government operations. Strive for zero waste
government operations, modeling best practices in solid waste management
and recycling for the rest of the community.
Policy 4.3: Waste reduction. Seek to continually reduce Palm Desert’s rate of
waste disposal per capita, and to increase the diversion rate of recycling and
green waste.
Policy 4.4: Recycled building material. Encourage the use of recycled building
and infrastructure materials in new public and private development.
Policy 4.5: Paper waste reduction. Reduce paper waste and encourage the use
of recycled paper in City operations.
Chapter 10, City Center Area Plan
Policy 3.1: Pedestrian network. Ensure that new public and private projects in
the City Center consider pedestrian connectivity and contribute to improving
the pedestrian network through the application of strategies such as sidewalk
improvements and pedestrian crossings.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.4-13
Policy 4.1: Bicycle network. Facilitate the development of bicycle facilities that
connect the City Center with surrounding neighborhoods, districts, and
centers.
Policy 4.2: Pedestrian network. Facilitate the development of pedestrian
facilities that connect the City Center with surrounding neighborhoods,
districts, and centers.
Policy 4.3: Transit. Work with Sunline to improve transit access to and within
the City Center.
Policy 4.4: City-wide connections. Develop transit, alternative transportation,
and wayfinding strategies that facilitate easy navigation to and from the City
Center, the University Area, and other important centers within Palm Desert.
Implementation Actions
Action 1.2. San Pablo Avenue: Introduce bike lane improvements.
Action 1.6. City Center Area: Implement pedestrian improvements including
sidewalks, crosswalks, street furniture, and other amenities during the
construction of new roadways or the reconstruction of existing roadways.
Action 1.7. City Center Area: Implement the proposed bicycle network by
building the proposed facilities concurrent with the construction of new
roadways or the reconstruction of existing roadways.
Action 2.1. Periodically review fee structures for potential opportunities to
provide financial and administrative incentives to support installation of
renewable energy generators, energy efficiency measures, land use patterns,
and other measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Action 2.2. Proactively develop strategies to reduce the community’s
vulnerability to climate change impacts.
Action 2.3. Work with nearby local and regional agencies to develop a
community choice aggregation system in order to secure alternative energy
supply contracts for the community.
Action 2.4. Implement a program to install the latest energy-efficient
technologies for street and parking lot lights to meet City and state standards.
Action 2.5. Replace City fleet vehicles with low emission vehicles, such as EVs
and Plug-in EVs wherever possible.
Action 2.10. Develop a standardized citywide process to permit community
gardens on vacant lots, rooftops, parkways and residential property.
Action 2.24. Identify and update transportation service levels for all modes of
transportation including autos, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians which will be
included in the traffic study guidelines.
Action 2.25. Regularly meet with Sunline Transit to discuss new development
proposals and any updates to transit routes to support projects with an
appropriate levels of density, mix of uses, and connections to the
bicycle/pedestrian networks.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.4-14 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Action 2.26. Regularly review bicycle and pedestrian connections to existing
bus stops to maintain safe access for all users.
Action 2.31. Regularly meet with Sunline Transit to review bus stop locations
and amenities.
Action 2.33. Regularly coordinate with Caltrans, RCTC, and CVAG for the
planning, design, and construction of new transportation facilities including
both roadways and non-motorized routes.
Action 2.34. Regularly coordinate with CVAG for the siting of a Metrolink stop
in Palm Desert.
Action 2.36. Continue to confer and coordinate with the solid waste franchisee
to fully meet and if possible exceed the provisions from AB 939 by expanding
recycling programs that divert valuable resources from the waste stream and
returning these materials to productive use.
Action 3.3. Actively promote the City as a place for renewable energy
generation, and a place for energy conservation businesses to locate.
Action 4.1. Continue to consider and evaluate new construction practices and
standards that increase building energy efficiency
Action 4.6. Update development standards to allow flexible development
standards in the university area to encourage a highly connected, highly
walkable campus community.
Action 4.8. Update the City Municipal code to allow the use of shared parking,
unbundled parking, and other similar techniques for private land owners.
Action 4.9. Develop and update guidelines for development projects that
require connections from the site to the external pedestrian network (both for
residential developing and on commercial sites).
Action 4.10. Develop and update guidelines for development projects that
promote connections to existing transit facilities.
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, impacts on greenhouse gas emissions are considered
significant if adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would:
Threshold Determination
1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment or that would conflict
with applicable plans, policies, or regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions
Significant and Unavoidable
Addressing GHG generation impacts requires an agency to make a determination as to
what constitutes a significant impact. The amendments to the CEQA Guidelines
specifically allow lead agencies to determine thresholds of significance that illustrate
the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. This
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.4-15
means that each agency is left to determine whether a project’s GHG emissions will
have a “significant” impact on the environment. The guidelines direct that agencies
are to use “careful judgment” and “make a good-faith effort, based to the extent
possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” the project’s
GHG emissions (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.4(a)).
A number of expert agencies throughout the state have drafted or adopted varying
threshold approaches and guidelines for analyzing operational GHG emissions in CEQA
documents. The different thresholds include (1) compliance with a qualified GHG
reduction strategy, (2) performance-based reductions, (3) numeric “bright‐line”
thresholds, and (4) efficiency‐based thresholds.
As noted earlier, AB 32 is a legal mandate requiring that statewide GHG emissions be
reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 and efficiency‐based thresholds represent the rate of
emission reductions needed to achieve a fair share of California’s GHG emissions
reduction target established under AB 32. In adopting AB 32, the legislature
determined the necessary GHG reductions for the state to make in order to sufficiently
offset its contribution to the cumulative climate change problem to reach 1990 levels.
Compliance with AB 32 is the current adopted basis upon which an agency can base its
significance threshold for evaluating a project’s GHG impacts. The issue of whether a
GHG emissions analysis must conform to the 2050 reduction target (40 percent of
1990 emissions by 2030 and 80 percent of 1990 emissions by 2050) expressed in
Governor Brown’s Executive Order (EO) B-30-15 and Governor Schwarzenegger’s EO S‐
03‐05 is currently before the Supreme Court in the Cleveland National Forest
Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (hereafter SANDAG) case.
The SCAQMD has not announced when staff is expecting to present a finalized version
of its GHG thresholds to the governing board. On September 28, 2010, the SCAQMD
recommended an efficiency-based threshold for proposed general plans of 6.6 metric
tons of CO2e per service population (residents plus employees) per year in 2020 and
4.1 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year in 2035. These efficiency-
based thresholds were developed as part of the SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance
Threshold Working Group and is modified versions of thresholds developed by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s efficiency-based thresholds for 2020 and 2035.
The GHG Significance Threshold Working Group was formed to assist SCAQMD’s
efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is comprised of a wide variety of
stakeholders including the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CARB, the
Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the
South Coast Air Basin, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies
throughout the South Coast Air Basin, industry groups, and environmental and
professional organizations.
The 6.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year in 2020 is based on a
statewide service population in 2020. Relative to the 2035 target date, this target
date is consistent with the GHG reduction target date of SB 375. Overall, GHG
reductions by the SB 375 target date of 2035 would be approximately 40 percent. This
40 percent reduction was applied to the 2020 targets, resulting in the efficiency
threshold of 4.1 for plans. Thus, the efficiency-based thresholds were developed to be
consistent with CEQA requirements for developing significance thresholds, are
supported by substantial evidence, and provides guidance to CEQA practitioners with
regard to determining whether GHG emissions from a proposed general plan are
significant.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.4-16 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
For the purposes of this evaluation, the proposed project will be compared to the
SCAQMD-recommended plan-level efficiency-based threshold of 6.6 metric tons of
CO2e per service population per year in 2020. This SCAQMD thresholds was prepared
with the purpose of complying with the requirements of AB 32 and achieving the goals
of the AB 32 Scoping Plan. In addition, the SCAQMD-recommended threshold of 4.1
metric tons of CO2e per service population per year in 2035 is used to assess the
project’s impacts to the post-2020 GHG reduction goals in California, identified in
Governor’s Executive Order B-30-15 (2015), which seeks to achieve a reduction of
GHG emissions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and Executive Order 5-03-05
(2005), which seeks to achieve a reduction of GHG emissions of 80 percent below
1990 levels by 2050. Compliance with the SCAQMD’s 2035 significance threshold is an
appropriate indicator as to whether a project would inhibit post-2020 GHG emissions
reduction targets set by the State of California. Existing emissions modeling software is
incapable of projecting emissions beyond the year 2035.
Additionally, the proposed project would be considered to result in a significant
impact if it is shown to be inconsistent with the Southern California Association of
Governments’ 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Impacts from energy consumption are considered significant if adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update would:
Threshold Determination
2. Develop land uses and patterns that cause
wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary
consumption of energy or construct new or
retrofitted buildings that would have excessive
energy requirements for daily operation.
Less Than Significant
In terms of energy consumption, the increased use of electricity and natural gas
consumption is compared to the electricity and natural gas consumption attributable
to Palm Desert in 2008, as shown in Table 4.4-2 above. The increased use of
transportation fuel associated with the likely consequences of adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update are compared to current transportation
fuel use in Palm Desert.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.4-1
Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Either Directly or Indirectly,
That May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment or Conflict
with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations Adopted for the
Purpose of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Implementation of
the General Plan update will result in greenhouse gas emissions that
would contribute to less than significant impacts on the environment.
This is considered a significant impact.
GHG emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to the significant adverse
environmental impacts of global climate change. No single land use project could
generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average
temperature. The combination of GHG emissions from past, present, and future
projects contributes substantially to the phenomenon of global climate change and its
associated environmental impacts and as such is addressed only as a cumulative
impact.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.4-17
Construction GHG Emissions
It can be stated generally that development proposed under the General Plan update
would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction. However, quantifying the
specific GHG emissions from future, short-term, temporary construction activities
allowed under the General Plan update is not possible due to project-level variability
and uncertainties related to future individual projects in terms of detailed site plans,
construction schedules, equipment requirements, etc., none of which have yet been
determined.
Future project-level analyses of GHG emission-related impacts, in accordance with
CEQA requirements, would be conducted on a case-by-case basis as individual future
development projects proceed. The SCAQMD has promulgated methodology protocols
for the preparation of GHG emission analyses. For instance, the SCAQMD does not
recommend a construction-related significance threshold but instead recommends
that quantified construction emissions be amortized for a project lifetime of 30 years
and added to the quantified total of operational emissions in order to ensure GHG
reduction measures address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational
reduction strategies.
Construction-related GHG exhaust emissions would be generated by sources such as
heavy-duty off-road equipment, trucks hauling materials to the site, and worker
commutes. Over the General Plan’s time span, exhaust emission rates of the
construction equipment fleet in California are expected to decrease due to
advancements in engine technology, retrofits, and turnover in the equipment fleet,
which would result in increased fuel efficiency, potentially more alternatively fueled
equipment, and lower levels of GHG emissions. In addition, existing programs to
improve air quality in California, such as the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, will result in
cleaner technology for virtually all of California’s diesel engine fleets, including
construction equipment. Measures implemented under these plans are likely to result
in future fleets of construction equipment that are more efficient than existing fleets.
For these reasons, levels of GHG emissions associated with construction activity are
expected to decrease over time as new regulations are developed in response to
AB 32.
In addition, all future discretionary development projects under the General Plan
update would be required to analyze and mitigate for GHG emissions during
development project review, pursuant to CEQA. Construction-related mitigation could
include various measures such as an enforced limitation of off-road diesel equipment
idling times below the State-mandated maximum of 5 minutes and/or an off-road
construction equipment emissions reduction plan demonstrating that off-road
equipment (portable and mobile) meets or is cleaner than Tier 3 engine emission
specifications. Additional mitigation examples include the requirement to keep all
construction equipment in proper tune in accordance with manufacturers’
specifications, the use of late-model heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment during
construction to the extent that it is readily available, the use of diesel-powered
equipment that has been retrofitted with after-treatment products (e.g., engine
catalysts), and the use of alternative-fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed
natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) to the extent that the
equipment is readily available.
Adherence to SCAQMD guidance would reduce construction-generated GHG
emissions.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.4-18 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Operational GHG Emissions
Table 4.4-3 summarizes the GHG emissions associated with full realization of the
development potential allowed under the General Plan update. As shown, the full
realization of the development potential allowed under the plan would result in
approximately 105,449 metric tons of CO2e annually under year 2020 conditions and
94,837 metric tons of CO2e annually under year 2035 conditions. It is important to
note that these estimates reflect combined emissions from all the potential new
development allowed under the General Plan update and do not reflect emissions
attributable to individual projects, as none are currently proposed. However, the
General Plan does not include any provisions which require that its growth potential
be attained. Not all of the identified land will be available for development at any
given time based on site readiness, environmental constraints, market changes, and
other factors.
Table 4.4-3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Project Operations
(Metric Tons per Year)
Emissions Source
Existing
Conditions (2008)
Full Development
Potential in the
Year 2020
Full
Development
Potential in the
Year 2035
Energy 331,666 46,460 39,663
Area N/A 1,791 1,791
Mobile 228,572 44,824 42,440
Waste 59,489 4,932 4,932
Water N/A 7,442 6,011
Fugitive Emissions 1,458 0 0
Total 621,225 105,449 94,837
Source: CalEEMod 2013.2.2 (see Appendix 4.4); Existing Conditions sourced from Palm Desert
2009.
Notes:
1. The development potential includes 8,049 residential units and 5,829,400 square feet of
nonresidential building space. The number of residential units is derived from Section 3.0,
Project Description. The nonresidential square footage is derived from the current population
breakdown of employment sectors in the city as disclosed in Figure 13.9 of the TBR (see
Appendix A) and number of anticipated jobs as identified in Section 3.0, Project Description. The
estimated amount of building space per employee is based on the U.S. Green Building Council’s
Building Area per Employee by Business Type (2008).
2. Energy source emissions account for CALGreen standards and Environmental Resources
Element Policies 6.1 and 6.9.
3. Mobile source emissions account for Land Use & Community Character Element Policies 1.3,
2.1, 2.5, 2.9, 2.11, 2.12, 3.1, 3.7, 3.8, 3.11, 3.14, 3.15, 3.21, 4.2 – 4.5, 4.9, 5.4 – 5.6, 6.1 – 6.3
and Mobility Policies 1.1, 1.2, 3.1 – 3.6, 4.1 – 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 8.3, 9.2 – 9.5.
4. Area source emissions account for SCAQMD Rule 445.
5. Fugitive emissions include refrigerants used within the City boundaries. Existing Conditions
sourced from Palm Desert 2009, CalEEMod 2013.2.2 does not quantify fugitive emissions.
As previously stated, GHG emissions are evaluated to account for the full development
potential allowed under the General Plan update during year 2020 and year 2035
conditions. The full development potential allowed under the General Plan update is
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.4-19
not expected to occur until at least 2040. Nonetheless, GHG emissions projections
associated with the full development potential over existing conditions are compared
to year 2020 and year 2035 patterns and efficiencies to provide a conservative analysis
as well as to conform with the SCAQMD-recommended methodology for assessing
GHG-related impacts from plan-level projects.
The General Plan update seeks to reduce the environmental impact (including GHG
emissions) of land use development by increasing the viability of walking, biking, and
transit by allowing mixed-use projects which provide land use arrangements that
reduce reliance on the automobile, and thus reduce GHG emissions, and improve
opportunities for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use. Chapter 4.15, Transportation,
identifies the effects of the General Plan update’s policy provisions on traffic
generation, and thus mobile source GHG emissions, which are the predominant source
of GHG emissions in Palm Desert.
The SCAQMD’s greenhouse gas emissions plan-level threshold is 6.6 metric tons of
CO2e per service population (residents plus employees) per year by the year 2020 and
4.1 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year by the year 2035. The
SCAQMD’s approach is to identify the emissions level for which a plan would not be
expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation (AB 32) adopted to
reduce statewide GHG emissions. As stated in Section 3.0, Project Description, there
are currently 49,786 residents in Palm Desert and 36,874 jobs. Palm Desert is expected
to accommodate 11,905 additional people and employment in the city is projected to
increase by 13,662 jobs under the General Plan update. Therefore, the service
population in Palm Desert would be 112,227 (49,786 existing residents + 11,905 new
residents + 36,874 existing jobs + new 13,662 jobs).
Dividing the GHG emissions for each time period yields a metric ton per service
population ratio of 6.5 for year 2020 conditions and 6.4 for year 2035 conditions.
Therefore, as shown in Table 4.4-4, the 2020 conditions ratio is below the 2020
SCAQMD plan-level threshold of 6.6 metric tons per service population, yet the 2035
ratio exceeds the 2035 SCAQMD plan-level threshold of 4.1 metric tons per service
population. [It is noted that the incremental development potential from existing
conditions would produce GHG emissions below the SCAQMD plan-level threshold for
both 2020 and 2035.]
SCAQMD thresholds were developed based on substantial evidence that such
thresholds represent quantitative levels of GHG emissions, compliance with which
means that the environmental impact of the GHG emissions will normally not be
cumulatively considerable under CEQA. Compliance with such thresholds will be part
of the solution to the cumulative GHG emissions problem, rather than hinder the
State’s ability to meet its goals of reduced statewide GHG emissions under AB 32. As
identified, the resultant emissions contribution exceeds the 2035 SCAQMD plan-level
threshold of 4.1 metric tons per service population. As shown, a percentage of GHG
emissions would be generated by mobile sources, which is an emission source that
cannot be regulated by the City of Palm Desert. The project would be required to
implement energy efficiency design requirements consistent with the California Green
Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly
referred to as the CALGreen Code, described above. However, the resulting GHG
emissions generated by the project are nevertheless considered cumulatively
considerable and significant and unavoidable.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.4-20 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 4.4-4 General Plan Update GHG Emissions per Service
Population
Per Capita Emissions Emissions Jobs Population
Service
Population
MTCO2e
/SP/yr
SCAQMD
Threshold
Full Development
Potential in the Year
2020
105,449 13,662 11,905 25,567 4.1 6.6
Full Development
Potential in the Year
2035
94,837 13,662 11,905 25,567 3.7 4.1
Existing Conditions +
Full Development
Potential in the Year
2020
726,674 50,536 61,691 112,227 6.5 6.6
Existing Conditions +
Full Development
Potential in the Year
2035
716,062 50,536 61,691 112,227 6.4 4.1
Note: Table values equals existing development in Palm Desert + the full development potential allowed under
the General Plan update of what is projected in 2020 and 2035. The full development potential allowed under the
General Plan update is not expected to occur until at least 2040. The 2020 and 2035 full buildout numbers are not
additive as full development potential allowed under the General Plan update is not expected to occur.
Nonetheless, the model makes GHG emissions projections associated with the full development potential are
compared to year 2020 and year 2035 regulatory environment and anticipated efficiencies to provide a
conservative analysis as well as to conform with the SCAQMD-recommended methodology for assessing GHG-
related impacts from plan-level projects.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of programs and policies, derived largely from the General Plan, will
further reduce potential GHG-related impacts as it is impossible, due to limitations in
the modeling software, to quantify the effectiveness of every General Plan policy
provision. Individual development projects will be required to undergo project-specific
environmental review, and mitigation measures will be identified at that time to
reduce any significant impacts. The projects must meet SCAQMD, Palm Desert
Strategic Plan, and Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan requirements.
Applicable Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Plan
Consistency
The Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG’s) 2016–2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), adopted April 7,
2016, is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs
with economic, environmental and public health goals. As shown in Table 4.4-3, GHG
emissions resulting from development-related transportation sources is a potent
source of emissions, and therefore project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an
appropriate indicator of whether the proposed project would inhibit the GHG
reduction goals promulgated by the state. The RTP/SCS embodies a collective vision
for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county
transportation commissions (CTCs), tribal governments, non-profit organizations,
businesses and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles,
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.4-21
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura. SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS
establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and
2035, establishes an overall GHG target for the project region consistent with both the
target date of AB 32 (2020) and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Order
5-03-05 (2005) and Executive Order B-30-15 (2015).
The 2016 RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects—ranging from highway
improvements, railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and
replacement bridges. These future investments were included in county plans
developed by the six CTCs and seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks, improve the
efficiency of the region’s network and expand mobility choices for everyone. The
RTP/SCS is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors
to qualify for federal funding. The plan takes into account operations and maintenance
costs, to ensure reliability, longevity and cost effectiveness.
In addition, the RTP/SCS is supported by a combination of transportation and land use
strategies that help the region achieve state greenhouse gas emission reduction goals
and federal Clean Air Act requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public
health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry and utilize
resources more efficiently.
The proposed project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in detail in
Table 4.4-5.
Table 4.4-5 Coachella Valley 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
SCAG Goals Compliance with Goal
GOAL 1: Align the plan investments and
policies with improving regional economic
development and competitiveness.
Not Applicable: This is not a project-specific
policy and is therefore not applicable.
GOAL 2: Maximize mobility and
accessibility for all people and goods in the
region.
Consistent: Improvements to the
transportation network in Palm Desert are
developed and maintained to meet the
needs of local and regional transportation
and to ensure efficient mobility. A number
of regional and local plans and programs are
used to guide development and
maintenance of transportation networks,
including but not limited to:
Caltrans Traffic Impact Studies
Guidelines
Caltrans Highway Capacity Manual
SCAG RTP/SCS
Also see proposed Land Use & Community
Character Element Policies 3.11, 3.14, 3.15,
3.21, 4.9, 5.4, 5.5, 6.1, 6.3; proposed
Mobility Element Policies 1.1, 1.2, 3.4, 5.1,
9.2, 9.4, 9.5; proposed City Center Area Plan
Policy 4.3; and proposed Implementation
Actions 2.33 and 2.34.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 4.4-5, continued
4.4-22 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
SCAG Goals Compliance with Goal
GOAL 3: Ensure travel safety and reliability
for all people and goods in the region.
Consistent: All modes of transit in Palm
Desert are required to follow safety
standards set by corresponding regulatory
documents. Pedestrian walkways and bicycle
routes must follow safety precautions and
standards established by local (e.g., City of
Palm Desert, County of Riverside) and
regional (e.g., SCAG, Caltrans) agencies.
Roadways for motorists must follow safety
standards established for the local and
regional plans.
Also see proposed Land Use & Community
Character Element Policy 6.1; proposed
Mobility Element Policies 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 3.2,
3.5, 3.6, 4.2; and proposed Implementation
Action 2.34.
GOAL 4: Preserve and ensure a sustainable
regional transportation system.
Consistent: All new roadway developments
and improvements to the existing
transportation network must be assessed
with some level of traffic analysis (e.g.,
traffic assessments, traffic impact studies) to
determine how the developments would
impact existing traffic capacities and to
determine the needs for improving future
traffic capacities.
Also see proposed Mobility Element Policies
5.2, 8.3, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5; and proposed
Implementation Actions 2.31 and 2.33.
GOAL 5: Maximize the productivity of our
transportation system.
Consistent: The local and regional
transportation system would be improved
and maintained to encourage efficiency and
productivity. The City’s Public Works
Department oversees the improvement and
maintenance of all aspects of the public
right-of-way on an as-needed basis. The City
also strives to maximize productivity of the
region’s public transportation system (i.e.,
bus, bicycle) for residents, visitors, and
workers coming into and out of Palm Desert.
Also see proposed Land Use & Community
Character Element Policies 3.11, 3.14, 3.15,
3.21, 4.9, 5.4, 5.5, 6.1, 6.3; proposed
Mobility Element Policies 5.2, 8.3, 9.2, 9.3,
9.4, 9.5; and proposed Implementation
Actions 2.31 and 2.33.
GOAL 6: Protect the environment and
health of our residents by improving air
quality and encouraging active
transportation (e.g., bicycling and
walking).
Consistent: The reduction of energy use,
improvement of air quality, and promotion
of more environmentally sustainable
development are encouraged through the
development of alternative transportation
methods, green design techniques for
buildings, and other energy-reducing
techniques. For example, development
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 4.4-5, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.4-23
SCAG Goals Compliance with Goal
projects are required to comply with the
provisions of the California Building and
Energy Efficiency Standards and the Green
Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The
City also strives to maximize the protection
of the environment and improvement of air
quality by encouraging and improving the
use of the region’s public transportation
system (i.e., bus, bicycle) for residents,
visitors, and workers coming into and out of
Palm Desert.
Also see proposed Land Use & Community
Character Element Policies 2.1, 2.5, 2.11,
3.1, 3.7, 3.15; proposed Mobility Element
Policies 1.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.3, 5.10, 6.3, 6.4,
6.5; proposed City Center Area Plan Policies
3.1, 4.1, 4.2; and proposed Implementation
Actions 2.24 and 2.26.
GOAL 7: Actively encourage and create
incentives for energy efficiency, where
possible.
Consistent: See proposed Environmental
Resources Element Policies 5.6, 5.10, 5.16,
5.17, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 6.9, 6.10,
6.11, 7.3; proposed Public Utilities &
Services Element policies 4.2, 4.3, 4.4; and
proposed Implementation Actions 2.3, 2.4,
2.5,
GOAL 8: Encourage land use and growth
patterns that facilitate transit and non-
motorized transportation.
Consistent: See response to RTP/SCS Goal 6.
Also see proposed Land Use & Community
Character Element Policy 5.4; proposed
Mobility Element Policies 5.1, 5.2, 8.3, 9.4;
City Center Area Plan Policy 4.3; and
proposed Implementation Actions 2.25, 2.31
and 2.34
GOAL 9: Maximize the security of our
transportation system through improved
system monitoring, rapid recovery
planning, and coordination with other
security agencies.
Consistent: The City of Palm Desert monitors
existing and newly constructed roadways
and transit routes to determine the
adequacy and safety of these systems. Other
local and regional agencies (i.e., Caltrans and
SCAG) work with the City to manage these
systems. Security situations involving
roadways and evacuations would be
addressed in the County of Riverside’s
emergency management plans (e.g.,
Riverside County Emergency Operations
Plan) developed in accordance with the
state and federal mandated emergency
management regulations.
As shown in Table 4.4-5, the project does not conflict with the stated goals of the
RTP/SCS. For these reasons, the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s
ability to achieve the region’s mobile source GHG reduction targets outlined in the
2016 RTP/SCS.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.4-24 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Anticipated Climate Change Effects on the Planning Area
Although CEQA does not require any analysis of the environment’s impacts on
proposed project, this discussion considers the potential impacts of anticipated
climate change effects on the Planning Area. Human-induced increases in GHG
concentrations in the atmosphere have led to increased global average temperatures
(global warming) through the intensification of the greenhouse effect and resulted in
associated changes in local, regional, and global average climatic conditions. Although
there is a strong scientific consensus that global climate change is occurring and is
influenced by human activity, there is less certainty as to the timing, severity, and
potential consequences of climate change. Scientists have identified several ways in
which global climate change could alter the physical environment in California (IPCC
2014; DWR 2008).
Although uncertainty exists as to the precise levels of these impacts, there is
consensus regarding the range that can be expected. This analysis focuses on the
effects of global climate change that might have a direct, reasonably foreseeable
effect on physical conditions in the Planning Area. Therefore, this analysis gives
greatest consideration to climate change data with more consistency anticipating
future conditions, and thus a probability for a greater likelihood of occurring within a
reasonable time frame (i.e., approximately 100 years).
Temperature
An increase in average annual temperatures, by itself, would have little effect on the
Planning Area, other than adjustments to new development anticipated under the
General Plan update in response to warmer temperatures. For example, increased
evapotranspiration rates would affect detention basins and landscaped areas,
resulting in increased irrigation demand, and potentially greater overall energy
consumption to meet space cooling needs.
Precipitation and Fire Risk
Although global climate change models generally predict an increase in overall
precipitation on a worldwide scale, there is no such consistency among the results of
regional models applied to California. Given the uncertainty associated with projecting
the amount of annual precipitation, any conclusion regarding significance of potential
effects of climate change on precipitation volumes as they relate to reasonably
foreseeable direct effects on physical conditions in the Planning Area would be
speculative.
Based on the results of a variety of regional climate models and literature, it is
reasonably foreseeable that snowpack would melt more rapidly. Given the magnitude
and timing of the increase in winter runoff and the associated changes in reservoir use
that may occur, determining the exact impact on the Planning Area would be
speculative. In addition to potential effects on runoff and water supply, reduced
precipitation could increase the frequency and/or severity of wildfires.
Although various climate change models predict some increase in variability of
weather patterns and an increasing incidence of extreme weather events, there is no
consistency among the model results, with some predicting increased incidents of
droughts and others predicting increased frequency of severe storm events.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.4-25
Sea Level
A consistent rise in sea level has been recorded worldwide over the last 100 years.
Recorded rises in sea level along the California coast correlate well with the worldwide
data. Based on the results of various global climate change models, sea level rise is
expected to continue. Based on the consistency in past trends and future projections,
and the correlation between data collected globally and data specific to California, it is
reasonably foreseeable that some amount of sea level rise will occur along the
California coast over the next 100 years. While sea level rise induced by climate
change is reasonably certain, the Planning Area is not located in an area that would be
affected by sea level rise.
Water Supply
Several recent studies have shown that existing water supply systems are sensitive to
climate change. Potential impacts of climate change on water supply and availability
could directly and indirectly affect a wide range of institutional, economic, and societal
factors. Residential, industrial, and agricultural land uses all are affected by the cost
and security of water supply. Much uncertainty remains, however, with respect to the
overall impact of global climate change on future water supplies.
Little work has been performed on the effects of climate change on specific
groundwater basins or groundwater recharge characteristics. Changes in rainfall and
changes in the timing of the groundwater recharge season would result in changes in
recharge. Warmer temperatures could increase the period where water is on the
ground by reducing soil freeze. Conversely, warmer temperatures could lead to higher
evaporation or shorter rainfall seasons, which could mean longer droughts than in
past years. The specific extent to which various meteorological conditions will change
and the impact of that change on groundwater are both unknown. A reduced
snowpack, coupled with changes in precipitation, could require a change in the
operating procedures for California’s existing dams and conveyance facilities (Pacific
Institute 2005).
In 2003, the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research (PIER)
program established the California Climate Change Center (CCCC) to conduct climate
change research relevant to the state. Executive Order S-3-05 called for the California
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to prepare biennial science reports on the
potential impact of continued climate change on certain sectors of California’s
economy. CalEPA entrusted PIER and its CCCC to lead this effort. The climate change
analysis contained in its first biennial science report concluded that major changes in
water management and allocation systems could be required in order to adapt to the
change. As less winter precipitation falls as snow, and more as rain, water managers
would have to balance the need to construct reservoirs for water supply with the need
to maintain reservoir storage for winter flood control. Additional storage could be
developed, but at high environmental and economic costs.
Climate change is expected to have a greater effect in Southern California and on
agricultural users in the Central Valley. Based on the conclusions of current literature
regarding California’s ability to adapt to global climate change, it is reasonably
expected that over time, the state’s water system will be modified to be able to
address the projected climate changes, e.g., under dry and/or warm climate scenarios.
Although coping with climate change effects on California’s water supply could come
at a considerable cost, based on a thorough investigation of the issue, it is reasonably
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.4-26 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
expected that statewide implementation of adaptation measures will likely enable
California’s water system to reliably meet future water demands. Given known
projections, it is not useful to scale regional and state trends down to predict specific
impacts in the Planning Area.
Water Quality
Although there are various ways in which climate change could affect water quality,
effects could be positive or negative depending on a variety of conditions. In addition,
current water quality conditions in regional surface waters depend in large part on
human activities, and this would continue into the future. The effects of climate
change on water quality could be alleviated by, exacerbated by, or overwhelmed by
effects directly related to localized human actions.
Summary
Potential climate change effects would have environmental consequences throughout
the Planning Area, although prediction of particular direct effects on physical
conditions would be speculative. Implementation of the General Plan update goals
and policies would reduce the extent and severity of climate change–associated
impacts in the Planning Area by proactively planning for changes in climate and
conditions, creating a policy framework to coordinate with state agencies planning for
climate change, and providing methods to adapt to anticipated changes.
IMPACT
4.4-2
Develop Land Uses and Patterns That Cause Wasteful, Inefficient, and
Unnecessary Consumption of Energy or Construct New or Retrofitted
Buildings That Would Have Excessive Energy Requirements for Daily
Operation. Implementation of the General Plan update will result in
energy consumption that would contribute to less than significant
impacts on the environment. This is considered a less than significant
impact.
As shown in Table 4.4-2, the City of Palm Desert consumed 759,776,308 kilowatt
hours of electricity and 19,191,985 therms of natural gas in the year 2008. According
to CARB’s EMFAC2014 modeling software, 38,910,825 gallons of automotive fuel were
consumed daily in Palm Desert in the year 2015. Energy consumption associated with
the potential new development instigated by the proposed project is summarized in
Table 4.4-6.
Table 4.4-6 General Plan Update Energy Consumption
Potential
Energy Type
Increase in Annual
Energy Consumption Percentage Increase
Electricity Consumption1 117,358,730 15.4
Natural Gas Consumption1 3,640,681 18.9
Automotive Fuel Consumption2 5,445,435 13.9
Sources: 1CalEEMod v. 2013.2.2; 2EMFAC2014 (CARB 2014)
Notes: The project increases in electricity and natural gas consumption are compared with
electricity and natural gas consumption in Palm Desert in 2008. The project increases in
automotive fuel consumption are compared with the citywide fuel consumption in 2015.
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.4-27
As shown in Table 4.4-6, the increase in electricity usage as a result of full buildout of
the development potential allowed under the proposed project would constitute an
approximate 15.4 percent increase in the typical annual electricity consumption and
an approximate 18.9 percent increase in the typical annual natural gas consumption
attributable to all buildings in Palm Desert. The increase in automotive fuel would
increase use in the county by 13.9 percent.
The development allowed under the proposed project would be required to comply
with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provide minimum efficiency
standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space
heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting.
Implementation of the Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage.
Furthermore, the electricity provider, SCE, is subject to California’s Renewables
Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investor-owned utilities, electric service
providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible
renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 50
percent of total procurement by 2030. Renewable energy is generally defined as
energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human
timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in
reliance of such energy resources further ensures projects will not result in the waste
of the finite energy resources.
SCE currently provides electrical services, while natural gas is provided by the
Southern California Gas Company. These utility companies would continue to provide
these services and are required by the California Public Utilities Commission to update
existing systems to meet any additional demand. Individual development projects will
be required to undergo project-specific environmental review, and mitigation
measures will be identified at that time to reduce any significant impacts. The City’s
ongoing development review process includes a review and comment opportunity for
privately owned utility companies, including SCE and the Southern California Gas
Company, to allow informed input from each utility company on all development
proposals. The input facilitates a detailed review of all projects by service purveyors to
assess the potential demands for utility services on a project-by-project basis.
The ability of utility providers to provide services concurrently with each project is
evaluated during the development review process. Utility companies are bound by
contract to update energy systems to meet any additional demand.
Summary
For the reasons described above, the proposed project would not place a substantial
demand on regional energy supply or require significant additional capacity, or
significantly increase peak and base period electricity demand, or cause wasteful,
inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during project construction,
operation, and/or maintenance, or preempt future energy development or future
energy conservation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As discussed in Subsection 4.4.1, Introduction, the topic of GHG emissions is inherently
a cumulative impact. Though significance thresholds can be developed by air districts,
state regulatory agencies, or federal regulatory agencies, these thresholds and their
related goals are ultimately design to effect change at a global level. While the
CHAPTER 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.4-28 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
evaluation presented above is focused on the General Plan update, and is specific to
the project, it is also considered cumulative because it is only as a contribution to a
cumulative effect that the project-specific emissions have environmental
consequences. Therefore, the GHG analysis provided above includes the analysis of
both the project and cumulative impacts.
Quantifying and/or analyzing energy consumption by cumulative projects in the area
would be speculative in nature, as the proposed land use types, intensities, and sizes
of projects are unknown at this time. However, each cumulative project would
require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address
potential energy consumption impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures,
where appropriate. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in
significant energy consumption impacts. The proposed project would not be
considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary with regard to energy. Thus, the
proposed project and identified cumulative projects are not anticipated to result in a
significant cumulative impact.
References
CARB (California Air Resources Board). CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2014.
EMFAC2014 Emissions Model
____. 2015. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2013 – by Category as
Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.
Cal-Adapt. 2016. Local Climate Snapshots: Santa Rosa Area. http://cal-
adapt.org/tools/factsheet/.
CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2012. Our Changing Climate:
Vulnerability & Adaptation to the Increasing Risks of Climate Change in California.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500-2012-007/CEC-500-2012-
007.pdf.
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2008. Climate Change Impacts on
California’s Water.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate Change 2014
Synthesis Report: Approved Summary for Policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/.
Pacific Institute. 2005. Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey and
Summary of the Literature.
Palm Desert. 2009. Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory. 2009.
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2009. Greenhouse Gas CEQA
Significance Threshold.
U.S. Green Building Council. 2008. Building Area per Employee by Business Type. 2008.
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.5-1
4.5. Biological Resources
Introduction
This resource section evaluates the potential environmental effects related to
biological resources associated with adoption and implementation of the General Plan
update. The analysis includes a review of special-status species, sensitive habitats,
wetlands, wildlife movement, and planning efforts associated with biological
resources. Goals and policies presented in the General Plan Environmental Resources
Element intend to protect natural terrestrial features communities by protecting these
spaces that are fundamental components of Palm Desert’s environment.
NOP Comments: No comment letters were received in response to the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) addressing biological resources concerns.
Reference Information: Information for this resource section is based on numerous
references, including the Palm Desert General Plan Update Technical Background
Report (TBR) and other publicly available documents. The TBR is attached as Appendix
4.0. This EIR, including the TBR, is also available electronically on the City’s website
((http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/general-plan-update).
Environmental Setting
Section 6.2 of Appendix 4.0 describes the vegetation, habitat, and wildlife in the
Planning Area, which includes the lands within the Palm Desert city limits and Sphere
of Influence, including special-status species, sensitive habitats, and wetlands. A
summary of that information is presented below. The CNDDB results within 1 mile of
the Planning Area are depicted on Figure 5.2 of the TBR (Appendix 4.0) and listed in
Table 4.5-1.
Table 4.5-1. Previously Recorded CNDDB Occurrences of
Special-Status Species within 1 Mile of the Planning Area
Map
ID Scientific Name
Common
Name
Federal
Listing
State
Listing
Rare Plant
Rank
1 Abronia villosa var.
aurita
chaparral sand-
verbena
- - 1B.1
2 Acmispon haydonii pygmy lotus - - 1B.3
3 Anniella pulchra
pulchra
silvery legless
lizard
- SSC
4 Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle - -
5 Astragalus
lentiginosus var.
coachellae
Coachella
Valley milk-
vetch
E - 1B.2
6 Athene cunicularia burrowing owl - SSC
7 Ayenia compacta California
ayenia
- - 2B.3
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.5-1, continued
4.5-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Map
ID Scientific Name
Common
Name
Federal
Listing
State
Listing
Rare Plant
Rank
8 Batrachoseps major
aridus
desert slender
salamander
E E
9 Chaetodipus fallax
pallidus
pallid San
Diego pocket
mouse
- SSC
10 Chamaesyce
abramsiana
Abrams' spurge - - 2B.2
11 Chamaesyce
platysperma
flat-seeded
spurge
- - 1B.2
12 Chorizanthe xanti
var. leucotheca
white-bracted
spineflower
- - 1B.2
13 Crotalus ruber red-diamond
rattlesnake
- SSC
14 Cyprinodon
macularius
desert pupfish E E
15 Desert Fan Palm
Oasis Woodland
Desert Fan
Palm Oasis
Woodland
- X
16 Dinacoma caseyi Casey's June
beetle
E -
17 Dipodomys
merriami collinus
Earthquake
Merriam's
kangaroo rat
- -
18 Ditaxis claryana glandular
ditaxis
- - 2B.2
19 Ditaxis serrata var.
californica
California
ditaxis
- - 3.2
20 Empidonax traillii
extimus
southwestern
willow
flycatcher
E E
21 Falco mexicanus prairie falcon - -
22 Gopherus agassizii desert tortoise T T
23 Heuchera
hirsutissima
shaggy-haired
alumroot
- - 1B.3
24 Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead
shrike
- SSC
25 Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow
bat
- SSC
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.5-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.5-3
Map
ID Scientific Name
Common
Name
Federal
Listing
State
Listing
Rare Plant
Rank
26 Leptosiphon
floribundus ssp.
hallii
Santa Rosa
Mountains
leptosiphon
- - 1B.3
27 Macrobaenetes
valgum
Coachella giant
sand treader
cricket
- -
28 Marina orcuttii var.
orcuttii
California
marina
- - 1B.3
29 Matelea parvifolia spear-leaf
matelea
- - 2B.3
30 Nemacaulis
denudata var.
gracilis
slender
cottonheads
- - 2B.2
31 Neotoma albigula
venusta
Colorado Valley
woodrat
- SSC
32 Oliarces clara cheeseweed
owlfly
(cheeseweed
moth lacewing)
- -
33 Ovis canadensis
nelsoni pop. 2
Peninsular
bighorn sheep
DPS
E T
34 Perognathus
longimembris
bangsi
Palm Springs
pocket mouse
- SSC
35 Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus
Los Angeles
pocket mouse
- SSC
36 Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard
- SSC
37 Phrynosoma mcallii flat-tailed
horned lizard
- SSC
38 Polioptila melanura black-tailed
gnatcatcher
- -
39 Pseudorontium
cyathiferum
Deep Canyon
snapdragon
- - 2B.3
40 Pyrocephalus
rubinus
vermilion
flycatcher
- SSC
41 Selaginella
eremophila
desert spike-
moss
- - 2B.2
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.5-1, continued
4.5-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Map
ID Scientific Name
Common
Name
Federal
Listing
State
Listing
Rare Plant
Rank
42 Senna covesii Cove's cassia - - 2B.2
43 Stemodia
durantifolia
purple
stemodia
- - 2B.1
44 Stenopelmatus
cahuilaensis
Coachella
Valley
jerusalem
cricket
- -
45 Toxostoma crissale Crissal thrasher - SSC
46 Toxostoma lecontei Le Conte's
thrasher
- SSC
47 Uma inornata Coachella
Valley fringe-
toed lizard
T E
48 Xerospermophilus
tereticaudus chlorus
Palm Springs
round-tailed
ground squirrel
- SSC
Source: Technical Background Report (2015; Appendix 4.0)
Vegetative Communities: The vegetative communities occurring in the Planning Area
include Sonoran mixed woody and succulent scrub, stabilized shielded desert sand
fields, peninsular juniper woodland and scrub, Sonoran creosote bush scrub, desert
fan palm oasis woodland, desert dry wash woodland, and active shielded desert
dunes. Urban land uses encompass the majority of the Planning Area.
Urban land uses are classified as areas that have been heavily modified by humans,
including roadways, existing buildings, and structures, as well as recreation fields,
small parks, lawns, and other landscaped vegetation. Because of the high degree of
disturbance in these areas, they generally have low habitat value for wildlife.
However, migratory birds may find limited nesting and foraging opportunities in trees
and shrubs scattered throughout urban areas.
Special-Status Plants: 10 special-status plant species are known to occur in the
Planning Area. An additional 12 species were determined to have the potential to
occur in the Planning Area based on the presence of suitable habitat and previous
occurrences in the vicinity (5-mile radius around the Planning Area). These species are
described below based on data obtained from the California Native Plant Society’s
(CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Table 4.5-2 summarizes
the special-status plant species known to occur in the Planning Area.
Special-Status Wildlife: According to the TBR, 15 special-status wildlife species are
known to occur in the Planning Area. An additional 15 species were determined to
have the potential to occur in the Planning Area based on the presence of suitable
habitat, previous occurrences in the vicinity, and/or overlap with Coachella Valley
Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) species distribution models.
These species are described in in Table 4.5-3 as well as the TBR (Appendix 4.0).
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.5-5
Table 4.5-2. Special-Status Plant Species in the Planning Area
Common Name
CNPS
Rare Plant
Rank Location within Planning Area
Known to Occur in the Planning Area
Chaparral Sand-
Verbena
1B.1 The dune habitats, sand fields, and areas with sandy soil provide suitable habitat for this species. Chaparral sand-verbena is known to
occur within the Planning Area (CDFW 2014d).
Coachella Valley
Milk-Vetch
1B.2 The Thousand Palms System federally designated critical habitat unit (#4) is in the Coachella Valley Preserve, adjacent to the Planning
Area.
California Ayenia 2B.3 It is typically found growing on rocky substrates in Mojavean and Sonoran desert scrub habitats at elevations ranging from 492 to 3,592
feet (150–1,095 m) amsl. This species is known to occur within the Planning Area (CDFW 2014d). The scrub habitats and rocky areas in the
Planning Area provide suitable habitat for this species
Abrams’ Spurge 2B.2 It is typically found growing on sandy substrates in Mojavean and Sonoran desert scrub habitats at elevations ranging from 16 feet (5 m)
below mean sea level (bmsl) to 3,002 feet (915 m) amsl. Abrams’ spurge is possibly threatened by vehicles, solar energy development, and
non-native plants. This species is known to occur within the Planning Area (CDFW 2014d). The scrub habitats and sandy areas in the
Planning Area provide suitable habitat for this species.
California Marina 1B.3 It is typically found growing on rocky substrates in chaparral, pinyon and juniper woodland, and Sonoran desert scrub habitats at
elevations ranging from 3,445 to 3,806 feet (1,050–1,160 m) amsl. This species is known to occur within the Planning Area (CDFW 2014d).
The juniper woodland and Sonoran scrub in the Planning Area provide suitable habitat for this species.
Spearleaf 2B.3 It is typically found growing on rocky substrates in Mojavean and Sonoran desert scrub habitats at elevations ranging from 1,444 to 3,593
feet (440–1,095 m) amsl. This species is known to occur within the Planning Area (CDFW 2014d). The Sonoran scrub in the Planning Area
provides suitable habitat for this species.
Deep Canyon
Snapdragon
2B.3 It is typically found growing on rocky substrates in Sonoran desert scrub habitat at elevations up to 2,625 feet (800 m) amsl. Deep Canyon
snapdragon is known to occur within the Planning Area (CDFW 2014d). The Sonoran scrub in the Planning Area provides suitable habitat
for this species.
Desert Spike-Moss 2B.2 This species blooms from March through June. It is typically found growing on sandy substrates in Sonoran desert scrub habita t at
elevations ranging from 656 to 2,953 feet (200–900 m) amsl. Desert spike-moss is known to occur within the Planning Area (CDFW 2014d).
The Sonoran scrub in the Planning Area provide suitable habitat for this species.
Coves’ Cassia 2B.2 It is typically found growing on rocky substrates in Mojavean and Sonoran desert scrub habitats at elevations ranging from 935 to 3,510
feet (285–1,070 m) amsl. This species is known to occur within the Planning Area (CDFW 2014d). The Sonoran scrub in the Planning Area
provides suitable habitat for this species.
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.5-2, continued
4.5-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Common Name
CNPS
Rare Plant
Rank Location within Planning Area
Purple Stemodia 2B.1 It is typically found growing on mesic, sandy substrates in Sonoran desert scrub habitat at elevations ranging from 591 to 984 feet (180–
300 m) amsl. Purple stemodia is threatened by development. This species is known to occur within the Planning Area (CDFW 2014d). The
Sonoran scrub in the Planning Area provides suitable habitat for this species.
May Occur in the Planning Area
Pygmy Lotus 1B.3 It is typically found growing on rocky substrates in pinyon and juniper woodland and Sonoran desert scrub habitats at elevations ranging
from 1,706to 3,937 feet (520–1,200 m) amsl. Pygmy lotus is potentially threatened by vehicles and non-native plants. There is one record
of this species occurring within 1 mile of the Planning Area (CDFW 2014d). The presence of nearby occurrences and the presence of
suitable habitat, such as juniper woodland and Sonoran scrub, result in the potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area.
Arizona Spurge 2B.3 It is typically found growing on sandy substrates in Sonoran desert scrub habitat at elevations ranging from 164 to 984 feet (50–300 m)
amsl. There are no records of Arizona spurge occurring within 1 mile of the Planning Area; however, there are two occurrences within a 5-
mile radius of the Planning Area (CDFW 2014d). The presence of nearby occurrences and the presence of suitable habitat, such as Sonoran
scrub, result in the potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area.
Flat-Seeded Spurge 1B.2 It is typically found growing on sandy substrates in Sonoran desert scrub and desert dune habitats at elevations ranging from 213 to 328
feet (65–100 m) amsl. There is one record of flat-seeded spurge occurring within 1 mile of the Planning Area (CDFW 2014d). Sonoran
scrub and desert dunes in the Planning Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. The presence of nearby occurrences and the
presence of suitable habitat result in the potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area.
White-Bracted
Spineflower
1B.2 It is typically found growing on sandy or gravelly substrates in Mojavean desert scrub, pinyon and juniper woodland, and on alluvial fans in
coastal scrub habitats at elevations ranging from 984 to 3,937 feet (300–1,200 m) amsl. This species is threatened by development, flood
control projects, mining, and vehicles. There is one record of white-bracted spineflower occurring within 1 mile of the Planning Area and a
total of four occurrences within a 5-mile radius (CDFW 2014d). The presence of nearby occurrences and the presence of suitable habitat,
such as juniper woodland, result in the potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area.
Glandular Ditaxis 2B.2 It is typically found growing on sandy substrate in Mojavean and Sonoran desert scrubs at elevations up to 1,526 feet (4 65 m) amsl. There
are three records of glandular ditaxis within 1 mile of the Planning Area and a total of six occurrences within a 5-mile radius (CDFW
2014d). Sonoran scrub in the Planning Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. The presence of nearby occurrences and the
presence of suitable habitat result in the potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area.
Santa Rosa
Mountains
Leptosiphon
1B.3 It is associated with pinyon and juniper woodland and Sonoran desert scrub at elevations ranging from 3,281 to 6,562 feet (1,000–2,000
m) amsl. This species may be threatened by recreational activities. There is one record of this species within 1 mile of the Planning Area
and a total of three occurrences within a 5-mile radius (CDFW 2014d). Sonoran scrub and juniper woodland communities in the Planning
Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. The presence of nearby occurrences and the presence of suitable habitat result in the
potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area.
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.5-2, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.5-7
Common Name
CNPS
Rare Plant
Rank Location within Planning Area
Slender
Cottonheads
2B.2 It is typically found growing in coastal dunes, desert dunes, and Sonoran desert scrub at elevations ranging from 164 to 328 feet (50–100
m) amsl. In the Coachella Valley, this species is threatened by urbanization. There are two records of this species within 1 mile of the
Planning Area and a total of three occurrences within a 5-mile radius (CDFW 2014d). Sonoran scrub and desert dune communities in the
Planning Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. The presence of nearby occurrences and the presence of suitable habitat
result in the potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area.
Latimer’s
Woodland Gilia
1B.2 Latimer’s woodland gilia can be found at elevations ranging from 1,312 to 6,234 feet (400–1,900 m) amsl. It is associated with rocky or
sandy areas, often in washes and often on granitic substrates. Latimer’s woodland gilia is found growing in chaparral, Mojave an desert
scrub, and pinyon and juniper woodland. There are no records of this species within 1 mile of the Planning Area; however, there is one
occurrence within a 5-mile radius (CDFW 2014d). The presence of nearby occurrences and the presence of suitable habitat, such as
juniper woodland, result in the potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area.
White-Margined
Oxytheca
1B.3 It is typically found associated with chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest, and pinyon and juniper woodland at elevations ranging
from 3,937 to 8,202 feet (1,200–2,500 m) amsl. This species is threatened by development, grazing, recreational activities, and trampling.
There are no records of this species within 1 mile of the Planning Area; however, there are four occurrences within a 5-mile radius (CDFW
2014d). The presence of nearby occurrences and the presence of suitable habitat, such as juniper woodland, result in the potential for this
species to occur in the Planning Area.
Southern
Jewelflower
1B.3 This species blooms from April through July and can be found at elevations ranging from 2,953 to 7,546 feet (900–2,300 m) amsl. It can be
found on rocky substrate in chaparral, lower montane coniferous forests, and pinyon and juniper woodlands. There are no records of this
species within 1 mile of the Planning Area; however, there are three occurrences within a 5-mile radius (CDFW 2014d). The presence of
nearby occurrences and the presence of suitable habitat, such as juniper woodland, result in the potential for this species to occur in the
Planning Area.
Rigid Fringepod 1B.2 It is typically associated with dry rocky slopes in pinyon and juniper woodland at elevations ranging from 1,969 to 7,218 feet (600–2,200
m) amsl. This species may be threatened by development and non-native plants. There are no records of this species within 1 mile of the
Planning Area; however, there is one occurrence within a 5-mile radius (CDFW 2014d). The presence of nearby occurrences and the
presence of suitable habitat, such as juniper woodland, result in the potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area.
Mecca-Aster 1B.2 It is typically associated with Sonoran desert scrub at elevations ranging from 66 to 1,312 feet (20–400 m) amsl. This species is threatened
by vehicles and may be threatened by development and recreational activities. There are no records of this species within 1 mile of the
Planning Area; however, there are six occurrences within a 5-mile radius (CDFW 2014d). The presence of nearby occurrences and the
presence of suitable habitat, such as Sonoran scrub, result in the potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area. Mecca-aster is
one of the four species of plants covered under the CVMSHCP.
Source: Technical Background Report (2015; Appendix 4.0)
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.5-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 4.5-3 Special-Status Wildlife Species
Common Name Description Known Occurrences
Known to Occur in the Planning Area
Desert Pupfish Desert pupfish are federally and state listed as an endangered species. In
California, naturally occurring desert pupfish distribution is restricted to
two streams tributary to and a few irrigation drains and shoreline pools of
the Salton Sea. The Living Desert Reserve in Palm Desert contains stocked
ponds that house desert pupfish transplanted from natural populations
(USFWS 2010a). This species is covered under the CVMSHCP.
There are no known natural populations of this species and no threats to
the captive population in the Planning Area.
Desert Slender
Salamander
Desert slender salamanders are federally and state listed as an
endangered species. This species is associated with damp, shaded areas in
palm oases, desert washes, and desert scrub.
There are only two known populations of desert slender salamander, one
of which is in Hidden Palm Canyon, in the south-central Planning Area.
This population is within a state ecological reserve managed by the CDFW.
The second population is located in Guadalupe Canyon, which is managed
by the Bureau of Land Management within the Santa Rosa Wilderness
Area. Threats to the population in the Planning Area are minimal due to
the species being in an ecological preserve; however, potential threats
include habitat loss due to erosion, fire, non-native plants, groundwater
pumping, overutilization for scientific purposes, disease, drought or
climatological changes, and small population size (USFWS 2014c).
Red-Diamond
Rattlesnake
The red-diamond rattlesnake is a California species of special concern.
This species is associated with chaparral, woodland, and arid desert
habitats. It is typically found in rocky areas with dense vegetation at
elevations up to 3,000 feet (900 m). This species of snake is active from
mid-spring to mid-fall. Red-diamond rattlesnakes use rodent burrows,
rock cracks, and other surface objects for cover.
This species has been previously recorded in the Planning Area, and there
are numerous occurrences of this species in the foothills surrounding the
Coachella Valley (CDFW 2014d). Rocky areas in scrub communities in the
Planning Area provide suitable habitat for this species.
Desert Tortoise Desert tortoises are federally and state listed as a threatened species. In
California, this species occurs in the Mojave and Sonoran deserts. They
are found in a variety of desert habitats and terrains. At lower elevations,
they are most common on flats and slopes characterized by creosote bush
scrub, and at higher elevations, on rocky slopes characterized by
blackbrush scrub or juniper woodlands. Desert tortoises are most often
found in areas where there is sparse cover of low-growing shrubs; this
allows establishment of an herbaceous layer for food. In addition, desert
tortoises need friable, sandy-gravel soils for burrowing. This species has
been found between sea level and 7,300 feet (0–2,225 m) amsl (USFWS
2011a). This species is covered under the CVMSHCP.
There are two records of desert tortoises in the foothills along the
southern edge of Palm Desert and several more occurrences in the
foothills surrounding the Coachella Valley (CDFW 2014d). Scrubby areas
with friable soil in the Planning Area provide suitable habitat for this
species.
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.5-3, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.5-9
Common Name Description Known Occurrences
Flat-Tailed Horned
Lizard
The flat-tailed horned lizard is a California species of special concern. This
lizard is restricted to areas with sparse vegetation and fine sand in desert
flats and washes below 600 feet (180 m) amsl. It has been found in a
variety of habitats including desert scrub, succulent shrub, alkali scrub,
and washes. Flat-tailed horned lizards require fine sand to burrow under
for cover and temperature regulation. This species is covered under the
CVMSHCP.
There are numerous records of flat-tailed horned lizard on the floor of the
Coachella Valley, including in the Coachella Valley Preserve immediately
adjacent to the Planning Area (CDFW 2014d). Open, sandy areas on the
valley floor provide suitable habitat for this species.
Coachella Valley
Fringe-Toed Lizard
The Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard is federally threatened and state
listed as an endangered species. This species is endemic to the Coachella
Valley and is associated with windblown desert ecosystems such as desert
dunes and sand fields. This species requires fine, loose, windblown sand
for burrowing. Preferable habitat is characterized as fine sand fields
interspersed with hardpan and widely spaced shrubs (USFWS 2010b). This
species is covered under the CVMSHCP.
There are several records of this species in the Coachella Valley portion of
the Planning Area as well as numerous occurrences in the vicinity (CDFW
2014d). Open, sandy areas on the valley floor provide suitable habitat for
this species. Federally designated critical habitat for this species occurs in
the Coachella Valley Preserve adjacent to the Planning Area.
Burrowing Owl The burrowing owl is a California species of special concern. Burrowing
owls prefer nesting in mammal burrows in open areas of dry, open, rolling
hills, grasslands, fallow fields, sparsely vegetated desert scrub with gullies,
washes, and arroyos, and along the edges of human disturbed lands. This
species can also be found inhabiting golf courses, airports, cemeteries,
vacant lots, and road embankments with friable soils for nesting. The
elevation range for this species extends from 200 feet (60 m) bmsl to
12,000 feet (3,636 m) amsl at the Dana Plateau in Yosemite (Bates 2006).
Burrowing owls have been recorded along the northeastern edges of the
Planning Area near Interstate 10 and in the Coachella Valley Preserve. This
species is covered under the CVMSHCP.
There are numerous occurrences throughout the Coachella Valley (CDFW
2014d). Open areas with friable soils in the Planning Area provide suitable
habitat for this species.
Golden Eagle Golden eagles are a California designated fully protected species. Golden
eagles are an uncommon resident and migrant throughout California.
Typical habitats include rolling foothills, mountainous areas, sage-juniper
flats, and deserts ranging up to 11,500 feet (3,833 m). This species
requires open terrain for hunting as well as rocky ledges and large trees
for cover. Nesting occurs on cliffs and in large trees. Open, rugged
habitats with canyons and escarpments are most frequently used for
nesting.
There is one record of this species along the western edge of the Planning
Area in the Santa Rosa Mountains Wilderness Area, with several
occurrences recorded throughout the San Jacinto Mountains. The
communities in the hillside portions of the Planning Area, such as the
juniper woodland and Sonoran scrub, provide suitable nesting habitat for
this species, while the entire Planning Area provides foraging habitat.
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.5-3, continued
4.5-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Common Name Description Known Occurrences
Loggerhead Shrike The loggerhead shrike is a California species of special concern. This
species is both a yearlong resident and a winter visitor in California.
Loggerhead shrikes frequent open habitats in lowlands and foothills
throughout California. The highest densities of this species occur in open-
canopied valley foothill hardwood, valley foothill hardwood-conifer, valley
foothill riparian, pinyon-juniper, juniper, desert riparian, and Joshua tree
habitats. Suitable habitat is open with sparse trees or shrubs or other
suitable perches and low or sparse herbaceous cover. Nests are built in
shrubs or trees with dense foliage.
There is one record of this species along the border of the Planning Area
and the Coachella Valley Preserve (CDFW 2014d). Most vegetated natural
communities in the Planning Area provide suitable habitat for this species.
Pallid San Diego
Pocket Mouse
The pallid San Diego pocket mouse is a California species of special
concern. Habitats typically associated with this species include coastal
scrub, chamise-redshank chaparral, mixed chaparral, sagebrush, desert
wash, desert scrub, desert succulent shrub, pinyon-juniper, and annual
grassland. The elevation range for this species is from sea level up to
4,500 feet (1,350 m) amsl in the Santa Rosa Mountains and Riverside
County, and 6,000 feet (1,800 m) amsl at Cactus Flat on the north slope of
the San Bernardino Mountains.
There are several records of this species in the Planning Area, the majority
of which are in the foothills and mountains (CDFW 2014d). Most
vegetated natural communities in the Planning Area provide suitable
habitat for this species.
Western Yellow Bat The western yellow bat is a California species of special concern and
uncommon year-round resident in Southern California from Los Angeles
and San Bernardino counties south to the Mexican border. This species is
typically associated with valley foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert
wash, and palm oasis habitats up to elevations of 2,000 feet (600 m).
Western yellow bats prefer palm oases and riparian habitats for roosting
and feeding. This species is covered under the CVMSHCP.
There are several records of this species on the Coachella Valley floor, one
of which is in the Planning Area (CDFW 2014d). Desert riparian, wash, and
oasis communities in the Planning Area provide suitable habitat for this
species.
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.5-3, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.5-11
Common Name Description Known Occurrences
Peninsular Big-
Horned Sheep
Peninsular bighorn sheep are a federally endangered species, as well as
state listed as threatened and fully protected. Bighorn sheep are mostly
uncommon in California and use alpine dwarf-shrub, low sage, sagebrush,
bitterbrush, pinyon-juniper, palm oasis, desert riparian, desert succulent
shrub, desert scrub, subalpine conifer, perennial grassland, montane
chaparral, and montane riparian habitats. This species grazes all year on a
wide variety of plant species but prefers green, succulent grasses and
forbs in open habitats such as rocky barrens, meadows, and low sparse
brushlands. Steep, rocky terrain is used as escape habitat and for bedding.
In addition, steep, rugged slopes and canyons are used by this species as
lambing areas. This species is covered under the CVMSHCP.
The Planning Area is located within the range for this species, and the
Bighorn Sheep Connectivity Model for California Deserts identifies the
southern half of the Planning Area and surrounding habitats as core
habitat (Penrod et al. 2012). These data are available via the Bighorn
Sheep Connectivity Modeling for the California Desert Linkage Network
[ds828] layer on the CDFW BIOS 5 Viewer (2014d). In addition, several
subunits of federally designated critical habitat Unit # 2 (Northern Santa
Rosa Mountains unit) overlap the southern portion of the Planning Area
(USFWS 2014b). Additionally, large herds of this species have been
observed in the Santa Rosa Mountains within the Planning Area (CDFW
2014d). Finally, the Bighorn Institute, an organization based in Palm
Desert, has a captive breeding program for Peninsular bighorn sheep
within the Planning Area.
Mule Deer Mule deer are common, yearlong residents or elevational migrants with a
widespread distribution in California, except in lowland deserts and
intensively farmed areas without cover. This species occurs along major
river corridors in scattered desert mountain areas. Mule deer prefer a
mosaic of early to intermediate successional stages of forest, woodland,
and brush habitats that provide woody cover, meadow and shrubby
openings, and water sources. Fawning occurs in moderately dense
shrublands and forests, dense herbaceous areas, and high-elevation
riparian and mountain shrub habitats that contain adequate forage and
water. Fawning occurs from early April to midsummer and varies based on
snowpack conditions.
The Planning Area is located within the range for this species, and the
connectivity model developed in A Linkage Network for the California
Deserts (Penrod et al. 2012) identifies large portions of the undisturbed
lands in the Planning Area as habitat for mule deer. This data is available
via the Mule Deer Connectivity Modeling for the California Desert Linkage
Network [ds829] layer on the CDFW BIOS 5 Viewer (2014d).
Palm Springs
Pocket Mouse
The Palm Springs pocket mouse is a California species of special concern.
This species is endemic to the vicinity of the Coachella Valley; however,
little is known about its current distribution. The pocket mouse is known
from various vegetative communities, including creosote scrub, desert
scrub, and grasslands. This species is associated with loosely packed or
sandy soils with sparse to moderately dense cover. Due to urbanization,
this species no longer occurs on much of the valley floor; however, it may
persist in pockets of scrub along the valley edges (Bolster 1998). This
species is covered under the CVMSHCP.
There is a known population in Deep Canyon in the Planning Area, as well
as a record along the border of the Coachella Valley Preserve. The
Sonoran scrub communities in the Planning Area provide suitable habitat
for this species.
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.5-3, continued
4.5-12 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Common Name Description Known Occurrences
Palm Springs
Round-Tailed
Ground Squirrel
The Palm Springs round-tailed ground squirrel is a California species of
special concern. This species is endemic to the Coachella Valley. The
ground squirrel is known to inhabit arid, sandy, scrub, and wash habitats,
including creosote- and mesquite-dominated sand dunes, creosote bush
scrub, and alkali scrub. They have been found on a variety of substrates,
including wind-blown sand, coarse sand, and packed silt with desert
pavement. Burrows are often dug at the base of shrubs, and this species
may use the burrows of other rodents (Bolster 1998). This species is
covered under the CVMSHCP.
This species has been recorded in the Planning Area at the border of
Thousand Palms (CDFW 2014d). Relatively undisturbed communities on
the valley floor in the Planning Area provide suitable habitat for this
species.
May Occur in the Planning Area
Silvery Legless
Lizard
Silvery legless lizards are a designated California species of special
concern. This species occurs in the Coast Ranges from the vicinity of
Antioch in Contra Costa County southward to the Mexican border. They
also have spotty occurrences in the Central Valley, the western slopes of
the Sierra Nevada, the Tehachapi Mountains, and the mountains of
Southern California. This species inhabits coastal dune, valley-foothill
grassland, chaparral, and coastal scrub habitats at elevations from near
sea level to 6,000 feet (1,800 m). This species is often associated with
sandy or loose organic soils or where there is plenty of leaf litter.
There is one record of this species within 1 mile of the Planning Area
(CDFW 2014d). Sonoran scrub, desert wash, and juniper woodlands in the
Planning Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. The presence
of nearby occurrences and the presence of suitable habitat result in the
potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area
Coast Horned
Lizard
The coast horned lizard is a California species of special concern. Typical
vegetative associations include valley-foothill hardwood, conifer, and
riparian habitat as well as pine-cypress, juniper, desert wash, and annual
grassland. The current known distribution is in the Sierra Nevada foothills
from Butte County south to Kern County and throughout the Central and
Southern California coast. This species is typically found below 2,000 feet
(606 m) amsl in the north and 3,000 feet amsl in the south; however, the
range may extend up to 4,000 feet (1,212 m) amsl in the Sierra Nevada
foothills and 6,000 feet (1,818 m) in the Southern California mountain
ranges
There is one record of this species within 1 mile of the Planning Area
(CDFW 2014d). Sonoran scrub, desert wash, and juniper woodlands in the
Planning Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. The presence
of nearby occurrences and the presence of suitable habitat result in the
potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.5-3, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.5-13
Common Name Description Known Occurrences
Yellow Warbler The yellow warbler is a California species of special concern. This species
breeds throughout California, including in several Southern California
mountain ranges. Yellow warblers are known to winter in Southern
California valleys, including the Coachella Valley. This species breeds in
riparian woodland from coastal and desert lowlands up to 8,000 feet
(2,500 m) amsl in the Sierras. Yellow warblers prefer to nest in open to
medium-density woodland and forests with a dense brush understory.
This species can be found in various desert habitats and localities during
migration. This species is covered under the CVMSHCP
There are no CNDDB occurrences of this species in the Planning Area
(CDFW 2014d); however, the CVMSHCP yellow warbler distribution model
overlaps with the Planning Area. Desert dry wash woodland and fan palm
oases in the Planning Area may provide suitable habitat for this species.
Thus, the presence of suitable habitat and the overlapping distribution
model result in the potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area
Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher
The southwestern willow flycatcher is federally and state listed as an
endangered species. This species nests in relatively dense riparian tree
and shrub communities associated with rivers, swamps, lakes, and other
wetlands. Wintering habitat includes scrubby areas, pastures, and
woodlands near water (USFWS 2002). This species is covered under the
CVMSHCP
There is one record of this species within 1 mile of the Planning Area and a
total of two occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the Planning Area
(CDFW 2014d). Desert dry wash woodland and fan palm oases in the
Planning Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. The presence
of nearby occurrences and the presence of suitable habitat result in the
potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area
Yellow-Breasted
Chat
The yellow-breasted chat is a California species of special concern. This
species is an uncommon summer resident, migrant, and breeder
throughout most of California up to elevations of 6,500 feet (2,050 m). In
Southern California, this species breeds locally in desert riparian habitats.
Yellow-breasted chats prefer to nest in dense, brushy desert riparian
habitat. This species is covered under the CVMSHCP
There are no CNDDB occurrences of this species in the Planning Area
(CDFW 2014d); however, the CVMSHCP yellow-breasted chat distribution
model overlaps with the Planning Area. Desert dry wash woodland and
fan palm oases in the Planning Area may provide suitable habitat for this
species. Thus, the presence of suitable habitat and the overlapping
distribution model result in the potential for this species to occur in the
Planning Area
Summer Tanager The summer tanager is a California species of special concern. This species
is an uncommon summer resident and breeder in California desert
riparian habitats. Summer tanagers prefer to nest in mature desert
riparian habitat dominated by willows and cottonwoods. Tall, shady trees
are a critical element for successful nesting. This species can be found in
various desert habitats and localities during migration. This species is
covered under the CVMSHCP.
There are no CNDDB occurrences of this species in the Planning Area
(CDFW 2014d); however, the CVMSHCP summer tanager distribution
model overlaps with the Planning Area. Desert dry wash woodland and
fan palm oases in the Planning Area may provide suitable habitat for this
species. Thus, the presence of suitable habitat and the overlapping
distribution model result in the potential for this species to occur in the
Planning Area
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.5-3, continued
4.5-14 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Common Name Description Known Occurrences
Gray Vireo The gray vireo is a California species of special concern. This species is an
uncommon summer resident and breeder in the mountains of Southern
California. This species is typically associated with pinyon-juniper
woodland, juniper woodland, and chamise-redshank chaparral habitats at
elevations ranging from 2,000 to 6,500 feet (600–2,000 m) amsl. Gray
vireos prefer to nest on shrubby slopes with sparse to moderate cover
and scattered small trees. This species is covered under the CVMSHCP.
There are no CNDDB occurrences of this species in the Planning Area
(CDFW 2014d); however, the CVMSHCP gray vireo distribution model
overlaps with the Planning Area. Juniper woodland in the Planning Area
may provide suitable habitat for this species. Thus, the presence of
suitable habitat and the overlapping distribution model result in the
potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area
Least Bell’s Vireo The Least Bell’s vireo is both federally and state listed as endangered. This
species is a rare, local, summer resident below 2,000 feet (600 m). Least
Bell’s vireos are mostly known from San Benito and Monterey counties,
coastal Southern California, and along the western edges of deserts. This
species is typically found in dense valley foothill riparian or desert riparian
habitats, or in canyon bottoms. Nests are built in willows or other low,
dense vegetation. This species is usually found near water, but also
inhabits thickets along dry, intermittent streams. Common plant
associates include willow, cottonwood, mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia),
wild blackberry (Rubus spp.), and mesquite. This species is covered under
the CVMSHCP
There are no CNDDB occurrences of this species in the Planning Area
(CDFW 2014d); however, the CVMSHCP least Bell’s vireo distribution
model overlaps with the Planning Area. Juniper woodland in the Planning
Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Thus, the presence of
suitable habitat and the overlapping distribution model result in the
potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area
Vermilion
Flycatcher
The vermilion flycatcher is a California species of special concern. This
species is a rare yearlong resident in desert riparian habitats throughout
central Southern California. This species is typically associated with
riparian thickets adjacent to open, mesic habitats such as irrigated fields,
ditches, sloughs, or ponds. This species nests and roosts in willows,
cottonwoods, mesquite, or other trees and large shrubs
There is one record of this species within 1 mile of the Planning Area
(CDFW 2014d). Desert dry wash woodland and fan palm oases in the
Planning Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. The presence
of nearby occurrences and the presence of suitable habitat result in the
potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area
Crissal Thrasher The crissal thrasher is a California species of special concern. This species
is a resident and breeder in the southeastern deserts of California. This
species is typically associated with dense thickets of shrubs or low trees in
desert wash and desert riparian habitats. In the eastern Mojave, it also
occurs in dense sagebrush along washes within pinyon-juniper habitats at
elevations up to 5,900 feet (1,800 m) amsl. Breeding usually occurs along
streams and washes in thickets of mesquite, ironwood, catclaw acacia,
and willow. This species is covered under the CVMSHCP.
There is one record of this species within 1 mile of the Planning Area and a
total of two occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the Planning Area
(CDFW 2014d). Desert dry wash woodland and fan palm oases in the
Planning Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. The presence
of nearby occurrences and the presence of suitable habitat result in the
potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.5-3, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.5-15
Common Name Description Known Occurrences
Le Conte’s Thrasher The Le Conte’s thrasher is a California species of special concern. This
species is a nonmigratory bird endemic to California, Nevada, Arizona,
Utah, and Mexico. They occur primarily in open desert wash, desert scrub,
alkali desert scrub, Joshua tree, and desert succulent shrub habitats. Le
Conte’s thrashers prefer to nest in thorny shrubs and small desert trees
such as pricklypear, saltbush (Atriplex spp.), and yuccas (including small
Joshua trees) and mesquites (Prosopis spp.). The elevation range for this
species extends from 267 feet (81 m) bmsl in Inyo County to 4,950 feet
(1,500 m) amsl or higher in the Mojave Desert (Weigand and Fitton 2008).
This species is covered under the CVMSHCP
There are two records of this species within 1 mile of the Planning Area
and a total of five occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the Planning Area
(CDFW 2014d). Desert dry wash woodland and scrub communities in the
Planning Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. The presence
of nearby occurrences and the presence of suitable habitat result in the
potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area
San Diego Desert
Woodrat
The San Diego desert woodrat is a California species of special concern.
This species is common in most desert habitats throughout Southern
California. This species is typically associated with Joshua tree, pinyon-
juniper, and various chaparral habitats at elevations up to 8,500 feet
(2,600 m) amsl. Woodrats prefer moderate to dense shrub canopies and
rocky outcrops, cliffs, and slopes. Woodrat houses are often built against
a rock crevice, at the base of creosote or cactus, or in low tree branches,
and are constructed with twigs, rocks, and other plant parts
There are no records of this species within 1 mile of the Planning Area;
however, there are a total of six occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the
Planning Area (CDFW 2014d). Juniper woodland communities in the
Planning Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. The presence
of nearby occurrences and the presence of suitable habitat result in the
potential for this species to occur in the Planning Area
Pocketed Free-
Tailed Bat
The pocketed free-tailed bat is a California species of special concern and
rare year-round resident in Southern California from Riverside, San Diego,
and Imperial counties south to the Mexican border. This species is
typically associated with pinyon-juniper woodlands, desert scrub, desert
succulent scrub, desert riparian, desert wash, alkali desert scrub, Joshua
tree, and palm oasis habitats. Pocketed free-tailed bats prefer rocky
desert areas with high cliffs or rock outcrops. They nest and roost in rock
crevices, caverns, or buildings.
There are no records of this species within 1 mile of the Planning Area;
however, there is one occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the Planning
Area (CDFW 2014d). Juniper woodland, desert scrub, and desert riparian
communities in the Planning Area may provide suitable habitat for this
species. The presence of nearby occurrences and the presence of suitable
habitat result in the potential for this species to occur in the Planning
Area.
Big Free-Tailed Bat The big free-tailed bat is a California species of special concern and rare
year-round resident in California, New Mexico, southern Arizona, and
Texas. This species is typically associated with rugged, rocky canyons at
elevations up to 8,000 feet (2,500 m) amsl. This species has been
documented in urban areas. Very little is known about this species, but it
is thought that big free-tailed bats do not breed in California.
There are no records of this species within a 5-mile radius of the Planning
Area; however, there is one record in the vicinity of Palm Springs at the
western edge of the Coachella Valley (CDFW 2014d). Due to a lack of
information about this species, it is difficult to determine its potential
presence or absence. The presence of a nearby record and the presence
of suitable habitat result in the potential for this species to occur in the
Planning Area.
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.5-3, continued
4.5-16 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Common Name Description Known Occurrences
Los Angeles Pocket
Mouse
The Los Angeles pocket mouse is a California species of special concern.
This species is found in the vicinity of the San Fernando Valley. The Los
Angeles pocket mouse is known from various vegetative communities,
including alluvial sage scrub, coastal sage scrub, and grasslands.
The easternmost record of this species is a CNDDB occurrence in the Santa
Rosa Mountains within the Planning Area (CDFW 2014d); however, the
sampled species may be the Palm Springs pocket mouse (Bolster 1998).
The desert scrub communities in the Planning Area may provide suitable
habitat for this species.
Source: TBR (Appendix 4.0)
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.5-17
Sensitive Natural Communities: One habitat (desert fan palm oasis) in the Planning
Area was identified in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) query as a
locally sensitive terrestrial natural community. In the Planning Area, this community
occurs in discrete patches associated with springs or other perennial water sources in
the canyons of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto mountains. Most of the palm oases are
located in areas where development threats are low, either because the oases occur in
isolated canyons or are surrounded by protected land. As shown in Table 4.5-4, there
are 80 acres located in the SOI.
Table 4.5-4. Acreages of Vegetative Communities within the
Planning Area
Vegetative Community City Limits SOI Total
Active Shielded Desert Dunes 15 0 15
Desert Dry Wash Woodland 68 457 525
Desert Fan Palm Oasis Woodland 0 80 80
Peninsular Juniper Woodland and Scrub 0 3,062 3,062
Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub 1,336 1,757 3,093
Sonoran Mixed Woody and Succulent Scrub 385 17,834 18,219
Stabilized Shielded Desert Sand Fields 490 70 560
Urban 14,962 4,017 18,979
TOTAL 17,256 27,277 44,533
Waters of the United States and the State: Jurisdictional waters of the United States
and the State, along with isolated wetlands, provide a variety of functions for plants
and wildlife. Wetlands and other water features provide habitat, foraging, cover, and
migration and movement corridors for both special-status and common species.
Waters in the Planning Area include the Whitewater River, which runs west to east
through the center of Palm Desert and eventually flows out of the Planning Area and
into the Salton Sea. All other waterways in the Planning Area are south of the
Whitewater River and drain the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto mountains. Waterways in
the Planning Area include Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, Ramon Creek, Cat Creek,
Dead Indian Creek, Ebbens Creek, Grapevine Creek, and Carrizo Creek.
Regulatory Setting
Several federal, state, and local regulations pertain to biological resources, including
special-status species and habitat, in the Palm Desert Planning Area. They provide the
regulatory framework to address all aspects of biological resources that would be
affected by implementation of the General Plan update. The regulatory setting for
biological resources is discussed in additional detail in Appendix 4.0.
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.5-18 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Federal
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, includes protective measures
for federally listed threatened and endangered species, including their habitats, from
unlawful take (16 United States Code [USC] Sections 1531–1544). The ESA defines
“take” to mean “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Title 50, Part 222, of the Code of
Federal Regulations (50 CFR Section 222) further defines “harm” to include “an act
which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such acts may include habitat
modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by
significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including feeding, spawning,
rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering.”
Clean Water Act
The basis of the Clean Water Act (CWA) was established in 1948; however, it was
referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The act was reorganized and
expanded in 1972 (33 USC Section 1251), and at this time the Clean Water Act became
the act’s commonly used name. The basis of the CWA is the regulation of pollutant
discharges into waters of the United States, as well as the establishment of surface
water quality standards.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16
USC Sections 703–711). The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell,
purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Section 10, including feathers
or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing
regulations (50 CFR Section 21). The majority of birds found in the vicinity of Palm
Desert would be protected under the MBTA.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The bald eagle and golden eagle are federally protected under the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Sections 668–668c). Under the act, it is illegal to take,
possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell or purchase or barter, transport, export, or
import at any time or in any manner a bald or golden eagle, alive or dead; or any part,
nest or egg of these eagles unless authorized by the Secretary of the Interior.
Violations are subject to fines and/or imprisonment for up to one year. Active nest
sites are also protected from disturbance during the breeding season.
Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species
This executive order directs all federal agencies to refrain from authorizing, funding, or
carrying out actions or projects that may spread invasive species. The order further
directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species, control and
monitor existing invasive species populations, restore native species to invaded
ecosystems, research and develop prevention and control methods for invasive
species, and promote public education on invasive species. As part of the proposed
action, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) would issue permits and would be responsible for ensuring that the proposed
action complies with Executive Order 13112 and does not contribute to the spread of
invasive species.
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.5-19
State
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) mandates that state agencies should not
approve projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or
threatened species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available. Take
authorizations from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) are
required for any unavoidable impact on state-listed species resulting from proposed
projects. Under the CESA, the CDFW has the responsibility for maintaining a list of
endangered and threatened species (Fish and Game Code [FGC] Section 2070). The
CDFW also maintains a list of candidate species, which are species formally noticed as
being under review for potential addition to the list of endangered or threatened
species, and a list of species of special concern, which serve as a species watch lists.
Pursuant to the requirements of the CESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project
within its jurisdiction must determine whether any state-listed endangered or
threatened species may be present and determine whether the proposed project will
have a potentially significant impact on such species. In addition, the CDFW
encourages informal consultation on any proposed project that may impact a
candidate species.
State-listed species are fully protected under the mandates of the CESA. Take of
protected species incidental to otherwise lawful management activities may be
authorized under FGC Section 206.591. Authorization from the CDFW would be in the
form of an incidental take permit.
California Fish and Game Code
Streambed Alteration Agreement (FGC Sections 1600–1607): State and local public
agencies are subject to FGC Section 1602, which governs construction activities that
will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed,
channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated as waters of the state by the
CDFW. Under FGC Section 1602, the CDFW must issue a discretionary Streambed
Alteration Agreement to the project proponent prior to the initiation of construction
activities on lands under CDFW jurisdiction. As a general rule, this requirement applies
to any work undertaken within the 100-year floodplain of a stream or river containing
fish or wildlife resources.
Native Plant Protection Act: The Native Plant Protection Act (FGC Sections 1900–
1913) prohibits the taking, possessing, or sale within the state of any plants with a
state designation of rare, threatened, or endangered (as defined by the CDFW). An
exception in the act allows landowners, under specified circumstances, to take listed
plant species, provided that the owners first notify the CDFW and give that state
agency at least 10 days to retrieve the plants before they are plowed under or
otherwise destroyed (FGC Section 1913).
Birds of Prey: Under FGC Section 3503.5, it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any
birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or
destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or
any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.
Fully Protected Species: California statutes also afford “fully protected” status to a
number of specifically identified birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. These
species cannot be taken, even with an incidental take permit. FGC Section 3505 makes
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.5-20 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
it unlawful to take “any aigrette or egret, osprey, bird of paradise, goura, numidi, or
any part of such a bird.” FGC Section 3511 protects from take the following fully
protected birds: (a) American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum); (b) brown
pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis); (c) California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus); (d) California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus); (e) California
condor (Gymnogyps californianus); (f) California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni);
(g) golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos); (h) greater sandhill crane (Grus canadensis
tabida); (i) light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes); (j) southern bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus); (k) trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator);
(l) white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus); and (m) Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris
yumanensis).
FGC Section 4700 identifies the following fully protected mammals that cannot be
taken: (a) Morro Bay kangaroo rat (Dipodomys heermanni morroensis); (b) bighorn
sheep (Ovis canadensis), except Nelson bighorn sheep (subspecies Ovis canadensis
nelsoni); (c) Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi); (d) ring-tailed cat (genus
Bassariscus); (e) Pacific right whale (Eubalaena sieboldi); (f) salt-marsh harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys raviventris); (g) southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis); and
(h) wolverine (Gulo gulo).
FGC Section 5050 protects from take the following fully protected reptiles and
amphibians: (a) blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Crotaphytus wislizenii silus); (b) San
Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia); (c) Santa Cruz long-toed
salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum); (d) limestone salamander
(Hydromantes brunus); and (e) black toad (Bufo boreas exsul).
FGC Section 5515 identifies certain fully protected fish that cannot lawfully be taken,
even with an incidental take permit. The following species are protected in this
fashion: (a) Colorado River squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius); (b) thicktail chub (Gila
crassicauda); (c) Mohave chub (Gila mohavensis); (d) Lost River sucker (Catostomus
luxatus); (e) Modoc sucker (Catostomus microps); (f) shortnose sucker (Chasmistes
brevirostris); (g) humpback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus); (h) Owens River pupfish
(Cyprinoden radiosus); (i) unarmored threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus
williamsoni); and (j) rough sculpin (Cottus asperrimus).
California Planning and Zoning Requirements (California Government Code
Section 65302)
The California Government Code establishes the authority for and scope of general
plans prepared by local jurisdictions in California. This includes requirements for local
jurisdictions to include specific elements and address certain issues associated with
local land use decisions within a general plan. Biological resources are typically
addressed within the biological resources or conservation and open space elements of
a general plan to ensure adequate protection or enhancement of biological resources
in the context of development patterns and intensities and the natural qualities of a
community.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1966 (California Water Code Section
13000 et seq.; CCR Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15) is the primary state regulation
that addresses water quality. The requirements of the act are implemented by the
State Water Resources Control Board at the state level and by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at the local level. The RWQCB carries out planning,
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.5-21
permitting, and enforcement activities related to water quality in California. The act
provides for waste discharge requirements and a permitting system for discharges to
land or water. Certification is required by the RWQCB for activities that can affect
water quality.
Clean Water Act, Section 401 Water Quality Certification
CWA Section 401 (33 USC Section 1341) requires that any applicant for a federal
license or permit which may result in a pollutant discharge to waters of the United
States obtain a certification that the discharge will comply with US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) water quality standards. The state or tribal agency
responsible for issuance of the Section 401 certification may also require compliance
with additional effluent limitations and water quality standards set forth in state/tribal
laws. In California, the RWQCB is the primary regulatory authority for Clean Water Act
Section 401 requirements.
Regional and Local
Coachella Valley Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan
The CVMSHCP protects 240,000 acres of open space and covers 27 special-status
species of plants and animals. It also strives to safeguard significant habitat linkages
and wildlife corridors. The City of Palm Desert is a signatory to the CVMSHCP. Other
participants include Riverside County and the Cities of Cathedral City, Coachella,
Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage,
as well as the Coachella Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella
Valley Association of Governments, and California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans). The plan received its state and federal permits in the fall of 2008. Several
species that are known to occur or have the potential to occur in the Planning Area are
covered under the CVMSHCP. The CVMHCP provides take coverage for certain species
and also requires new development to pay a Local Development Mitigation Fee
(LDMF). The LDMF is the primary source of funding for the CVMHCP.
City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, Title 24 Environment and Conservation
The purpose of Title 24 of the Municipal Code is to ensure the future health, safety,
and general welfare of citizens of the city and the physical environment of the
community. Chapter 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, strives to
protect and enhance the quality of watercourses, water bodies, groundwater, and
wetlands in the city in a manner consistent with the Clean Water Act. Chapter 24.12,
Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control, addresses control of fugitive dust and other particulate
matter.
Nongovernmental Agency
California Native Plant Society
The CNPS is a nongovernmental agency that classifies native plant species according to
current population distribution and threat level in regard to extinction. The following
description of the CNPS classification system is relevant to identifying potential
impacts to biological resources. The CNPS maintains a list of plant species native to
California that exist in low numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened
with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Plants of California. Potential impacts to populations of CNPS-ranked plants receive
consideration under CEQA review. The following identifies the definitions of the CNPS
ranking:
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.5-22 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Rare Plant Rank 1A: plants believed to be extinct
Rare Plant Rank 1B: plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in
California and elsewhere
Rare Plant Rank 2: plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in
California, but are more numerous elsewhere
All of the plant species in Rare Plant Ranks 1 and 2 meet the requirements of Section
1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act), or Sections 2062 and 2067 (CESA) of
the California Fish and Game Code and are eligible for state listing. Plants in Rare Plant
Rank 1 or 2 are considered to meet the criteria of CEQA Section 15380, and effects on
these species are considered significant. Classifications for plants ranked under Rare
Plant Rank 3: plants about which more information is needed (a review list) and/or
Rare Plant Rank 4: plants of limited distribution (a watch list), as defined by the CNPS,
are not currently protected under state or federal law. Therefore, no detailed
description or impact analysis was performed for qualifying species under these
classifications.
4.5.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
The analysis of impacts is based on the likely consequences of adoption and
implementation of General Plan update compared to existing conditions. The
following analysis of impacts on biological resources is qualitative and based on
available habitat and species occurrence information for the Planning Area along with
a review of regional information. The analysis assumes that all future and existing
development in the Planning Area complies with all applicable laws, regulations,
design standards, and plans. An analysis of cumulative impacts uses qualitative
information for the Planning Area and the region.
Draft General Plan Update Policies and Implementation Actions
General Plan policies and implementation actions that reduce potential biological
resources impacts include the following:
Policies
Land Use & Community Character Element
Policy 1.2: Open space preservation. Balance the development of the city with
the provision of open space, and especially the hillsides surrounding the City,
so as to create both high quality urban areas and high quality open space
Policy 2.4: Tree planting. Encourage the planting of trees that appropriately
shade the sidewalk and improve the pedestrian experience throughout the
city.
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 1.5: Waterways as amenities. When considering development
applications and infrastructure improvements, treat waterways as amenities,
not hazards, and encourage designs that embrace the waterways.
Policy 3.1: Open space network. Require new development to comply with
requirements of the CVMSHCP.
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.5-23
Policy 4.1: Buffers from new development. Require new developments
adjacent to identified plant and wildlife habitat areas to maintain a protective
buffer.
Policy 4.2: Wildlife corridors. Support the creation of local and regional
conservation and preservation easements that protect habitat areas, serve as
wildlife corridors and help protect sensitive biological resources.
Policy 4.3: Landscape design. Continue to encourage new developments to
incorporate native vegetation materials into landscape plans and prohibit the
use of species known to be invasive according to the California Invasive Plant
Inventory.
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, impacts on biological resources are considered significant
if adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would:
Threshold Determination
1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or the US Fish and Wildlife
Service
Less Than Significant
2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service
Less Than Significant
3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means
Less Than Significant
4. 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
Less Than Significant
5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance
No Impact
6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan
Less Than Significant
7. Cumulative effects Less Than Cumulatively
Considerable
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.5-24 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.5-1
Impacts to Special-Status Species. Adoption and implementation of
the General Plan update would result in the loss or degradation of
existing populations or suitable habitat of special-status plant and
wildlife species. However, adherence with the CVMSHCP and adoption
and implementation of General Plan policies and implementation
actions would result in a less than significant impact.
Land use and development consistent with the General Plan update could result in
adverse impacts on special-status species or on essential habitat for such species. Any
future development in areas that are currently undeveloped could result in direct loss
of sensitive plants or wildlife. Where there are direct impacts to special-status species,
indirect impacts would occur as well. Indirect impacts may include habitat
modification, increased human/wildlife interactions, habitat fragmentation,
encroachment by exotic weeds, and area-wide changes in surface water flows and
general hydrology due to development of previously undeveloped areas.
Tables 4.5-2 and 4.5-3 list all federally and state-listed species with the potential to
occur in the Planning Area and each are covered under the CVMSHCP. Payment of the
mitigation fee and compliance with all applicable requirements of the MSHCP provide
full mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA) for impacts to MSHCP covered species and habitats.
The MSHCP also addresses indirect impacts through linkages and plan fees.
General Plan Environmental Resources Element Policy 3.1 requires new development
in Palm Desert to comply with requirements of the CVMSHCP, which is designed to
ensure that impacts to covered special-status species are less than significant. The
implementation of the CVMSHCP at the project-specific level would minimize direct
and indirect impacts from future projects proposed in accordance with the General
Plan. Payment of the mitigation fee and compliance with all applicable requirements
of the CVMSHCP are considered full mitigation under CEQA, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the ESA, and the CESA for impacts to CVMSHCP
covered species and habitats.
However, several special-status species with the potential to occur in the Planning
Area are not covered under the CVMSHCP such as raptors and migratory birds.
Impacts to special-status species (see Tables 4.5-2 and 4) not covered by the
CVMSHCP may require additional protections to ensure potential impacts remain less
than significant. Proposed General Plan policies would help protect species not
covered by the CVMSHCP by requiring new development adjacent to identified plant
and wildlife habitat areas to maintain a protective buffer (Policy 4.1) and by
supporting the creating of local and regional conservation and preservation easements
that protect habitat areas, serve as wildlife corridors, and help protect sensitive
biological resources (Policy 4.2). In addition, Policy 4.3 requires new development to
incorporate native vegetation materials into landscape plans and prohibit the use of
species known to be invasive according to the California Invasive Plant Inventory.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.5-1 Pertaining to special-status species (identified in Tables 4.5-1, 4.5-2,
and 4.5-3) with the potential to occur in the Planning Area such as
raptors or migratory birds that are not part of the CVMSHCP:
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.5-25
1. Prior to the approval of grading plans for development
associated with the General Plan update, the project
applicant(s) shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a
biological resources evaluation for private and public
development projects in order to determine the
presence/absence of non-covered special-status plant species
with the potential to occur in and adjacent to (within 100 feet,
where appropriate) the proposed impact area, including
construction access routes. It is required that such surveys be
conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered
species are both evident and identifiable.
2. For projects in which special-status species are found, likely to
occur, or where the presence of the species can be reasonably
inferred, the City shall require feasible mitigation of impacts to
ensure that the project does not contribute to the decline of
affected special-species populations in the region to the extent
that their decline would impact the viability of the regional
population. Before the approval of grading plans or any ground-
breaking activity for development associated with the General
Plan update, the project applicant(s) shall submit a mitigation
plan concurrently to the CDFW and the USFWS for review and
comment. The plan shall include mitigation measures for the
population(s) to be directly affected. The actual level of
mitigation may vary depending on the sensitivity of the species,
its prevalence in the area, and the current state of knowledge
about overall population trends and threats to its survival. The
final mitigation strategy for directly impacted plant species shall
be determined by the CDFW and the USFWS through the
mitigation plan approval process.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to the approval of grading plans
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning
Department
Significance after Mitigation
Through compliance with the CVMSHCP, the proposed General Plan policies listed
above, and mitigation measure MM 4.5-1, which addresses impacts to species that are
not covered under the CVMSHCP, impacts from adoption and implementation of the
Palm Desert General Plan update are considered less than significant.
IMPACT
4.5-2
Impacts to Sensitive Biological Communities or Riparian Habitat.
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update could result
in the loss or degradation of riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
communities considered sensitive habitats under CEQA. However,
adoption and implementation of General Plan update policies and
implementation actions would result in a less than significant impact.
Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies and
those that are protected under the CVMSHCP, CEQA, Section 1600 of the Fish and
Game Code, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Project activities may result in
the loss of riparian habitat and other sensitive vegetation communities. However, the
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.5-26 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
CVMSHCP considered sensitive habitats and identified conservation goals for sensitive
habitats; they are therefore conserved under the CVMSHCP.
A 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement for removal of or disturbance to riparian
habitat and waters of the State (e.g., stream, lake, or river) from the CDFW may be
required for development associated with any sites in the Planning Area. This
agreement would include measures to minimize and restore riparian habitat. The 1602
Streambed Alteration Agreement would require the project applicant(s) associated
with the development to prepare and implement a vegetation mitigation and
monitoring plan. All projects must comply with state law and with the CVMSHCP that
are specifically designed to reduce impacts to riparian and sensitive natural
communities. As discussed, about 80 acres of desert fan palm oasis is located in the
SOI (Table 4.5-4). Compliance with CVMSHCP would ensure impacts to this community
is reduced to less than significant levels.
In addition, proposed policies in the General Plan update protect sensitive habitat.
Environmental Resources Element Policy 1.5 states that when considering
development applications and infrastructure improvements, waterways must be
treated as amenities, not hazards, and designs that embrace the waterways are
encouraged. Environmental Resources Element Policy 4.1 requires new developments
adjacent to identified plant and wildlife habitat areas to maintain a protective buffer,
and Policy 4.2 would support the creation of local and regional conservation and
preservation easements that protect habitat areas, serve as wildlife corridors, and
help protect sensitive biological resources.
For these reasons, this impact is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.5-3
Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands. Implementation of the General
Plan update could result in the loss of jurisdictional waters of the
United States and waters of the State. This impact would be considered
less than significant.
All water features mapped (Appendix 4.0) in the city are assumed to be considered
jurisdictional by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control
Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife and maintained by each
appropriate agency. Any development that seeks authorization to place fill in
jurisdictional features may be required to obtain a permit from the USACE through the
Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting process prior to project implementation. If a
Section 404 permit were to be required from the USACE, a Clean Water Act Section
401 permit would be also required from the RWQCB. If it is determined by a qualified
wetland biologist through consultation with the RWQCB that on-site jurisdictional
features qualify as waters of the State and would be affected by the proposed project,
the applicant would be required to obtain an authorization from the RWQCB to
fill/disturb these features prior to project implementation. Additionally, if on-site
jurisdictional features qualify as waters of the State, authorization from the CDFW for
impacts to these features would be required through the 1602 Streambed Alteration
Agreement process. In addition, the CVMSHCP includes requirements for any
development that may affect riparian or wetland areas. Furthermore, construction-
related impacts to water quality would be mitigated through a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (see Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.5-27
Quality). Environmental Resources Element Policy 3.1 requires new development in
Palm Desert to comply with requirements of the CVMSHCP.
All of the agencies operate under a no net loss of wetlands policy that ensures
development does not result in the loss of jurisdictional waters of the United States or
of the State. Since development cannot proceed without the requisite permits, and all
permits must be approved by the federal or state agencies, this impact is considered
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.5-4
Impacts to the Movement of Native Resident or Migratory Fish or
Wildlife Species or Within an Established Migratory Corridor.
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update could
impede wildlife movement in the Planning Area. However, adoption
and implementation of General Plan policies and implementation
actions would result in a less than significant impact.
Wildlife movement corridors are routes frequently used by wildlife that provide
shelter and sufficient food supplies to support wildlife species during migration.
Movement corridors generally consist of riparian, woodland, or forested habitats that
span contiguous acres of undisturbed habitat. Migratory birds may use the rivers,
creeks, and other natural habitats in the Planning Area during migration and breeding.
Furthermore, open space provides an opportunity for dispersal and migration of
wildlife species. The primary travel corridors available in Palm Desert include the
drainages and associated riparian habitats and golf courses that provide adequate
cover and vegetation to be used as a migratory corridor for common and special-
status wildlife species (Table 4.5-3). Corridors in these areas are important routes for
species moving through the area and for local species that use these corridors to
spread to new habitat, to mate, and to disperse genetic material. New and intensified
development resulting from implementation of the General Plan update could result
in disturbance, degradation, and removal of these important corridors for the
movement of common and special-status wildlife species.
Several portions of the Planning Area, including the undeveloped mountainous areas
and desert washes, could facilitate regional wildlife movement. Available data on
movement corridors and linkages was accessed via the CDFW BIOS 5 Viewer (2014d).
Data reviewed included the Essential Connectivity Areas [ds623] layer and the Missing
Linkages in California [ds420] layer. The mountainous southern Planning Area is
located in an Essential Connectivity Area. In addition, the Missing Linkages layer shows
that the Planning Area overlaps with linkages for bighorn sheep, desert tortoise,
fringe-toed lizard, various birds, and large mammals such as deer, bears, and
mountain lions. In addition, the CVMSHCP Biological Corridors and Linkages GIS data
was reviewed to determine whether the Planning Area is located in an identified
wildlife corridor. The Planning Area is not located in a CVMSHCP identified corridor.
The General Plan update would result in further protection for existing open spaces
and wildlife corridors. For instance, Environmental Resources Element Policy 4.2
would support the creation of local and regional conservation and preservation
easements that protect habitat areas, serve as wildlife corridors, and help protect
sensitive biological resources. The General Plan update does not propose land use
changes that would convert existing open space areas, e.g., golf courses, containing
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.5-28 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
native vegetation or habitat to developed uses. Rather, the General Plan update
includes land use designations that would focus new residential uses and
nonresidential development around the Highway 111 corridor and around the
California State University campus and the University of California campus. In addition,
a review of the proposed Land Use Diagram (see Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3.0) shows large
areas of land designated as Open Space, predominantly in the southern portion of the
city.
Implementation of proposed General Plan update policies would ensure that habitats
used by migratory species would be protected from impacts associated with
construction, recreation, and industrial activities. Therefore, impacts to wildlife
corridors and wildlife movement would be minimized, and the impact would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.5-5
Conflict with Any Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological
Resources, such as a Tree Preservation Policy or Ordinance.
Implementation of the proposed project will not result in a conflict with
a local policy or ordinance protecting biological resources. Therefore,
there is no impact.
The City of Palm Desert has not adopted any policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources other than compliance with the CVMSHCP and all projects must
comply with this plan. Therefore, there is no impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.5-6
Conflict with an Adopted Plan. Implementation of the proposed
project could conflict with provisions of the CVMSHCP. However,
compliance with provisions in the CVMSHCP, including payment of
mitigation fees would result in less than significant impacts.
The CVMSHCP is a habitat conservation plan to which the City of Palm Desert is a
permittee (i.e., signatory). The CVMSHCP protects and preserves certain habitats and
species in the region. Future development applicants will be required to demonstrate
their project’s consistency with the MSHCP.
A component of the MSHCP is Local Development Mitigation Fees (LDMF), which is a
funding source for the CVMHCP and is required for development activities to occur.
These fees are utilized to fund the minimization to certain special-status species and
habitats. Future development projects will be required to pay these fees to comply
with the overlying habitat conservation plan (the MSHCP). With adherence to the
standard conditions and requirements, any impacts will be less than significant and
the project will have no conflict with the MSHCP.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The cumulative setting associated with the General Plan update includes approved,
proposed, planned, and other reasonably foreseeable projects and development in
Palm Desert and surrounding communities. Developments and planned land uses,
including the General Plan update, would cumulatively contribute to impacts to
biological resources.
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.5-29
IMPACT
4.5-7
Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources. Implementation of the
General Plan update, in combination with existing, approved,
proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the region, will
result in the conversion of habitat and impact biological resources. This
impact is less than cumulatively considerable.
The General Plan update does not propose land use changes that would affect open
space in the city. Rather, it includes land use designations that would focus new
residential uses and nonresidential development around the Highway 111 corridor and
around the California State University campus and the University of California campus.
In addition, a review of the proposed Land Use Diagram (see Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3.0)
shows large areas of land designated as Open Space, predominantly in the southern
portion of the city. However, cumulative changes, including land use changes, could
affect wildlife movement either directly or indirectly due to factors discussed in
Impact 4.5-4 above. The General Plan update does not propose land use changes that
would convert existing open space areas to developed uses. Furthermore, the policies
and implementation actions described above would reduce the contribution to
cumulative effects. Because the General Plan update would not convert existing open
space areas to developed uses and would implement these policies and
implementation actions, the General Plan’s contribution to cumulative effects would
not be considerable.
In addition, as noted in the analysis, the project will be subject to the provisions of the
CVMSHCP. The CVMSHCP has been analyzed under CEQA. Project compliance with
these provisions fully mitigates for impacts to CVMSHCP covered species associated
with the proposed project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(3) states that a project’s
contribution to a cumulative impact is not cumulatively considerable if the project is
required to implement or fund its fair share of mitigation measures designed to
alleviate the cumulative impact. Therefore, compliance with the MSHCP and other
federal and state regulations discussed in this section will reduce impacts associated
with development to less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.5: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.5-30 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.6-1
4.6. Cultural Resources
Introduction
This resource chapter evaluates the potential environmental effects related to cultural
resources associated with implementation of the General Plan update. The analysis
includes an overview of cultural resources in Palm Desert, a discussion of federal,
state, and local regulations pertaining to the management of cultural resources, and a
discussion of the type of cultural resources likely to be encountered in the planning
area. Updated General Plan Land Use & Community Character Element and
Environmental Resources Element policies, as well as implementation actions
presented in the Land Use & Community Character Element, promote the
identification, protection, and maintenance of historic and cultural resources.
NOP Comments: In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) released for this
project (see Appendix 1.0), the City received three letters (see Appendix 1.0). A
comment letter from the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians concluded that although it is
outside the existing reservation, the Planning Area does fall within the boundaries of
the Tribal Traditional Use Areas. A letter from the Pala Tribal Historic Preservation
Office concluded that the Planning Area is not within the boundaries of the recognized
Pala Indian Reservation. The project is also beyond the boundaries of the territory that
the tribe considers its Traditional Use Area. The third comment letter was received
from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which included a consultation
list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the Planning Area
boundaries.
Reference Information: Information for this resource chapter is based on numerous
references, including the Palm Desert General Plan Update Technical Background
Report (TBR) and other publicly available documents. The TBR is attached to this
document as Appendix 4.0. This EIR, including the TBR, is also available electronically
on the City’s website (http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/general-plan-
update).
Environmental Setting
Section 6.0 of Appendix 4.0 provides a prehistoric and historic overview of Palm
Desert and surrounding areas, describes methods of identifying known cultural
resources in the Planning Area, and discusses themes and property types in the city. It
also includes information on regulations pertaining to cultural resources located in the
Planning Area. Key findings from the environmental setting are summarized below.
1. There are listed or eligible properties in Palm Desert that are listed on the
California Points of Historical Interest, the California Register of Historical
Resources, and the National Register of Historic Places.
2. A total of seven historic landmarks are located within the city limits (see
Table 4.6-1).
CHAPTER 4.6: CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.6-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 4.6-1: Palm Desert Register Listings
Name Description Location
Historical Society of Palm
Desert/Palm Desert Fire
Station
Ranch Vernacular–style
building
72-861 El Paseo
Shadow Mountain Golf
Club
First golf course in Palm
Desert
73-800 Ironwood
Portola Community Center First community library in
Palm Desert
45-480 Portola
Avenue
Sandpiper Condominiums,
Circles 11 & 12
Multi-family residential
building
El Paseo
Palm Desert Community
Church
City of Palm Desert’s first
community church
45-630 Portola
Avenue
Schindler House for Marion
Toole
Single-family residence 44-870 Cabrillo
Avenue
Randall Henderson House Single-family residence;
home of Randall Henderson,
one of the city’s founders
74-135 Larrea
Street
Regulatory Setting
Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies pertain to cultural resources in
the Planning Area. They provide the regulatory framework for addressing all aspects of
cultural resources that would be affected by adoption and implementation of the
General Plan update. The regulatory setting for cultural resources is discussed in detail
in Appendix 4.0. Key regulations are summarized below.
Federal
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
Section 106 requires federal agencies, or those they fund or permit, to consider the
effects of their actions on properties that may be eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
State
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA specifically defines a historical resource and explicitly defines when an action
would have a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
CEQA includes provisions that specifically address the protection of cultural resources
by requiring consideration of impacts of a project on unique archaeological resources
and historical resources.
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050
This act states that if human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing
activities, the contractor or the project proponent must immediately halt potentially
damaging excavation in the area of the burial and notify the county coroner to
determine the nature of the remains.
CHAPTER 4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.6-3
Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill 18 requires that cities and counties contact, and consult with, California
Native American tribes before adopting or amending general plans or specific plans, or
when designating land as open space.
Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 specifies that a project with an effect that may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined,
is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. AB 52 requires a
lead agency to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project,
if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency
of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation, prior
to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or
environmental impact report is required for a project. AB 52 specifies examples of
mitigation measures that may be considered to avoid or minimize impacts on tribal
cultural resources. The bill makes the above provisions applicable to projects that have
a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration filed or mitigated negative
declaration on or after July 1, 2015.
The City sent formal invitations to consult under AB 52 to three tribes who requested
notice under AB 52. Each of these three tribes also received invitations to consult
under SB 18. As of the release of the Draft EIR, one tribe responded to the City’s
invitation, while two tribes have not as of yet responded.
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
The CRHR includes resources that are listed in or are formally determined eligible for
listing on the NRHP, as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of
Historical Interest. The eligibility criteria for listing in the CRHR are similar to those for
NRHP listing but focus on the importance of the resources to California history and
heritage.
California State Historical Landmarks
California Historical Landmarks are buildings, structures, sites, or places that have
been determined to have statewide historical significance and meet specific criteria.
The resource must also be approved for designation by the county or local jurisdiction,
be recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission, and be officially
designated by California State Parks. California Historical Landmarks are automatically
listed in the CRHR.
California Points of Historical Interest
California Points of Historical Interest are sites, buildings, features, or events that are
of local (city or county) significance and have anthropological, cultural, military,
political, architectural, economic, scientific, technical, religious, experimental, or other
value.
California Historic Building Code
Alternative state building regulations may be used for the rehabilitation, preservation,
restoration, or relocation of nominated resources. The purpose of the Historic Building
Code is to provide regulations for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation,
relocation or reconstruction of buildings or properties designated as qualified
historical buildings or properties. The code is intended to provide solutions for the
CHAPTER 4.6: CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.6-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
preservation of qualified historical buildings or properties, to promote sustainability,
to provide access for persons with disabilities, to provide a cost-effective approach to
preservation, and to provide for the reasonable safety of the occupants or users.
Local
Cultural Resources Prevention Committee (CRPC)
The committee was stablished by City of Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1168 and
provides for the identification and protection of cultural resources in Palm Desert. The
CRPC meets monthly to discuss matters relating to the identification, protection,
restoration, and retention of cultural resources in the city. The CRPC aims to preserve
resources that reflect the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, architectural, and
archaeological history. Its duties include advising the City Council on matters related
to cultural resources, overseeing the Palm Desert Register, and assisting Palm Desert
residents with restoring historic properties. The CRPC also works with the Historical
Society of Palm Desert to sponsor events and educate the public on the city’s heritage.
Palm Desert Municipal Code
Title 29 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code establishes procedures for the
consideration of historic and cultural resources. The code also establishes a procedure
for the establishment of historic districts, design review for historic properties and a
process to evaluate the treatment of historic properties.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
The analysis of impacts is based on the likely consequences of adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update, compared to existing conditions. The
following analyses of impacts on cultural resources is qualitative and based on
available cultural resources information for the Planning Area. The analysis assumes
that all future and existing development within the Planning Area complies with
applicable laws, regulations, design standards, and plans. An analysis of cumulative
impacts uses qualitative information for the Planning Area.
Draft General Plan Update Policies and Implementation Actions
The General Plan update policies and implementation actions that reduce potential
cultural resources impacts include:
Policies
Land Use & Community Character Element
Policy 7.2: Higher education. Increase coordinated marketing of arts and
cultural events at Palm Desert’s higher education institutions.
Policy 7.5: Arts and culture district. Consider the establishment of an arts and
culture district.
Policy 7.6: Arts and culture funding. Consider innovative funding mechanisms
to support funding for arts and culture.
Policy 8.6: Joint use. Promote joint use of public and private facilities for
community use, tourism, conference, convention and cultural uses.
CHAPTER 4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.6-5
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 9.1: Disturbance of human remains. In areas where there is a high
chance that human remains may be present, the City will require proposed
projects to conduct a survey to establish occurrence of human remains, if any.
If human remains are discovered on proposed project sites, the project must
implement mitigation measures to prevent impacts to human remains in order
to receive permit approval.
Policy 9.2: Discovery of human remains. Require that any human remains
discovered during implementation of public and private projects within the
City be treated with respect and dignity and fully comply with the California
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other
appropriate laws.
Policy 9.3: Tribal coordination. Require notification of California Native
American tribes and organizations of proposed projects that have the
potential to adversely impact cultural resources.
Policy 9.4: Protected sites. Require sites with significant cultural resources to
be protected.
Policy 9.5: Preservation of historic resources. Encourage the preservation of
historic resources, when practical. When it is not practical to preserve a
historic resource in its entirety, the City will require the architectural details
and design elements of historic structures to be preserved during renovations
and remodels as much as feasible.
Policy 9.6: Paleontological resources. Require any paleontological artifacts
found within the City or its Sphere of Influence to be reported to the City and
temporarily loaned to local museums like the Western Science Center for
Archaeology and Paleontology, in Hemet, CA.
Policy 9.7: Mitigation and preservation of cultural resources. Require
development to avoid archaeological and paleontological resources, whenever
possible. If complete avoidance is not possible, require development to
minimize and fully mitigate the impacts to the resources.
Implementation Actions
Land Use & Community Character Element
Action 2.13. Commission a community economic impact study to assess the
current cultural landscape of Palm Desert and its economic benefit to the
community.
Action 2.14. Study the benefit of an arts and culture district in Palm Desert.
Action 2.15. Investigate funding methods for the arts and culture sector.
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, impacts on cultural resources are considered significant if
adoption and implementation of the General Plan would:
CHAPTER 4.6: CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.6-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Threshold Determination
1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5
Less Than Significant
2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5
Potentially Significant
3. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries
Less Than Significant
4. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined
in Public Resources Code Section 21074
Less Than Significant
5. Cumulative effects Less Than Cumulatively
Considerable
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.6-1
Substantial Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource.
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update could result
in new development and redevelopment of property throughout the
Planning Area, which could cause a substantial change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5. Implementation of the General Plan update policies
and actions would protect historical resources. This impact is
considered less than significant.
Anticipated development would not lead to the demolition of historic buildings and
structures and/or damage to subsurface historic-period resources because all projects
that affect historic resources must comply with Title 29 of the City of Palm Desert
Municipal Code. The municipal code requires public consideration of historic building
modification and may require changes to projects to preserve or document resources.
Several adopted federal, state, and local regulations guide the process of identifying
and preserving historic resources in Palm Desert. State regulations incentivize the
preservation of historic and cultural resources, while local policies provide guidance
for the identification and protection of resources. Environmental Resources Element
Policy 9.5 encourages the preservation of historic resources, when practical. When it is
not practical to preserve a historic resource in its entirety, the City will require the
architectural details and design elements of historic structures to be preserved during
renovations and remodels as much as feasible.
Implementation of the General Plan update policies to protect historic resources,
along with adherence to existing federal, state, and City regulations, would preserve
locally designated historical resources. Therefore, this impact would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.6-7
IMPACT
4.6-2
Substantial Change in the Significance of a Unique Archaeological
Resource. Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update
could result in new development and redevelopment of previously
undisturbed land throughout the Planning Area, which could cause a
substantial change in the significance of a unique archaeological
resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. This impact is
considered potentially significant.
Anticipated development in Palm Desert would occur through infill development on
vacant property and with redevelopment or revitalization of underutilized properties,
which could result in damage to prehistoric- and historic-period archaeological
resources located on or near previously undisturbed ground surfaces. In addition,
infrastructure and other improvements requiring ground disturbance could result in
damage to or destruction of archaeological resources buried below the ground
surface. Archaeological sites have the potential to contain intact deposits of artifacts,
associated features, and dietary remains that could contribute to the regional
prehistoric or historic record. Historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D), include resources which have yielded, or may be likely to
yield, information important in history or prehistory. Archaeological sites may also be
a unique archaeological resource (as defined in Public Resources Code Section
21083.2(g)(1)–(3)) or may be of cultural or religious importance to Native American
groups, particularly if the resource includes human and/or animal burials.
Environmental Resources Element Policies 9.1, 9.2, 9.2, 9.4, and 9.7 direct the City to
recognize and maintain archaeological resources. Policy 9.1 states that in areas where
there is a high chance that human remains may be present, the City will require
proposed projects to conduct a survey to establish the occurrence of human remains,
if any. If human remains are discovered on proposed project sites, the project
proponent must implement mitigation measures to prevent impacts to human
remains in order to receive permit approval. Policy 9.2 requires that any human
remains discovered during implementation of public and private projects be treated
with respect and dignity and fully comply with the California Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws. Policy 9.3 requires
notification of California Native American tribes and organizations of proposed
projects that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Policy 9.4
requires sites with significant cultural resources to be protected. Policy 9.7 requires
development to avoid archaeological and paleontological resources, whenever
possible. If complete avoidance is not possible, development would be required to
minimize and fully mitigate the impacts to the resources.
The direction to recognize archaeological resources would typically be accomplished
through, as appropriate, research, surveys, and testing prior to construction, as well as
monitoring during ground-disturbing activities. The proper handling of discovered
resources and the enforcement of applicable state and federal laws and regulations
would qualify as the direct maintenance of archaeological resources. Much of the
Planning Area is built out, and most new development pursuant to the General Plan
update will therefore take place above ground on previously disturbed land, thereby
minimizing the potential to disturb archaeological resources. However, ground-
disturbing activities on previously undisturbed land could affect the integrity of an as-
yet-unknown archaeological site, thereby causing a substantial change in the
significance of the resource. Although efforts will be made to identify and mitigate
impacts to potential archaeological resources prior to ground disturbance, there is no
CHAPTER 4.6: CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.6-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
way to know if significant archaeological resources occur below undisturbed ground
surfaces. Therefore, absent mitigation, this impact would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
For future projects that require excavation activity (e.g., clearing/grubbing, grading,
trenching, or boring) into native soil and that have the potential to exhibit native
ground surface within or in the immediate vicinity of the excavation footprint, project
applicants will be required to conduct archaeological resources assessments in order
to identify and mitigation potential impacts to archaeological resources. A Phase 1
Assessment typically consists of identifying known archaeological resources through
records search and consultation with Native American tribes, a pedestrian survey of
the project site, a review of the land use history, and coordination with knowledgeable
organizations or individuals. If warranted, additional analyses such as archaeological
test excavations and/or remote sensing methods can be implemented to identify
resources. Coordination with the Native American tribes is assured through
compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 and through implementation of Title 29 of the City
of Palm Desert Municipal Code. In conjunction with these assessments, future project
applicants will be required to implement mitigation measures MM 4.6-2a through
MM 4.6-2d.
MM 4.6-2a For future projects that require excavation activity (e.g.,
clearing/grubbing, grading, trenching, or boring) into native soil and
that have the potential to exhibit native ground surface within or in
the immediate vicinity of the excavation footprint, project applicants
an archaeological study (Phase I Assessment) shall be required.
Timing/Implementation: During the environmental review process
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
MM 4.6-2b If resources are identified, they shall be evaluated for their eligibility
for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, the
National Register of Historic Places (if applicable), and/or a local
listing and to determine whether the resource qualifies as a unique
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA (Phase II Assessment).
Methodologies for evaluating a resource can include, but are not
limited to, subsurface archaeological test excavations, additional
background research, and coordination with Native Americans and
other interested individuals in the community.
Timing/Implementation: During the environmental review process
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
MM 4.6-2c If the resources are determined eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, appropriate mitigation shall be
developed and implemented to mitigate impacts to the resource. If
resource avoidance measures, such as resource “capping” (covering
a resource with a layer of fill soils before building on the resource) or
incorporating a resource into a park plan or open space, are deemed
not feasible, additional subsurface archaeological excavations (i.e.,
data recovery) that serve to recover significant archaeological
resources before they are damaged or destroyed by the proposed
CHAPTER 4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.6-9
development shall be implemented (Phase III Assessment).
Documentation (technical reports and California Department of
Parks and Recreation Site Forms) and recovered materials (artifacts
and other specimens) shall be curated at a suitable repository
and/or museum for future study and research.
Timing/Implementation: During the environmental review process
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
MM 4.6-2d Archaeological construction monitoring and construction personnel
awareness training shall be conducted for development proposals
that have a high potential to encounter previously unknown buried
resources during construction. If resources are encountered during
construction, appropriate treatment measures shall be developed to
preserve the resource. If it is not feasible to preserve the resource, a
program to remove or recover the resource from the construction
site shall be implemented.
Timing/Implementation: During grading and construction
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
Significance after Mitigation
Mitigation measures MM 4.6-2a through MM 4.6-2d would require various
assessments, as necessary, by a qualified archaeologist for projects subject to CEQA
involving ground-disturbing activities on previously undisturbed land and would
require preparation and implementation of a treatment plan if buried resources would
be affected by a proposed project. Thus, with implementation of the mitigation
measures above, the General Plan update would provide for the appropriate
treatment and/or preservation of resources if encountered. Therefore, potentially
significant impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
IMPACT
4.6-3
Disturbance of Human Remains. Adoption and implementation of the
General Plan update could result in new development and
redevelopment of previously undisturbed land throughout the Planning
Area, which could disturb human remains. This impact is considered
less than significant.
Anticipated development in Palm Desert would occur through new infill development
on vacant property and with redevelopment or revitalization of underutilized
properties, which could disturb human remains under previously undisturbed ground
surfaces. In addition, infrastructure and other improvements requiring ground
disturbance could disturb human remains below the ground surface.
As described in Appendix 4.0 and the Regulatory Setting subsection above, California
Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and California Public Resources
Code Section 5097 dictate procedures for the treatment of discovered human
remains. If human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, all such
activities within a 100-foot radius of the find must be halted immediately and the
project applicants’ designated representative notified. The project applicants are
required to immediately notify the county coroner and a qualified professional
archaeologist. The coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains
CHAPTER 4.6: CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.6-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands (Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner determines that the remains are those
of a Native American, he or she must contact the Native American Heritage
Commission by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (Health and
Safety Code Section 7050[c]). The project applicants’ responsibilities for acting upon
notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in detail in
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.9. The City of Palm Desert or its
appointed representative and the professional archaeologist are then required to
contact the most likely descendant (MLD), as determined by the NAHC, regarding the
remains. The MLD, in cooperation with the property owner and the lead agency,
would then determine the ultimate disposition of the remains. Therefore, required
compliance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and
California Public Resources Code Section 5097 would result in a less than significant
cumulative impact to human remains.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.6-4
Substantial Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource.
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update could result
in new development and redevelopment of previously undisturbed land
throughout the Planning Area, which could cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21074. This impact is considered
potentially significant.
Chapter 532 Statutes of 2014 (i.e., Assembly Bill [AB] 52) requires that lead agencies
evaluate a project's potential impact on “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources
include “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the
California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical
resources.” AB 52 also gives lead agencies the discretion to determine, based on
substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a tribal cultural resource. As
explained above under Impact 4.6-2, anticipated development in Palm Desert would
occur through infill development on vacant property and with redevelopment or
revitalization of underutilized properties, which could result in damage to previously
unknown cultural resources. Such resources may include resources of cultural or
religious importance to Native American groups. However, a number of General Plan
policies, specifically, Environmental Resources Element Policies 9.1, 9.2, 9.2, 9.4,
address this concern. These policies direct the City to recognize and maintain such
resources, and require, in areas where there is a high chance that human remains may
be present, preconstruction surveys to establish the occurrence of human remains, if
any. General Plan Policy 9.2 requires that any human remains discovered during
implementation of public and private projects be treated with respect and dignity and
fully comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act and other appropriate laws. General Plan Policy 9.3 requires notification of
California Native American tribes and organizations of proposed projects that have the
potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Policy 9.4 requires sites with
significant cultural resources to be protected. Policy 9.7 requires development to
avoid archaeological and paleontological resources, whenever possible. If complete
CHAPTER 4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.6-11
avoidance is not possible, development would be required to minimize and fully
mitigate the impacts to the resources.
Pursuant to AB 52, Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 indicates that Native
American consultation is required upon written request by a California Native
American tribe who has previously requested that the lead agency provide it with
notice of such projects. Native American tribes may have knowledge about cultural
resources in the area and may have concerns about adverse effects from development
on tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. These
resources may be sacred lands, traditional cultural places and resources, and
archaeological sites.
In compliance with AB 52, the City has provided formal notification to the three tribes
that have previously requested notice of proposed projects under AB 52. In addition,
the City sent approximately 30 tribes formal invitations to consult pursuant to SB 18.
As of the release of the Draft EIR, no tribe as formally requested consultation under
either statute; however, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians has indicated, in its
response to both the SB 18 and AB 52 invitations, that it will review the Draft EIR
during the public review period and provide its comments at that time.
Given that much of the General Plan Planning Area is built out, and most new
development pursuant to the General Plan update will therefore take place above
ground on previously disturbed land, thereby minimizing the potential to disturb tribal
cultural resource resources. However, ground-disturbing activities on previously
undisturbed land could affect the integrity of an as-yet-unknown resource. Therefore,
absent mitigation, this impact would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
For future projects that require excavation activity (e.g., clearing/grubbing, grading,
trenching, or boring) into native soil and that have the potential to exhibit native
ground surface within or in the immediate vicinity of the excavation footprint, project
applicants will be required to conduct archaeological resources assessments in order
to identify and mitigation potential impacts to archaeological resources. A Phase 1
Assessment typically consists of identifying known archaeological resources through
records search and consultation with Native American tribes, a pedestrian survey of
the project site, a review of the land use history, and coordination with knowledgeable
organizations or individuals. If warranted, additional analyses such as archaeological
test excavations and/or remote sensing methods can be implemented to identify
resources. Coordination with the Native American tribes is assured through
compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 and through implementation of Title 29 of the City
of Palm Desert Municipal Code. In conjunction with these assessments, future project
applicants will be required to implement mitigation measures MM 4.6-2a through
MM 4.6-2d, above.
Significance after Mitigation
Mitigation measures MM 4.6-2a through MM 4.6-2d would require various
assessments, as necessary, by a qualified archaeologist for projects subject to CEQA
involving ground-disturbing activities on previously undisturbed land and would
require preparation and implementation of a treatment plan if buried resources would
be affected by a proposed project. Thus, with implementation of the mitigation
measures above, the General Plan update would provide for the appropriate
treatment and/or preservation of resources if encountered. Therefore, potentially
CHAPTER 4.6: CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.6-12 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
significant impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The context for cumulative impacts on historical resources and archaeological
resources is adoption and implementation of the General Plan update in addition to
future development in surrounding cities. Cities adjacent to the Planning Area share
common historic, archeological, and geologic characteristics. The geographic context
for cumulative impacts to human remains is individual development sites.
IMPACT
4.6-5
Cumulative Effects on Historical Resources. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update in addition to anticipated
future development in surrounding cities could cause a substantial
change in the significance of historical resources as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. The loss of some historical resources may
be prevented through implementation of updated General Plan
policies, the City of Palm Desert’s Cultural Resources Prevention
Committee, and preservation policies in other communities. However,
this would not ensure that these resources can be protected and
preserved. This impact is considered cumulatively considerable.
Historical resources in surrounding cities include various types of buildings and/or
structures, some of which share historical associations or similar attributes of
architectural character. Potential future development in the Planning Area and the
surrounding region could include demolition or destruction of historical resources.
Although some historic resources may be listed in the NRHP, the CRHR, or local
listings, listing itself does not ensure protection of the resource. Future discretionary
development in the Planning Area and surrounding cities would be subject to CEQA
requirements. Not all municipalities have a formal review process that applies to all
properties defined by CEQA as historical resources; thus, it is reasonable to assume
that some historical resources could be substantially changed or demolished. The
cumulative effect of future development would be the continued loss of these
resources. However, General Plan Environmental Resources Element Policy 9.5
encourages the preservation of historic resources, when practical. When it is not
practical to preserve a historic resource in its entirety, the City will require the
architectural details and design elements of historic structures to be preserved during
renovations and remodels as much as feasible.
Implementation of the General Plan update policies to protect historic resources,
along with adherence to existing federal, state, and City regulations, would preserve
locally designated historical resources. Therefore, this would be a less than
cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.6-13
IMPACT
4.6-6
Cumulative Effects on Archaeological Resources. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update in addition to anticipated
future development in surrounding cities could cause a substantial
change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The loss of some archaeological
resources may be prevented through implementation of General Plan
policies and similar policies in other communities. However, this would
not ensure that these resources can be protected and preserved. This
impact is considered cumulatively considerable.
Future development in the Planning Area and in the surrounding region could include
ground-disturbing activities on previously undisturbed land that could potentially
affect archaeological resources. The cumulative effect of this future development is
the continued loss of prehistoric cultural resources. Potential future development
increases the likelihood that archaeological resources could be discovered. It is
therefore possible that cumulative development could result in the demolition or
destruction of unique archaeological resources, which could contribute to the erosion
of the prehistoric record of the planning area and region. Absent mitigation, this
would be a cumulatively considerable impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measures MM 4.6-2a through MM 4.6-2d.
Significance after Mitigation
Though archaeological resources can sometimes be protected when discovered during
excavation, there is no way to ensure that all such resources can be protected and
preserved. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.6-2a through MM 4.6-2d
would require assessment by a qualified archaeologist for discretionary projects in
Palm Desert involving ground-disturbing activities on previously undisturbed land and
would require preparation and implementation of a treatment plan if buried resources
would be affected by a proposed project in the city. Impacts to as-yet-unknown
archaeological resources discovered in the city would be mitigated. Therefore, with
implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.6-2a through MM 4.6-2d, the General
Plan update’s contribution would not be considerable, and the impact would be less
than cumulatively considerable.
IMPACT
4.6-7
Cumulative Effects on Human Remains. Adoption and implementation of
the General Plan update in addition to anticipated regional growth would
not result in cumulative impacts to human remains because these
impacts are inherently site specific. This impact would be less than
cumulatively considerable.
Impacts to human remains are related to conditions and circumstances that are
considered site specific. Therefore, the geographic context for the analysis of potential
cumulative impacts to human remains consists of individual development sites.
Although cumulative development in the region may include numerous projects with
impacts to human remains, these impacts would affect each individual project, rather
than resulting in an additive cumulative effect. Therefore, cumulative development
would result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact to human remains.
CHAPTER 4.6: CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.6-14 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.7-1
4.7. Geology and Soils
Introduction
This resource section evaluates the potential environmental effects related to geology
and soils associated with implementation of the General Plan update. The analysis
includes a review of regional geology, seismicity and faulting, and soils. Issues
regarding water quality impacts of soil erosion are discussed in Chapter 4.9, Hydrology
and Water Quality. General Plan Safety Element policies and implementation actions
guide future development and infrastructure practices to protect residents and
structures against seismic-related hazards by requiring enforcement of safety
standards and site-specific design and construction methods.
NOP Comments: No comment letters were received in response to the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) addressing the geology and soils analysis.
Reference Information: Information for this resource chapter is based on numerous
references, including the Palm Desert Technical Background Report (TBR) and other
publicly available documents. The TBR prepared for the project is attached to this
document as Appendix 4.0. The EIR, including the TBR, is also available electronically
on the City’s website (http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/general-plan-
update).
Environmental Setting
Section 9.0 of Appendix 4.0 describes the regional and local conditions related to
geology and soils. Key findings of the environmental setting are presented below.
Wind Erosion Hazards: Palm Desert and the Sphere of Influence (SOI) are
susceptible to wind erosion and hazards associated with wind erosion. The
sand dunes along Interstate 10 and the Whitewater River are the two most
significant sources of wind-blown sand in the Planning Area. Figure 7.2 in the
TBR (Appendix 4.0) shows wind erosion hazard zones in the city.
Primary Seismic Hazards
Seismic Ground Shaking: Earthquake magnitude is generally measured on a
logarithmic scale known as the Richter scale. This scale describes a seismic
event in terms of the amount of energy released by fault movement. Because
the Richter scale expresses earthquake magnitude (M) in scientific terms, it is
not readily understood by the general public. The Modified Mercalli Intensity
scale describes the magnitude of an earthquake in terms of actual physical
effects. Six historic seismic events (M 5.9 or greater) have significantly affected
the Coachella Valley region in the past 100 years. These events are listed and
discussed in the TBR found in Appendix 4.0.
Active Faults and Fault Rupture: The city and the SOI are not located within a
fault zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Act (CGS 2014). Based on
information from the California Geological Survey, no known major active
faults are located in the city or the SOI. According to the Southern California
Earthquake Data Center (2014), the closest active faults to Palm Desert are the
San Andreas fault, located approximately 4 miles to the north; the San Jacinto
CHAPTER 4.7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
fault, located 10 miles to the southwest; and the Elsinore fault, located 30
miles to the southwest. (See Figure 7-4 of the TBR found in Appendix 4.0.)
Expansive and Collapsible Soils: Based on NRCS soils data (Figure 7.3 and
Table 7.1 of the TBR found in Appendix 4.0), it does not appear that expansive
clays or soils exhibiting shrink-swell characteristics underlie the city and SOI.
However, since no citywide soil report exists, expansive and collapsible soils
may need to be analyzed on a project-by-project basis.
Secondary Seismic Hazards
Landslides: Landslides develop when water rapidly accumulates in the ground
during heavy rainfall, changing the earth into a flowing river of mud or
“slurry.” Landslides can strike with little or no warning at avalanche speeds.
The California Department of Conservation (1998) Seismic Hazard Zone Report
identifies landslide zones as “areas where previous occurrence of landslide
movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface
water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements
such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c)
would be required.” Figure 7.5 of the TBR (Appendix 4.0) identifies landslide-
susceptible areas in the city and the SOI.
Liquefaction: In 1997 and 1998, the CGS (then known as the California Division
of Mines and Geology) developed guidelines for delineating, evaluating, and
mitigating seismic hazards, including liquefaction, in California. Seismic Hazard
Zones (SHZ) maps identify areas within and adjacent to the city and SOI that
are susceptible to seismic hazards. The SHZ maps define liquefaction zones as
“areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological,
geotechnical, and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent
ground displacement such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 2693(c) would be required.” However, SHZ mapping delineating
liquefaction-susceptible areas do not exist for Palm Desert. But according to
the Riverside County Land Information System (2014), the majority of the city
and all of the northern portion of the Sphere of Influence are located in an
area susceptible to moderate liquefaction potential (see Figure 7.6 of the TBR
[Appendix 4.0]). Liquefaction susceptibility in the city and the SOI is based on
sediment type, depth to groundwater, and proximity to the San Andreas fault.
Regulatory Setting
State and local laws, regulations, and policies pertain to geology and soils in the
Planning Area. They provide the regulatory framework for addressing aspects of
geology and soils that would be affected by adoption and implementation of the
General Plan update. The regulatory framework for geology and soils is discussed in
detail in Appendix 4.0 of this EIR. The following summarizes key regulations used to
reduce potential environmental impacts of implementing the General Plan update.
State
Alquist-Priolo Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act) was created to
prohibit the location of structures designed for human occupancy across the traces of
active faults (lines of surface rupture), thereby reducing the loss of life and property
CHAPTER 4.7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.7-3
from an earthquake. The planning area does not contain Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zones (CGS 2013).
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The 1990 Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (Public Resources Code Sections 2690–2699.6)
addresses hazards such as strong ground shaking, earthquake-induced landslides, and
in some areas, zones of amplified shaking. The act established a mapping program for
areas that have the potential for liquefaction, landslide, strong ground shaking, or
other earthquake and geologic hazards. The California Geological Survey (CGS) is the
primary state agency charged with implementing the act and provides local
jurisdictions with the seismic hazard zone maps that identify areas susceptible to
liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified shaking.
Natural Hazards Disclosure Act
The Natural Hazards Disclosure Act (effective June 1, 1998) requires “that sellers of
real property and their agents provide prospective buyers with a ‘Natural Hazard
Disclosure Statement’ when the property being sold lies within one or more state-
mapped hazard areas, including a Seismic Hazard Zone.” The act specifies two ways in
which this disclosure can be made:
1. The Local Option Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement as provided in
Section 1102.6a of the California Civil Code.
2. The Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1103.2 of the
California Civil Code.
The Local Option Real Estate Disclosure Statement can be substituted for the Natural
Hazards Disclosure Statement if it contains substantially the same information and
substantially the same warning as the Natural Hazards Disclosure Statement. Both the
Alquist-Priolo Act and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act require that real estate
agents, or sellers of real estate acting without an agent, disclose to prospective buyers
that the property is located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or Seismic
Hazard Mapping Zone.
California Building Code (CBC)
The California Building Standards Commission is responsible for coordinating,
managing, adopting, and approving building codes in California. The 2016 CBC is
published and parts of it will be available online starting August 1, 2016. However, the
2013 CBC and all the subsequent codes under the California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Title 24 (24 CCR), which provides minimum standards for building design, is currently
effective. The State requires local governments to adopt Title 24 on a triennial basis.
Where no other building codes apply, Chapters 16, 16A, 18, and 18A of the 2013 CBC
regulate structural design, excavation, foundations, and retaining walls.
Local
City of Palm Desert Municipal Code
Section 25.28.110, Seismic Hazard Overlay District, sets development standards and
requirements for areas within the overlay zone that must be incorporated into
development proposals prior to design and construction. All applications for
development within the Seismic Hazard Overlay District must submit in-depth
geological soils investigation technical studies. Additionally, Section 15.24.010 adopts
the most recent edition of the California Building Code for the purpose of regulating
CHAPTER 4.7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
the seismic strengthening provisions for unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings,
in existing buildings in the city.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
The analysis of impacts is based on the likely consequences of adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update, compared to existing conditions. The
following analysis of geology and soils impacts is qualitative and based on available
information for the Planning Area along with a review of regional information. The
analysis assumes that all future and existing development in the Planning Area
complies with all applicable laws, regulations, and plans. An analysis of cumulative
impacts uses regional information for the Planning Area.
Draft General Plan Policies and Implementation Actions
General Plan policies and implementation actions that reduce potential geology and
soils impacts include the following.
Policies
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 9.6: Paleontological resources. Require any paleontological artifacts
found within the City or its Sphere of Influence to be reported to the City and
temporarily loaned to local museums like the Western Science Center for
Archaeology and Paleontology, in Hemet, CA.
Safety Element
Policy 2.1: Seismic Standards. Consider exceeding minimum seismic safety
standards for critical facilities that ensure building function and support
continuity of critical services and emergency response after a seismic event.
Policy 2.2: Structural Stability. Maintain development code standards to
prohibit siting of new septic tanks, seepage pits, drainage facilities, and heavily
irrigated areas away from structure foundations to reduce potential soil
collapse.
Policy 2.3: Seismic Retrofits to the Existing Building Stock. Create a phased
program for seismic retrofits to existing public and private unreinforced
buildings to meet current requirements.
Policy 2.3: Wind Hazards Support integrated land management for site design
and improvements that protect the natural and built environment, including
both public and private structures, from hazardous wind events.
Implementation Actions
Safety Element
Action 08-02. Update the City’s public GIS database with information on the
extent and potential impact of seismic, geotechnical, fire, and flood hazards
occurring in the city and the SOI. All future developments will be required to
submit their data for incorporation into this database.
Action 08-05. Evaluate critical City facilities for seismic safety.
CHAPTER 4.7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.7-5
Action 08-08. Conduct an inventory of all unreinforced structures with higher
potential susceptibility to seismic hazards, and develop a prioritized list of
recommended phasing for retrofits, based on severity of vulnerability.
Action 08-09. Partner with Riverside County, regional entities, and local
financial institutions to explore and promote financing options for seismic
retrofits.
Action 08-16. Investigate exceeding minimum seismic safety standards for
critical facilities that ensure building function.
Action 08-22. Create a phased program for seismic retrofits to existing public
and private buildings to meet current requirements.
Action 08-24. Establish a local ordinance with a deadline for existing structures
to meet current seismic safety standards
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, impacts on geology and soils are considered significant if
adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would:
Threshold Determination
1. (a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death, involving: rupture of a
known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault. Refer to California Geological Survey
(formerly Division of Mines and Geology) Special
Publication 42
Less Than Significant
1. (b) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death, involving: strong seismic
ground shaking
Less Than Significant
1. (c) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death, involving: seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction.
Less Than Significant
1. (d) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death, involving: landslides.
Less Than Significant
2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil.
Less Than Significant
3. 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.
Less Than Significant
CHAPTER 4.7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Threshold Determination
4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property.
Less Than Significant
5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater.
Less Than Significant
6. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature.
Less Than Significant
7. Cumulative effects Less than Cumulatively
Considerable
The City of Palm Desert Municipal Code does not include provisions for new
development with on-site septic systems and relies on the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health for management of existing individual septic
systems. Therefore, there would be no impact related to the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems. This topic will not be discussed further in this
EIR.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.7-1
Impacts Associated with Fault Rupture and Seismic Hazards.
Subsequent land use activities associated with adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update could result in the
exposure of more people, structures, and infrastructure to seismic
hazards. However, implementation of the California Building Code and
proposed General Plan policies would ensure that people, structures,
and infrastructure are not adversely impacted by seismic hazards. This
is considered a less than significant impact.
Southern California, including Palm Desert, is subject to the effects of seismic activity
because of the active faults that traverse the area. As described above, no Alquist-
Priolo Special Earthquake Study Zone Faults traverse the city. The closest active faults
are the San Andreas fault, located approximately 4 miles to the north; the San Jacinto
fault located 10 miles to the southwest; and the Elsinore fault, located approximately
30 miles to the southwest (CGS 2013).
Seismic activity poses two types of potential hazards for people and structures,
categorized either as primary or secondary hazards. Primary hazards include ground
rupture, ground shaking, ground displacement, subsidence, and uplift from earth
movement. Primary hazards can also induce secondary hazards such as ground failure
(lurch cracking, lateral spreading, and slope failure), liquefaction, water waves
(seiches), movement on nearby faults (sympathetic fault movement), dam failure, and
fires. In general, these secondary effects of seismic shaking are a possibility
throughout Southern California; severity is dependent on the distance between the
site and the causative fault and the on-site geology. Since the San Andreas and San
Jacinto faults are in proximity to the city, Palm Desert could potentially experience
CHAPTER 4.7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.7-7
secondary effects, such as liquefaction, associated with seismic activity along the
faults.
However, development in the city would be designed in accordance with California
Building Code requirements that address structural seismic safety. All new
development and redevelopment would be required to comply with the CBC, which
includes design criteria for seismic loading and other geologic hazards, including
design criteria for geologically induced loading that govern sizing of structural
members and provide calculation methods to assist in the design process. Thus, while
shaking impacts would be potentially damaging, they would also tend to be reduced in
their structural effects due to CBC criteria that recognize this potential. The CBC
includes provisions for buildings to structurally survive an earthquake without
collapsing and includes measures such as anchoring to the foundation and structural
frame design.
Additionally, Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.28.110 sets development
standards and requirements for areas in the Seismic Hazard Overlay District that must
be incorporated into development proposals prior to design and construction. All
applications for development in the overlay district must submit in-depth geological
soils investigation technical studies.
Further, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires that cities use the Seismic Hazard
Zone Maps in their land use planning and building permit processes and that site-
specific geotechnical investigations be conducted within the Zones of Required
Investigation in order to identify and evaluate seismic hazards and formulate
mitigation measures prior to permitting most developments designed for human
occupancy.
These requirements, along with continued adherence to the City’s Municipal Code
Section 25.25.110, and implementation of the policies contained in the General Plan
update would ensure this impact is reduced to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.7-2
Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil. Implementation of the General Plan
update could result in construction and grading activities that could
expose topsoil to increased potential for soil erosion. However,
provisions in the City’s Municipal Code and proposed General Plan
policies would ensure there are no adverse impacts from erosion and
loss of topsoil. This impact is considered to be less than significant.
Implementation of the updated General Plan would result in improvements to existing
roadways and the potential for additional commercial, residential, and industrial
development in the city. The grading and site preparation activities associated with
such development would remove topsoil, disturbing and potentially exposing the
underlying soils to erosion from a variety of sources, including wind and water. In
addition, construction activities may involve the use of water, which may further
erode the topsoil as the water moves across the ground.
However, all demolition and construction activities that would occur would be subject
to compliance with the California Building Code. Additionally, any development
involving clearing, grading, or excavation that causes soil disturbance of 1 or more
CHAPTER 4.7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
acres, or any project involving less than 1 acre that is part of a larger development
plan and includes clearing, grading, or excavation, is subject to provisions of the
NPDES Statewide General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). Any development of
this size in the Planning Area would be required to prepare and comply with an
approved stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that provides a schedule for
the implementation and maintenance of erosion control measures and a description
of the erosion control practices, including appropriate design details and a time
schedule. The SWPPP would consider the full range of erosion control best
management practices (BMPs), including any additional site-specific and seasonal
conditions. The State General Permit also requires that those implementing SWPPPs
meet prerequisite qualifications that would demonstrate the skills, knowledge, and
experience necessary to implement such plans. NPDES requirements would
significantly reduce the potential for substantial erosion or topsoil loss to occur in
association with new development.
Further, as part of the approval process, prior to grading plan approval, project
applicants for future development associated with the General Plan update will be
required to comply with Chapter 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge
Control, of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (see Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality, for a discussion of this chapter of the Municipal Code). Water quality features
intended to reduce construction-related erosion impacts will be clearly denoted on
grading plans for implementation by the construction contractor.
Proposed General Plan Policy 2.3 supports integrated land management for site design
and improvements that protect the natural and built environment, including both
public and private structures, from hazardous wind events. This policy protects future
development and existing natural resources in the city by reducing the potential for
soil erosion associated with high wind hazards.
Since erosion impacts are often dependent on the type of development, intensity of
development, and amount of lot coverage of a particular project site, impacts can
vary. However, compliance with the CBC and the NPDES would minimize effects from
erosion and ensure consistency with the Water Quality Control Plan of the Colorado
River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board (also discussed in Chapter 4.9).
Additionally, compliance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 24.20 and NPDES
requirements would result in less than significant impacts related to soil erosion.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.7-3
Unstable and Expansive Soils. The General Plan update would not
allow development on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and
therefore would not create substantial risks to life and property. As
such, this is considered a less than significant impact.
Subsidence refers to the sudden sinking or gradual downward settling and compaction
of soil and other surface material with little or no horizontal motion. It may be caused
by a variety of human and natural activities, including earthquakes. In some cases,
subsidence, or the gradual sinking of land, can occur in collapsible soils. It does not
appear that expansive clays or soils exhibiting shrink-swell characteristics underlie the
Planning Area.
CHAPTER 4.7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.7-9
Regardless, the CBC and other related construction standards apply seismic
requirements and address certain grading activities. The CBC includes common
engineering practices requiring special design and construction methods that reduce
or eliminate potential expansive soil-related impacts. These methods are project-
specific but can include overexcavation of foundations, import of more stable
material, positive drainage systems, or changes in structure design. Compliance with
CBC regulations would ensure the adequate design and construction of building
foundations to resist soil movement.
Additionally, Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.28.110 would require geological
reports for projects in areas with potential for seismically induced liquefaction or
settlement as part of the environmental and development review process, for any
structure proposed for human occupancy, and for any structure whose damage would
cause harm. Required site-specific geotechnical studies generally contain a summary
of all subsurface exploration data, including a subsurface soil profile, exploration logs,
laboratory or on-site test results, and groundwater information. The reports also
interpret and analyze the subsurface data, recommend specific engineering design
elements, discuss conditions for the solution of anticipated problems, and recommend
geotechnical special provisions. These provisions would address any site-specific
expansive soil hazards for future development under the General Plan update.
Therefore, adherence to the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code would reduce the
effects resulting from developing on unstable soils to a minimum. This impact is
therefore considered to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.7-4
Impacts to Unique Paleontological Resources. Earthmoving and
excavation activities associated with adoption and implementation of
the General Plan update could damage previously unknown unique
paleontological resources. However, CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(f) and proposed General Plan policies would ensure that
paleontological resources are not adversely impacted by future
development under the proposed General Plan. This would be a less
than significant impact.
The General Plan does not propose any development activities that would directly
disturb currently undiscovered paleontological resources. Future discretionary
approvals that could result in the potential disturbance of paleontological resources
will be subject to individual review of potential impacts under a separate CEQA
document. Additionally, General Plan Environmental Resources Element Policy 9.6
requires any paleontological artifacts found in the city or the Sphere of Influence to be
reported to the City and temporarily loaned to local museums like the Western
Science Center for Archaeology and Paleontology in Hemet.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Geotechnical impacts tend to be site-specific rather than cumulative in nature. For
example, seismic events may damage or destroy a building on a project site, but the
CHAPTER 4.7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
construction of a development project on one site would not cause any adjacent
parcels to become more susceptible to seismic events, nor can a project affect local
geology in such a manner as to increase risks regionally.
IMPACT
4.7-5
Cumulative Geologic and Soil Hazards. Subsequent land use activities
associated with adoption and implementation of the General Plan
update, in combination with other existing, planned, proposed, and
reasonably foreseeable development in the region, may result in
cumulative geologic and soil hazards. However, policy provisions in the
General Plan update and continued implementation of the City’s
Municipal Code would ensure that potential development is not
adversely impacted by cumulative geologic and soil hazards. This is
considered a less than cumulatively considerable impact.
All new development in Palm Desert would be required to comply with the CBC, which
mandates stringent earthquake-resistant design parameters and common engineering
practices requiring special design and construction methods that reduce or eliminate
potential expansive soil-related impacts. Furthermore, any development involving
clearing, grading, or excavation that causes soil disturbance of 1 or more acres, or any
project involving less than 1 acre that is part of a larger development plan and includes
clearing, grading, or excavation, is subject to NPDES provisions. NPDES requirements
would significantly reduce the potential for substantial erosion or topsoil loss to occur
in association with new development by requiring an approved SWPPP that includes a
schedule for the implementation and maintenance of erosion control measures and a
description of erosion control practices, including appropriate design details and a
time schedule. The General Plan update also requires that damage to new structures
from seismic, geologic, or soil conditions be prevented to the maximum extent
feasible.
Further, implementation of NPDES requirements and CBC standards, as discussed
under Impact 4.7-2, would reduce cumulative impacts associated with geology and
soils throughout the region. Furthermore, site-specific review, including geotechnical
reports, required by the City of Palm Desert would reduce General Plan update’s
contribution to cumulative impacts to less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.7-6
Cumulative Paleontological Impacts. Adoption and implementation of
the General Plan update, in addition to existing, approved, proposed,
and reasonably foreseeable development in the region, could result in
cumulative impacts to paleontological resources in the region.
However, policy provisions in the proposed General Plan would ensure
that impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
While multiple impacts may occur during the implementation period of the General
Plan, cumulative impacts are unlikely. Cumulative impacts that may occur would be
reduced to less than cumulatively considerable levels by the requirements of CEQA,
which include requirements for activities that preserve unique resources in place in an
undisturbed state.
CHAPTER 4.7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.7-11
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7-12 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
References
CGS (California Geological Survey). 2013. Online Website Fault Maps and Special
Publication 42, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Accessed February
2014. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sp/Sp42.pdf.
———. 2014. Geologic Hazards: Earthquakes. Accessed July 2014.
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/earthquakes/Pages/Index.a
spx.
DOC (California Department of Conservation). 1998. Seismic Hazard Zone Report.
SCEDC (Southern California Earthquake Data Center). 2014. Significant Earthquakes
and Faults, Chronological Earthquake Index, Long Beach Earthquake.
Accessed July 2014.
http://www.data.scec.org/significant/longbeach1933.html.
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.8-1
4.8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Introduction
This resource section evaluates the potential environmental effects related to hazards
and hazardous materials associated with adoption and implementation of the General
Plan update. The analysis includes a review of state hazardous materials databases,
hazards related to schools, and emergency response procedures related to hazardous
materials. Policies and implementation actions in the General Plan Safety Element
ensure existing and new development, businesses, and the public are prepared for
emergencies and the potential release of hazards or hazardous materials in the
Planning Area.
NOP Comments: No comment letters were received in response to the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) addressing hazards or hazardous materials.
Reference Information: Information for this chapter is based on numerous references,
including the General Plan Update Technical Background Report (TBR) and other
publicly available documents. The TBR prepared for the project is attached to this EIR
as Appendix 4.0. This EIR, including the Technical Background Report, is also available
electronically on the City’s website (http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-
city/general-plan-update).
Environmental Setting
Section 10 of Appendix 4.0 describes local hazards and hazardous materials conditions
in Palm Desert. Key findings from the Technical Background Report are summarized
below.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) maintains the GeoTracker
database, which includes information to easily identify the location of a
hazardous waste site and also maintains information about specific sites,
including the current status of the site, chemicals of concern on the site,
potential media affected, regulatory activities, and any data submitted to the
oversight agency (e.g., the California Department of Toxic Substances Control).
According to the GeoTracker database, there are no open leaking underground
storage tank (LUST) sites in the Planning Area. GeoTracker does identify 31
closed case LUST sites that have completed site assessments and any required
cleanup, if necessary. There are six non-LUST cleanup sites in the Planning
Area, including five school sites. All school sites have been investigated and
require no further action. The military site is identified as inactive (SWRCB
2014).
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains a Superfund
database with sites that are hazardous waste sites requiring cleanup. Enfield
Chemical (EPA ID# CASFN0905404) is the only site in the Planning Area
identified as a Superfund site; however, this site is not on the National Priority
List for cleanup and is a removal-only site requiring no site assessment.
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) summarizes all
registered hazardous material transporters in the state. As of August 2015,
one transporter was located in Palm Desert (DTSC 2014b). In addition, major
transportation corridors such as Palm Desert Drive (Highway 111) or Interstate
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
10 (I-10) may be used to transport hazardous materials and represent accident
risks that could result in releases of hazardous materials. When acutely toxic
hazardous materials are transported, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) must
be notified. The City does not designate specific haul routes for hazardous
materials.
Airport-related hazards are generally associated with aircraft accidents,
particularly during takeoffs and landings. Other airport operation hazards
include incompatible land uses, power transmission lines, wildlife hazards
(e.g., bird strikes), and tall structures that penetrate the imaginary surfaces
surrounding an airport. The nearest major airport to Palm Desert is Bermuda
Dunes Airport, located in the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. Figure 8-1 in
the TBR (Appendix 4.0) shows the location of the airport. Bermuda Dunes
Airport is privately owned. Operations include charter flights, hangar rentals,
and a flight school.
Fire hazard severity zones are modeled based on vegetation, topography,
weather, fuel load type, and ember production and movement within the area
in question. Fire hazard severity zones are defined as moderate, high, and very
high fire hazard severity by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
(Cal Fire) (2012a). Fire prevention areas considered to be under state
jurisdiction are referred to as state responsibility areas, while areas under local
jurisdiction are called local responsibility areas. As shown in Figure 8-2 in the
TBR (Appendix 4.0), moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones
are located in the Planning Area, both within the existing city limits (local
responsibility area) and in the Sphere of Influence (state responsibility area).
Portions of the Planning Area to the north of I-10 contain moderate fire hazard
severity zones. All of the high and very high fire hazard severity zones are
located in the southern portion of the Planning Area, along with some limited
moderate fire hazard severity zones along the urban edge (Cal Fire 2007).
Regulatory Setting
Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies pertain to hazards and
hazardous materials in the Planning Area. They provide the regulatory framework for
addressing all aspects of hazards and hazardous materials that would be affected by
adoption and implementation of the General Plan update. The regulatory setting for
hazards and hazardous materials is discussed in detail in Appendix 4.0. Key regulations
used to reduce potential impacts are summarized below.
Federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
At the federal level, the principal agency regulating the generation, transport, and
disposal of hazardous substances is the EPA, under the authority of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA established an all-encompassing federal
regulatory program for hazardous substances that is administered by the EPA. Under
RCRA, the EPA regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous substances.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, in 1980. CERCLA established
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.8-3
prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste
sites, provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at
these sites, and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible
party could be identified.
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline and Natural Gas Pipeline Safety
The Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 and the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety
Act of 1968 authorize the US Department of Transportation (DOT) to regulate pipeline
transportation of hazardous liquids, including crude oil, petroleum products,
anhydrous ammonia, and carbon dioxide; transportation of flammable, toxic, or
corrosive natural gas and other gases; and transportation and storage of liquefied
natural gas. The US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration develops
and enforces regulations for the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation
of the nation’s 2.6-million-mile pipeline transportation system (PHMSA 2014).
Regulation of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Lead-Based Paint
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (Title 15, United States Code, Section 2605)
banned the manufacture, processing, distribution, and use of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB) in enclosed systems. The EPA Region 9 PCB Program regulates
remediation of polychlorinated biphenyls in several states, including California. The
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 amended the Toxic
Substances Control Act to include Title IV, Lead Exposure Reduction. The EPA regulates
renovation activities that could create lead-based paint hazards in target housing and
child-occupied facilities and has established standards for lead-based paint hazards
and lead dust cleanup levels in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities.
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, known as Federal Aviation
Regulations (FARs), provide regulatory guidance for the operation, development, and
construction of airports and aircraft as well as the training of and conduct of pilots of
all civil types and ratings. Included in the FARs are specific regulations guiding the
operation of airports and requirements related to development adjacent to airports
(14 CFR 77). FAR Part 77 pertains to objects affecting navigable airspace and
establishes standards for determining obstructions in navigable airspace, sets forth
the requirements for notice to the administrator of certain proposed construction or
alteration, provides for aeronautical studies of obstructions to air navigation in order
to determine their effect on the safe and efficient use of airspace, provides for public
hearings on the hazardous effects of proposed construction or alteration on air
navigation, and provides for the establishment of antenna farm areas.
Healthy Forest and Rangelands (National Fire Plan)
Healthy Forests and Rangelands is a cooperative effort between the US Department of
the Interior (DOI), the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and their land
management agencies. Healthy Forests and Rangelands provides fire, fuels, and land
management information to government officials, land and fire management
professionals, businesses, communities, and other interested organizations and
individuals. The National Fire Plan (NFP) was developed in August 2000, following a
landmark wildland fire season, with the intent of actively responding to severe
wildland fires and their impacts to communities while ensuring sufficient firefighting
capacity for the future. The NFP was finalized in August 2001 by the DOI and the USDA
and addresses five key points: firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction,
community assistance, and accountability.
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
State
Government Code Section 65962.5
The provisions of Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the
Cortese List. The Cortese List is a planning document used by the state and local
agencies to provide information about hazardous materials release sites. Government
Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency
(Cal/EPA) to develop an updated Cortese List annually, at minimum. The DTSC is
responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other state
and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material
release information for the list.
Emergency Services Act
Under the Emergency Services Act (California Government Code Section 8850 et seq.),
the State developed an emergency response plan to coordinate the emergency
services of federal, state, and local agencies. Quick response to natural and man-made
incidents is a key part of the plan. The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal
OES) administers the plan and coordinates the responses of other agencies, including
Cal/EPA, the CHP, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water
Quality Control Boards, air quality management districts, and county disaster response
offices.
Business Plan Act
The California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of 1985
(Business Plan Act) requires preparation of hazardous materials business plans and
disclosure of inventories of hazardous materials. A business plan includes an inventory
of the hazardous materials handled, facility floor plans showing where hazardous
materials are stored, an emergency response plan, and provisions for employee safety
and emergency response training (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20,
Chapter 6.95, Article 1). Statewide, the DTSC has primary regulatory responsibility for
managing hazardous materials, with delegation of authority to local jurisdictions that
enter into agreements with the State. Local agencies, including the Riverside County
Environmental Health Department, administer these laws and regulations. Sections
12101 through 12103 of the California Health and Safety Code require that permits be
obtained by those manufacturing, transporting, possessing, or using explosives and
endorsed by the jurisdiction(s) in which the transportation or use would occur.
Hazardous Waste Control Act
The Hazardous Waste Control Act is codified in California Code of Regulations Title 26,
which describes requirements for the proper management of hazardous wastes. The
Hazardous Waste Control Act and Title 26 regulations list more than 800 potentially
hazardous materials and establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and disposing of
such wastes. To comply with these regulations, the generator of hazardous waste
material must complete a manifest that accompanies the material from the point of
generation to transportation to the ultimate disposal location, and is required to file
copies of the manifest with the DTSC.
Underground Storage Tank Program
The California Department of Public Health and the SWRCB maintain lists of hazardous
underground storage tanks for remediation. Sites are listed based on unauthorized
release of toxic substances. Leak prevention, cleanup, enforcement, and tank testing
certification are elements of the UST program.
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.8-5
Unified Program
Cal OES grants oversight and permitting responsibility to qualifying local agencies for
certain state programs pertaining to hazardous waste and hazardous materials. Palm
Desert’s participation in the Unified Program is coordinated by the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health, as the designated Certified Unified Program
Agency (CUPA) for the City.
Other State Regulations
In addition to state policies covering hazardous materials, the following state
regulations are related to fire hazards:
Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area Building Standards
Vegetation Management Program
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Defensible Space Requirements
Strategic Fire Plan and Cal Fire Unit Management Plans
California Fire Code
A full description of these regulations can be found in the TBR (Appendix 4.0).
Regional and Local
Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of Palm Desert is a participating jurisdiction in the Riverside County
Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP). The HMP
identifies the county’s hazards, reviews and assesses past disaster occurrences,
estimates the probability of future occurrences, and sets goals to mitigate potential
risks to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural and
man-made hazards for the County and Operational Area member jurisdictions,
including the City of Palm Desert.
City of Palm Desert Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
In 2012, the City adopted its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) specific to the
potential hazards in Palm Desert. Hazards addressed include drought, earthquake,
flood, extreme heat, wildfire, hazardous materials, and terrorism. The LHMP meets
the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act, which requires local governments to
prepare plans that identify hazards and risks in a community and to create appropriate
mitigation. The purpose of the LHMP is to integrate hazard mitigation strategies into
the City’s daily activities and programs.
City of Palm Desert Emergency Operations Plan
The City’s Emergency Operations Plan addresses planned response to extraordinary
emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and
national security emergencies in or affecting Palm Desert. The plan describes the
operations of the City’s Emergency Operations Center, which is the central
management entity responsible for directing and coordinating the various City
departments and other agencies in their emergency response activities.
City of Palm Desert General Plan
The City’s General Plan was last updated in 2004 and includes an Emergency
Preparedness Element, which contains a number of policies and programs related to
preparing for and responding to a number of hazards that may occur in the Planning
Area. These policies and programs are identified in the TBR (Appendix 4.0).
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
The analysis of impacts is based on the likely consequences of adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update compared to existing conditions. The
following analysis of impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials is qualitative
and based on available hazards and hazardous materials information for the Planning
Area. The analysis assumes that all future and existing development in the Planning
Area complies with applicable laws, regulations, design standards, and plans. An
analysis of cumulative impacts uses qualitative information for the Planning Area.
General Plan Update Policies and Implementation Actions
General Plan update policies and implementation actions that reduce potential
hazards and hazardous materials impacts include the following.
Policies
Safety Element
Policy 1.1: Hazards Information. Establish and maintain a database containing
maps and other information that identifies and describes the community’s
hazards.
Policy 1.2: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Maintain and regularly update the
City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) as an integrated component of the
General Plan, in coordination with Riverside County and other participating
jurisdictions, to maintain eligibility for maximum grant funding.
Policy 1.3: Hazards Education. Consult with agencies and partners to provide
public education materials on safe locations and evacuation routes in case of
emergency or hazardous event.
Policy 1.4: Critical Facilities. Prepare existing critical facilities for resilience to
hazards and develop new facilities outside of hazard-prone areas.
Policy 1.5: Emergency Plans and Processes. Consult with the Coachella Valley
Emergency Managers Association and CVAG to maintain and update the City’s
Emergency Operations Plan, and maintain disaster preparedness plans for
evacuation and supply routes, communications networks, and critical facilities’
capabilities.
Policy 1.6: Utility Reliability. Coordinate with providers and agencies including
the CVWD and Southern California Edison for access to reliable utilities and
water supply to minimize potential impacts of hazards and emergencies to
pipelines and infrastructure.
Policy 1.7: Citizen Preparedness. Continue to promote citizen-based disaster
preparedness and emergency response through Riverside County’s
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training and certifications.
Policy 4.1: Fire Preparation. Maintain optimal fire readiness and response
service in coordination with Riverside County and other agencies.
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.8-7
Policy 4.2: Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Adopt and implement fire mitigation
standards for areas designated as High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones per Cal Fire.
Policy 4.3: Brush Clearance. Require new development and homeowners
associations to maintain brush clearance criteria that meets 120 percent of the
current state requirement for fire hazard severity zones in the city.
Policy 4.4: Inventory of Structures for Fire Risk. Prepare an inventory of all
structures and ownership information for structures in each fire hazard
severity zone in the city and the SOI.
Policy 4.5: Fire Education. Disseminate information on fire risks and minimum
standards, including guidance for new development in the wildland-urban
interface and fire hazard severity zones.
Policy 6.1: Site Remediation. Encourage and facilitate the adequate and timely
cleanup of existing and future contaminated sites and the compatibility of
future land uses.
Policy 6.2: Airport Hazards. Upon annexation of areas within the Bermuda
Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Area, adopt and implement airport
compatibility zones for protection of people and property.
Policy 6.3: Airport compatibility. Require new development in the vicinity of
Bermuda Dunes Airport to conform to the County’s airport land use and safety
plans. Notwithstanding the allowable land use intensities and densities set
forth by the Land Use and Community Character Element, there may be more
restrictive density and intensity limitations on land use and development
parameters, as set forth by the Airport Land Use and Compatibility Plan.
Additionally, per the Airport Land Use Plan, there may be additional limits,
restrictions, and requirements, such as aviation easements, height limits,
occupancy limits, and deed restrictions, required of new developments within
the vicinity of the airport.
Policy 6.4: Wildlife Hazards Study. New developments proposing golf course
or significant open space and/or water features shall prepare a wildlife hazard
study if the site is within the Airport Influence Area.
Policy 6.5: Airport Land Use Commission Review. Before the adoption or
amendment of this General Plan, any specific plan, the adoption or
amendment of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning
boundary of the airport land use compatibility plan, refer proposed actions for
review, determination and processing by the Riverside County Airport Land
Use Commission as provided by the Airport Land Use Law. Notify the Airport
Land Use Commission office and send a Request for Agency Comments for all
new projects, and projects proposing added floor area or change in building
occupancy type within 2 miles of the airport.
Policy 6.6: Federal Aviation Administration Review. Projects that require an
FAA notice and review will be conditioned accordingly by the City to obtain an
FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation prior to issuance of any
building permits.
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Policy 6.7: Residential Development near airport. New residential
development within Airport Compatibility Zone D shall have a net density of at
least five dwelling units per acre. New dwelling units should not be permitted
as secondary uses of the Urban Employment Center General Plan Designation
within Airport Compatibility Zone C.
Policy 6.8: Nonresidential Development near airport. The land use intensity of
nonresidential structures within Airport Compatibility Zones B1, C, and D shall
be limited as set forth by Table 2A of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Policy 6.9: Hospitals near airport. Prohibit hospitals within Airport
Compatibility Zones B1 and C and discouraged in Airport Compatibility Zone D.
Policy 6.10: Stadiums and gathering spaces. Discourage major spectator-
oriented sports stadiums, amphitheaters, concert halls shall be discouraged
beneath principal flight tracks.
Policy 6.11: Regional coordination. Promote coordinated long-range planning
between the City, airport authorities, businesses and the public to meet the
region's aviation needs.
Policy 6.12: Railroad Safety. When considering development adjacent to the
railroad right-of-way, work to minimize potential safety issues and land use
conflicts associated with railroad adjacency.
Implementation Actions
Safety Element
Action 8-02. Update the City’s public GIS database with information on the
extent and potential impact of seismic, geotechnical, fire, and flood hazards
occurring in the city and the SOI. All future developments will be required to
submit their data for incorporation into this database.
Action 8-03. Consult Riverside County and other jurisdictions to monitor and
update the City’s LHMP.
Action 8-04. Update the City’s Critical Infrastructure/Facilities inventory
included in the Emergency Operations Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Action 8-06. Identify and analyze vulnerabilities of key privately owned critical
facilities, such as hospitals and businesses, in the city that should remain in
operation after an emergency event.
Action 8-07. Encourage participation of representatives from local schools,
universities, hospital facilities, and other local organizations in regional
emergency planning efforts.
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of the EIR, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would
be considered significant if adoption and implementation of the updated General Plan
would:
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.8-9
Threshold Determination
1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials
Less Than Significant Impact
2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and/or accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment
Less Than Significant Impact
3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school
Less Than Significant Impact
4. 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, create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment
No Impact
5. For a project located within an airport land use
plan, result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area
Less Than Significant Impact
6. For a project locate within 2 miles of a private
airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area
Less Than Significant Impact
7. Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan
Less Than Significant Impact
8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires
Less Than Significant Impact
No sites in Palm Desert are included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As such, Threshold 4 will not be
discussed further in this EIR.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.8-1
Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update would result in an increase
in the routine transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials,
which could result in the exposure of the public to such materials
through either routine use or accidental release. Compliance with
existing federal and state regulations would reduce risks of accidents
associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials to a less than significant level.
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would enable development
of new residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. New development
would result in increased transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials
in the Planning Area. Of particular concern are facilities with leaking underground
storage tanks or other methods of storage that could accidentally leak or be released
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
into the soil, groundwater, surface water, or air. Examples of these facilities include
light industrial uses, gas stations, automotive repair shops, and dry cleaners.
The current regulatory environment provides a high level of protection from hazards
and hazardous materials manufactured within, transported to, and stored in industrial
and educational facilities. The City will continue to enforce disclosure laws that require
users, producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes to clearly
identify the materials that they store, use, or transport and to notify the appropriate
city, county, state, and federal agencies in the event of a violation. By recognizing
these hazards and ensuring that an educated public is able to work with City officials
to minimize risks associated with hazardous materials in the urban environment, the
City can maintain safe conditions throughout the Planning Area. Facilities developed
consistent with the General Plan update that would use hazardous materials on-site
would be required to obtain permits and comply with appropriate regulatory agency
standards designed to avoid hazardous waste releases and protect public health.
The amount of hazardous materials transported through the planning area on
roadways, local routes, Palm Desert Drive (Highway 111), and Interstate 10 (I-10)
would likely increase as a result of new development consistent with the General Plan
update. As such, a greater number of people in the future could be potentially
exposed to hazardous materials during accidental releases. At the federal level, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act gives the EPA the authority to control the
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The
hazardous materials regulations included in federal law govern the transportation of
hazardous materials. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration issues
regulations concerning highway routing of hazardous materials, hazardous materials
endorsements for a commercial driver’s license, highway hazardous material safety
permits, and financial responsibility requirements for motor carriers of hazardous
materials.
The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health is the CUPA for Riverside
County and is responsible for consolidating, coordinating, and making consistent the
administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of state
standards regarding the transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials in
Riverside County, of which the Palm Desert Planning Area is a part. The department
implements the hazardous materials business plans that include an inventory of
hazardous materials used, handled, or stored at any business in the city. The
department is also responsible for regulating hazardous materials handlers, hazardous
waste generators, underground storage tank facilities, aboveground storage tanks,
and stationary sources handling regulated substances.
General Plan Safety Element Policy 1.1 directs the City to establish and maintain a
database containing maps and other information that identifies and describes the
community’s hazards. Policy 1.2 directs the City to regularly maintain and update the
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as an integrated component of the General Plan. Policy
1.3 directs the City to consult with agencies and partners to provide public education
materials on safe locations and evacuation routes in case of emergency or a hazardous
event.
Compliance with and enforcement of existing federal, state, and local laws and
regulations concerning the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials,
supported by implementation of the General Plan update policies, would reduce
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.8-11
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.8-2
Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update would result in
development that could lead to upset and/or accidental conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
However, compliance with existing federal and state regulations would
reduce risks of accidental conditions. Therefore, hazards to public
safety from reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment is
less than significant.
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would enable development
of new residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. New development
could result in upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. The public could also be exposed to hazardous
materials if new development or redevelopment were to be located on a current or
historical hazardous material site. Currently, there are no listed open LUST sites nor
hazardous material sites known to handle and store hazardous materials or associated
with a hazardous material–related release in Palm Desert. However, there is one
registered hazardous materials transporter in Palm Desert.
Additionally, the California Geological Survey indicate that Palm Desert does not
encompass any areas containing ultramafic rock (CGS 2016). Since natural asbestos
occurs most commonly in association with ultramafic rocks, the potential for
occurrence and distribution of naturally occurring asbestos fibers in the Planning Area
is considered very low. Additionally, all of Riverside County, including Palm Desert, is
identified as being in Zone 2 for radon, which indicates a predicted average indoor
radon screening level between 2 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) and 4 pCi/L, considered a
low potential for radon (EPA 2016). Modern building construction practices
adequately ventilate structures to minimize this hazard. For these reasons, no impacts
associated with naturally occurring asbestos or radon would be expected to occur.
The transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials by developers, contractors,
business owners, and others are required to comply with federal, state, and local
regulations during project construction and operation. Facilities that use hazardous
materials are required to obtain permits from the EPA under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, which gives the EPA the authority to control the
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste.
Additionally, the hazardous materials regulations included in federal law govern the
transportation of hazardous materials. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration issues regulations concerning highway routing of hazardous materials,
hazardous materials endorsements for a commercial driver’s license, highway
hazardous material safety permits, and financial responsibility requirements for motor
carriers of hazardous materials. Locally, the Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health is the CUPA for Riverside County and is responsible for
consolidating, coordinating, and making consistent the administrative requirements,
permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of state standards regarding the
transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials in Riverside County. In
addition, General Plan Safety Element Policy 1.5 directs the City to consult with the
Coachella Valley Emergency Managers Association and the Coachella Valley
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-12 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Association of Governments (CVAG) to maintain and update the City’s Emergency
Operations Plan, and maintain disaster preparedness plans for evacuation and supply
routes, communications networks, and critical facilities’ capabilities. Further, Policy 1.3
directs the City to consult with agencies and partners to provide public education
materials on safe locations and evacuation routes in case of emergency or a hazardous
event.
Compliance with and enforcement of existing laws and regulations concerning the
upset and/or accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment,
supported by implementation of the General Plan update policies, would ensure that
the general public would not be exposed to any unusual or excessive risks related to
accidental upset and/or release of hazardous materials into the environment. The
impact is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.8-3
Emission or Handling of Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials,
Substances, or Waste within One-Quarter Mile of an Existing or
Proposed School. Adoption and implementation of the General Plan
update could result in development of uses that would emit or handle
hazardous waste in proximity to new or existing schools. Compliance
with existing regulations would reduce the risk of emissions or the
handling of hazardous materials near schools to a less than significant
level.
Future land uses consistent with the General Plan update could include commercial
uses within one-quarter mile of existing and new schools. However, the California
Department of Education establishes standards for school sites pursuant to Education
Code Section 17251 and adopts school site regulations, which are contained in the
California Code of Regulations, Title 5, commencing with Section 14001. The
regulations define certain health and safety requirements for school site selection,
including a potential school site’s proximity to airports, high-voltage power
transmission lines, railroads, and major roadways. Regulations regarding the
placement of schools also restrict the presence of toxic and hazardous substances and
hazardous facilities and hazardous air emissions within one-quarter mile of a proposed
school site. In addition, as required by Education Code Section 17213, the written
findings of the environmental impact report or negative declaration prepared for a
proposed school site must include a statement verifying that the site is not currently
or was not formerly a hazardous, acutely hazardous substance release, or solid waste
disposal site or, if so, that the wastes have been removed. Also, the written findings
must state that the site does not contain pipelines which carry hazardous wastes or
substances other than a natural gas supply line to that school or neighborhood. If
hazardous air emissions are identified, the written findings must state that the health
risks do not and will not constitute an actual or potential danger of public health of
students or staff. If corrective measures of chronic or accidental hazardous air
emissions are required under an existing order by another jurisdiction, the governing
board of the school district(s) serving the General Plan Update area is required to
make a finding that the emissions have been mitigated prior to occupancy of the
school.
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.8-13
The DTSC’s School Property Evaluation and Cleanup Division is responsible for
assessing, investigating, and cleaning up proposed school sites. The division ensures
that proposed school sites are free of contamination or, if the properties were
previously contaminated, that they have been cleaned up to a level that protects the
students and staff who will occupy the new school. All proposed school sites that will
receive state funding for acquisition or construction are required to go through a
rigorous environmental review and cleanup process under the DTSC’s oversight (DTSC
2014a).
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15186, School
Facilities, requires that school projects, as well as projects proposed to be located near
schools, examine potential health impacts resulting from exposure to hazardous
materials, wastes, and substances. Furthermore, permitting requirements for
individual hazardous material handlers or emitters, including enforcement of Public
Resources Code Section 21151.4, would require evaluation and notification where
potential hazardous materials handling and emissions could occur in proximity to
existing schools. Since any future placement of schools would be required to comply
with state statutory and regulatory requirements addressing safety from hazards,
including hazardous materials, impacts from the placement of schools in the vicinity of
such hazards are anticipated to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.8-4
Safety Hazards to People Residing or Working Within 2 Miles of
Bermuda Dunes Airport. Adoption and implementation of the General
Plan update could result in an increase of people residing or working
within 2 miles of Bermuda Dunes Airport, which could result in a safety
hazard. However, implementation of the General Plan policies and
action would ensure site-specific constraints are taken into
consideration during development. This impact would be less than
significant.
Bermuda Dunes Airport is located in the Palm Desert SOI, as shown in Figure 8-1 of the
TBR (Appendix 4.0). As shown, some portions of the Sphere of Influence are located in
Compatibility Zones B1, B2, C, D, and E of the Bermuda Dunes Airport Influence Area,
which is regulated by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for
airport compatibility requirements. Implementation of the General Plan update could
result in the construction of residential, commercial, and industrial uses in proximity
to the airport. Safety hazards associated with airports are generally related to
construction of tall structures that could interfere with airplane flight paths or related
to an increase in the number of people working or residing in areas subject to crash
hazards.
The Airport Influence Area is the area in which current or future airport-related noise,
overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or
necessitate restrictions on those uses. Additionally, the Airport Influence Area may
preclude certain types of land uses in some compatibility zones. The Airport Influence
Area constitutes the area within which certain land use actions are subject to ALUC
review. Table 2A of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan – Volume
1 Policy Document outlines prohibited uses that correspond with each compatibility
zone (Riverside County ALUC 2004).
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-14 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
However, implementation of the proposed Safety Element policies would ensure
safety of people working or residing within 2 miles of Bermuda Dunes Airport. Safety
Element Policy 6.2 directs the City to adopt and implement airport compatibility zones
upon annexation of areas within the Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan Area. Policy 6.3 requires new development in the vicinity of the airport to
conform to the County’s airport land use and safety plans. Additionally, Policy 6.5
requires the Riverside County ALUC to review all new projects and projects proposing
to add square footage or change in building occupancy type within 2 miles of the
airport. Further, Policies 6.7 and 6.8 include residential density and nonresidential
intensity for development within the Airport Compatibility Zones and require the
range specified in Table 2A of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Therefore, compliance with existing regulations, supported by implementation of the
proposed policies associated with the General Plan update, would reduce
programmatic airport safety impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.8-5
Interference with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan. Adoption
and implementation of the General Plan update would create
additional traffic and future land uses requiring evacuation in the event
of an emergency. However, implementation of the General Plan
policies and actions would ensure conformance with countywide
emergency response programs and continued cooperation with
emergency response service providers. This impact would be less than
significant.
In the event of a hazardous material emergency, several agencies are responsible for
timely response. The Riverside County Fire Department and the Palm Desert Police
Department respond to large-scale, emergency hazardous material incidents within
the city boundaries. The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan specifies actions for the
coordination of operations, management, and resources during emergencies. The
proposed General Plan would not alter the city’s overall land use patterns or land use
designations to such an extent that they would conflict with either the Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan or the operations of local agencies.
Additionally, an efficient circulation system is vital for the evacuation of residents and
the mobility of fire suppression, emergency response, and law enforcement vehicles
during an emergency. Implementation of the updated General Plan would result in an
increased number of people who would require evacuation in case of an emergency.
Proposed General Plan Safety Element Policy 4.1 directs the City to maintain optimal
fire readiness and response service in coordination with Riverside County and other
agencies. Additionally, Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.40.040 establishes
minimum roadway widths for subdivision development. Minimum widths range from
24 to 106 feet, with standards that vary based on street parking characteristics. This
provision reduces risks associated with inadequate access by emergency responders.
Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not impair the City’s ability to
implement its emergency response plan or utilize its emergency evacuation routes. As
such, impacts would be less than significant.
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.8-15
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.8-6
Exposure of Structures to Urban and Wildland Fire. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update would increase population
located in proximity to wildlands, which would increase the risk from
potential wildland fires. However, implementation of the General Plan
actions would reduce the potential for exposure of people or structures to
wildland fires. This impact would be less than significant.
Areas at risk for extreme wildfires are designated by Cal Fire and include lands where
dense vegetation with severe burning potential is present. As shown in Figure 8-2 of
the TBR (Appendix 4.0), moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones are
located in the Planning Area, both within the existing city limits (local responsibility
area) and in the Sphere of Influence (state responsibility area). Portions of the
Planning Area to the north of I-10 contain moderate fire hazard severity zones. All of
the high and very high fire hazard severity zones are located in the southern portion of
the Planning Area, along with some limited moderate fire hazard severity zones along
the urban edge (Cal Fire 2007).
Hazards to life and property are affected by fire and by road access for evacuation, the
number of available firefighters, vegetation clearance around property, the availability
of water and water pressure, and the effectiveness of building and fire codes and
inspection of developments in areas of higher fire hazard. The Riverside County Fire
Department would increase involvement in the planning process to minimize impacts
in urbanized areas most at risk for structural fires, as well as in hillside areas where fire
has a greater potential to spread.
Several proposed policies would protect people and property from wildland fire
hazards. Safety Element Policy 4.1 directs the City to maintain optimal fire readiness
and response service in coordination with Riverside County and other agencies.
Policy 4.2 directs the City to adopt and implement fire mitigation standards for areas
designated by Cal Fire as high and very high fire hazard severity zones. Policy 4.3
requires new developments and homeowners associations to maintain brush
clearance criteria that meets 120 percent of the current state requirement for fire
hazard severity zones in the city.
Implementation of the proposed policies contained in the General Plan update and
compliance with existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations related to
wildland fire hazards would result in program-level impacts that would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
The cumulative setting for hazards associated with the General Plan update generally
consists of existing and future uses in Palm Desert. Cumulative impacts associated
with hazardous materials and human health risks from increased development may
include, but are not limited to, impacts on transportation, air quality, hydrology and
water quality, and biological resources. The cumulative impacts associated with these
potentially affected resources are analyzed in the applicable sections of this Draft EIR.
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-16 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
IMPACT
4.8-7
Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Material Impacts.
Implementation of the General Plan update, in addition to existing,
approved, proposed, and other reasonably foreseeable projects, would
not result in cumulative hazardous material and human health risk
impacts. The General Plan’s contribution to cumulative hazards and
hazardous materials impacts would be less than cumulatively
considerable.
As the city grows, more people may be exposed to hazards and hazardous materials
identified in the impact discussions above. However, exposure to existing known
hazardous materials is usually site specific and not cumulative in nature. Future
development consistent with the General Plan is required to follow policies that notify
the public of a proposed use that involves hazardous materials. Hazardous materials
use at a specific location is subject to state and federal regulations linked to the
material(s) involved. Transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, which, as previously discussed,
issues permits to and conducts inspections of businesses that use, store, or handle
quantities of hazardous materials and/or waste. The department also implements the
hazardous materials business plans that include an inventory of hazardous materials
used, handled, or stored at any business in Palm Desert.
Development consistent with the proposed General Plan would not typically result in
the additional exposure of people elsewhere in the cumulative setting area, nor would
development result in an increase in environmental hazards from pre-existing
hazardous materials or operations in the Planning Area.
Some hazard impacts can be considered cumulative. Increased commercial
development can create the potential for more transportation of hazardous materials
through a given area. An increase in the number of businesses commonly results in
additional storage, use, and the need for disposal of hazardous materials in the
common course of business. While the General Plan update includes the potential for
residential and commercial development, the increased storage, use, and disposal of
hazardous materials would be limited to small quantities associated with these types
of development.
While some cumulative impacts will occur as the area identified in the cumulative
setting continues to develop, several regulations, policies, and laws are in place that
will reduce the risk to people and structures in the region. Considering the protection
granted by local, state, and federal agencies and their requirements for development
and use of hazardous materials, the overall cumulative impact would not be
significant. By the same token, the General Plan’s incremental contribution to
cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than cumulatively
considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.8-17
References
Bermuda Dunes Airport. 2014. Airport Information. Accessed July 2014.
http://www.bermudadunesairport.com/airport-info/.
Cal Fire (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2004. Vegetation
Management Program. Accessed July 2014.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/resource_mgt/downloads/VMP2004.pdf.
———. 2007. Riverside County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Accessed July 2014.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_riversidewest.php.
———. 2012a. About Us. Accessed July 2014. http://calfire.ca.gov/about/about.php.
———. 2012b. Wildland Urban Building Codes. Accessed July 2014.
http://calfire.ca.gov/fire_protection/fire_protection_wildland.php.
———. 2013a. 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California. Accessed July 2014.
http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/fireplan/fireplanning.php.
———. 2013b. Pipeline Safety Division. Accessed July 2014.
http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/pipeline/pipeline.php.
CGS (California Geological Survey). 2016. Asbestos. Accessed June 2016.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/hazardous_minerals/asbestos
DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2014a. EnviroStor.
Accessed July 2014. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
———. 2014b. Registered Hazardous Waste Transporter Database. Accessed July
2014. https://dtsc.ca.gov/database/Transporters/index.cfm.
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2016.Radon. https://www.epa.gov/radon
———. 2014. Superfund. Accessed July 2014.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm.
Forests and Rangelands. 2014. Previous Wildland Fire Management Initiatives.
Accessed July 2014. http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/overview/.
Palm Desert, City of. 2004. City of Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan.
———. 2010. City of Palm Desert Emergency Operations Plan.
———. 2012. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
PHMSA (US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration). 2012. National
Pipeline Mapping System Public Map Viewer. Accessed July 2014.
https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/.
———. 2014. PHMSA Updates. Accessed July 2014.
http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA.
RCFD (Riverside County Fire Department). 2014. Our Department. Accessed July 2014.
http://www.rvcfire.org/Pages/default.aspx.
Riverside County ALUC (Airport Land Use Commission). 2004. Riverside County Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan.
CHAPTER 4.8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-18 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2014. GeoTracker. Accessed July 2014.
http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.9-1
4.9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Introduction
This resource section evaluates the potential environmental effects related to
hydrology and water quality associated with implementation of the General Plan
update. The analysis includes a review of the watershed, surface water, groundwater,
flooding, tsunami, wave run-up, sea level rise, stormwater, and surface water and
groundwater quality. Water supply and wastewater treatment are discussed in Section
4.14, Public Services and Utilities of this EIR. Topics including erosion and
sedimentation are discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils. Issues regarding
wetlands and waters of the United States are discussed in Section 4.5, Biological
Resources, and contamination from hazardous materials is discussed in Section 4.8,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Policies and implementation actions from the
General Plan update guide development and infrastructure practices to protect
surface water and groundwater from degradation associated with runoff and
pollution, reduce water consumption, and protect against flooding hazards.
NOP Comments: One comment letter from the Floodplain Management and Insurance
Branch was received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) addressing
hydrology and water quality concerns. The comment, dated August 24, 2015, requests
the review of the current effective countywide Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for
the Riverside County and Palm Desert. A response to this comment is included below.
Reference Information: Information for this resource section is based on numerous
references, including the General Plan Update Technical Background Report (TBR) and
other publicly available documents. The TBR prepared for the project is attached to
this EIR as Appendix 4.0. The EIR, including the Technical Background Report, is also
available electronically on the City’s website (http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-
city/general-plan-update).
Environmental Setting
Section 9 of Appendix 4.0 describes in detail the regional and local hydrology as well
as the groundwater hydrology of the Planning Area. Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) flood zones are described and mapped. Surface water and
groundwater quality are also discussed. Key findings from the Technical Background
Report are summarized below.
Hydrology
Surface Water: Limited surface water is available in the winter and spring months
from the Whitewater River, Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, Ramon Creek, Bruce
Creek, Dead Indian Creek, and Cat Creek, as well as a number of smaller creeks and
washes. The majority of local surface water is derived from runoff from the San
Bernardino and San Jacinto mountains, with lesser amounts from the Santa Rosa
Mountains. This runoff either percolates in the streambeds or is captured in
mountain-front debris basins where it recharges the groundwater basin. According to
the estimates developed for the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan
(CVWMP) update, an average of approximately 44,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of
surface water recharges the Whitewater River subbasin. With the change in surface
water use, the long-term average surface water available for recharge is estimated to
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
be about 46,400 AFY. In 2009, surface water supplied less than 1 percent of the total
water supply to the West Valley to meet urban and golf course demands. Figure 9-1 of
the TBR (Appendix 4.0) shows the existing surface water in the city and Sphere of
Influence (SOI). The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District are responsible for the management of
regional drainage within and in the vicinity of Palm Desert, including rivers, major
streams and their tributaries, and areas of significant sheet flooding. Regional drains in
the city and SOI include the Whitewater Channel (called the Coachella Valley
Stormwater Channel south of the city and SOI), the Palm Valley Channel, and the Mid-
Valley Regional Channel. Figure 9-2 of the TBR (Appendix 4.0) shows the network of
drainage lines.
Groundwater: The Planning Area is in the Whitewater River (Indio) subbasin of the
Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. CVWD provides domestic water services to Palm
Desert using wells to extract groundwater from the subbasin. The groundwater supply
of the Whitewater River subbasin consists of a combination of natural runoff, inflows
from adjacent basins, returns from groundwater, recycled water, and imported water
use. The supply is supplemented with artificial recharge with imported State Water
Project Exchange and Colorado River water. Total inflows and outflows to the West
Valley of the Whitewater River subbasin for the year 2013 are summarized in Table
4.9-1. The natural inflow of 36,000 AFY includes natural replenishment and flow across
subbasin boundaries. The nonconsumptive return of applied water is estimated at
63,698 acre-feet, which is 35 percent of the reported production of 181,994 AFY. The
total inflow includes the natural inflow, the nonconsumptive return, and the 26,620
acre-feet of actual water replenished. The total outflow is the reported groundwater
production plus 7,000 AFY of natural outflow.
Table 4.9-1 Annual Water Balance in the West Valley Portion of
the Whitewater River Subbasin
Item Annual Calculation (AF) 2013
Groundwater Production -181,994
Non-consumptive return (1) 63,698
Natural inflow (2) 36,000
Natural outflow (3) -7,000
Groundwater replenishment (4) 26,620
Annual balance (5) -62,676
Source: Coachella Valley Water District 2014
(1) Based on 35 percent of production (181,994 AF x 0.35 = 63,698 AF).
(2) Natural replenishment and flows across subbasin boundaries (USGS 1992).
(3) Subsurface flows to the east portion of the Whitewater River subbasin (USGS 1992).
(4) Water delivered to the Whitewater Groundwater Replenishment Facility.
(5) This is a decrease in stored groundwater equal to 0.22 percent of the subbasin’s storage
capacity
Overdraft: In 2013, the annual water balance for the West Valley portion of the
Whitewater River subbasin was negative, constituting an increase in the cumulative
overdraft. Imported water may offset groundwater overdraft in a particular year.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.9-3
However, on a long-term basis, water requirements are likely to continue to place
demands on groundwater in storage. The 2010 CVWMP update outlines a plan to
address long-term overdraft in the Coachella Valley.
Groundwater Storage: In 1964, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
estimated that the subbasins in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin contained, in
the first 1,000 feet below the ground surface, approximately 39,200,000 acre-feet of
water. The capacities of the subbasins are shown in Table 4.9-2.
Table 4.9-2 Estimated Groundwater Storage Capacity of the
Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin
Subbasin Estimated Groundwater Storage Capacity
San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin 2,700,000
Mission Creek Subbasin 2,600,000
Desert Hot Springs Subbasin 4,100,000
Garnet Hill Subbasin 1,000,000
Subtotal 10,400,000
Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin
Palm Springs Subarea 4,600,000
Thousand Palms Subarea 1,800,000
Oasis Subarea 3,000,000
Thermal Subarea 19,400,000
Subtotal Whitewater River Subbasin 28,800,000
Total All Subbasins 39,200,000
Source: Coachella Valley Water District 2014
1. First 1,000 feet below ground surface (DWR 1964).
Stormwater Runoff: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
implements the federal Clean Water Act and was adopted in 1990. The NPDES
mandates that plans and programs for stormwater management be developed,
adopted, and implemented to assure that municipalities “effectively prohibit non-
stormwater discharge into storm drains, and requires controls to reduce the discharge
of pollutants from stormwater systems to waters of the United States to the maximum
extent possible.” Pollutant control measures are exempt from California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis. The City of Palm Desert is a co-permittee
with the County of Riverside, CVWD, Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, and municipalities in the Whitewater River subbasin for NPDES
management. The Palm Desert Public Works Department manages the City’s NPDES
program.
Dam Failure: The city and SOI do not include water reservoirs or dams subject to
failure; however, the Wide Canyon Dam located in Fun Valley has the potential to
inundate portions of the Coachella Valley. The Wide Canyon Dam is an earthfill dam,
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
built in 1968, with a dam height of 84 feet and storage of 1,490 acre-feet, and is
maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
The statutes governing dam safety are defined in Division 3 of the California Water
Code. It empowers the California Division of Safety of Dams to monitor the structural
safety of dams that are greater than 25 feet in dam height or 50 acre-feet in storage
capacity.
Flood Hazards: Potential flooding problems in Palm Desert are associated with storm
flows in the Whitewater River and its tributaries, flooding on the alluvial fans, and
runoff associated with the Indio Hills and the foothills of the San Bernardino and Little
San Bernardino mountains. Floods that impact the city can be attributed to three
types of storm events: general winter storms, combining high-intensity rainfall and
rapid melting of the mountain snowpack; tropical storms out of the southern Pacific
Ocean; and summer thunderstorms. A summer storm poses a greater threat of
flooding to the valley than a winter storm because of its high intensity and short
duration of rainfall. The eccentricity of this type of storm can be characterized by the
impact of the September 1976 summer-type storm, which resulted in no significant
damage to Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, and La Quinta, yet caused extensive damage
to Palm Desert. Most of the rainfall in the region occurs during the cooler months of
November through March, but occasional high-intensity thunderstorms and tropical
storms occur in late summer and early fall. Although the ground may be generally dry
at the beginning of a storm, sufficient amounts and intensities of rainfall can saturate
the surface, substantially reducing percolation and increasing runoff. Figure 9-3 of the
TBR (Appendix 4.0) illustrates FEMA’s 100-year flood zone areas for Palm Desert. A
100-year flood is an event that has a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year.
Most of the portion of the city and SOI north of Interstate 10 is in a 100- or 500-year
(0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year) flood zone. The Palm Valley
Stormwater Channel and the Whitewater River are in a 100-year flood zone. In
addition, a small portion of the city and SOI near the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel
is in a 500-year flood zone.
Water Quality
Surface Water
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies impaired bodies of surface
water under federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d). Impairment is measured
by total maximum daily load (TMDL), which is the maximum amount of a pollutant
that a body of water can receive while still meeting water quality standards. There are
currently no impaired bodies of surface water within the city and SOI.
Groundwater
Groundwater quality in the Coachella Valley varies with depth, proximity to faults,
presence of surface contaminants, proximity to recharge basins, and other
hydrogeologic or cultural features. Colorado River water used for direct delivery and
recharge in the Coachella Valley has higher total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations
on average than most of the local groundwater. Based on historical and projected
variations in Colorado River water quality, the TDS range for the State Water Project
(SWP) Exchange water recharged at the Whitewater River Recharge Facility is 530 to
750 milligrams per liter (mg/L), averaging 636 mg/L since 1973.
The use of Colorado River water for groundwater recharge increases salinity in the
Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. Increased salinity has been observed in wells
near the Whitewater River Recharge Facility, which services the West Valley.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.9-5
The CVWD 2010 Water Management Plan identifies current and emerging
groundwater quality issues including salinity (as discussed above), arsenic,
perchlorate, chromium-6, uranium, nitrate, carcinogens, and endocrine-disrupting
compounds. CVWD continually monitors each of these issues to ensure water quality
in the Coachella Valley.
Regulatory Setting
Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies pertain to hydrology and water
quality in the Planning Area. They provide the regulatory framework for addressing all
aspects of hydrology and water quality that would be affected by implementation of
the General Plan update. The regulatory setting for hydrology and water quality is
discussed in detail in Chapter 9 of the TBR (Appendix 4.0). Key regulations used to
reduce the potential impacts of the General Plan update are summarized below.
Federal
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 is the primary federal law that governs and
authorizes the EPA and the states to implement activities to control water quality. The
following sections outline the various water quality elements of the CWA that apply to
the General Plan update.
Water Quality Criteria and Standards. The EPA is the federal agency with
primary authority for implementing regulations adopted under the Clean
Water Act. The EPA has delegated to the State of California the authority to
implement and oversee most of the programs authorized or adopted for CWA
compliance through the State’s Porter-Cologne Act, described below. Under
federal law, the EPA has published water quality regulations under Volume 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations. CWA Section 303 requires states to adopt
water quality standards for all surface waters in the United States. As defined
by the CWA, water quality standards consist of the designated beneficial uses
of the water body in question and criteria that protect the designated uses.
Section 304(a) requires the EPA to publish advisory water quality criteria that
accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all
effects on health and welfare that may be expected from the presence of
pollutants in water. Where multiple uses exist, water quality standards must
protect the most sensitive use.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program. The CWA
established the NPDES permit program to regulate municipal and industrial
discharges to surface waters. A discharge from any point source is unlawful
unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit. Federal NPDES
permit regulations have been established for broad categories of point source
discharges including industrial wastewater, municipal wastewater, and point
sources of stormwater runoff, including municipal separate storm sewer
systems and industrial stormwater, which includes construction sites. NPDES
permits generally establish effluent and receiving water limits on allowable
concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the
discharge, prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the
permit, and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger,
including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring, and
other activities. The City of Palm Desert is a co-permittee with the County of
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Riverside, CVWD, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District, and municipalities within the Whitewater River Basin for NPDES
management. The City Public Works Department manages the City’s NPDES
program. The City of Palm Desert is regulated because its stormwater is
managed as part of a large, interconnected flood control system operated by
the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
Construction sites in the Planning Area that disturb 1 acre or more must
obtain coverage under the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit.
Currently no industrial facilities in the Planning Area are subject to the
statewide NPDES Industrial General Permit. The Regional Water Quality
Control Boards implement the NPDES permit system (see additional
information under the State subsection below). The Planning Area is within
the jurisdiction of the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB).
Section 401 Water Quality Certification or Waiver. Under Section 401 of the
CWA, an applicant for a Section 404 permit (to discharge dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States) must first obtain a certificate from
the appropriate state agency stating that the fill is consistent with the state’s
water quality standards and criteria. In California, the nine Regional Water
Quality Control Boards have the authority to grant water quality certification
or waive requirements.
Section 303(d) Impaired Waters List. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires
states to develop lists of water bodies that would not attain water quality
objectives after implementation of required levels of treatment by point-
source dischargers (municipalities and industries). Section 303(d) requires
that the state develop a TMDL for each of the listed pollutants. As noted
previously, the TMDL is the amount of loading that the water body can
receive and still be in compliance with water quality objectives. The TMDL can
also act as a plan to reduce loading of a specific pollutant from various
sources to achieve compliance with water quality objectives. The State-
prepared TMDL must include an allocation of allowable loadings to point and
nonpoint sources, with consideration of background loadings (sources of
naturally occurring pollutants) and a margin of safety. The TMDL must also
include an analysis that shows links between loading reductions and the
attainment of water quality objectives. NPDES permit limits for listed
pollutants must be consistent with the waste load allocation prescribed in the
TMDL. After implementation of a TMDL, it is intended that the problems
which led to placement of a given pollutant on the Section 303(d) list would
be remediated.
National Flood Insurance Program
FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program to provide subsidized flood
insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development in
floodplains. FEMA also issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) identifying land
areas subject to flooding. These maps provide flood information and identify flood
hazard zones communities. FEMA established the design standard for flood protection
in areas covered by FIRMs, with the minimum level of flood protection for new
development determined to be a 1-in-100 probability of annual exceedance (i.e., the
100-year flood event). As developments are proposed and constructed, FEMA is also
responsible for issuing revisions to FIRMs, such as Conditional Letters of Map Revision
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.9-7
and Letters of Map Revision through the local agencies that work with the National
Flood Insurance Program.
US Army Corps of Engineers
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for issuing permits for the
placement of fill or discharge of material into waters of the United States. These
permits are required under Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404. Water supply
projects that involve stream construction, such as dams or other types of diversion
structures, trigger the need for these permits and related environmental reviews by
the USACE. The USACE also is responsible for flood control planning and assisting state
and local agencies with the design and funding of local flood control projects.
State
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
In California, the SWRCB has broad authority over issues related to controlling water
quality for the state. The SWRCB is responsible for developing statewide water quality
policy and exercises the powers delegated to the state by the federal government
under the Clean Water Act. Regional authority for planning, permitting, and
enforcement is delegated to the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards
(RWQCBs). The regional boards are required to formulate and adopt basin plans for all
areas in the region and establish water quality objectives in the plans. California water
quality objectives (or “criteria” under the CWA) are found in the basin plans adopted
by the SWRCB and each of the nine regional boards. In 2006, the SWRCB adopted
Order Number 2006-003 establishing General Waste Discharge Requirements for all
publicly owned or operated sanitary sewer systems in California. The waste discharge
requirements require owners and operators of sewer collection systems to report
sanitary sewer overflows using the California Integrated Water Quality System and to
develop and implement a Sewer System Management Plan. Section 4.14, Public
Services and Utilities, of this EIR addresses wastewater treatment issues and the state
regulations that apply to the demonstration of adequate water supply for the future
water demands associated with implementation of the General Plan update.
Title 22 Standards
California’s drinking water quality standards are contained in Title 22 of the California
Code of Regulations. Water quality standards are enforceable limits composed of two
parts: the designated beneficial uses of water and criteria (i.e., numeric or narrative
limits) to protect those beneficial uses. Municipal and domestic supply is among the
beneficial uses defined in Section 13050(f) of the Porter-Cologne Act as uses of surface
water and groundwater that must be protected against water quality degradation.
Drinking water maximum contaminant levels directly apply to water supply systems
“at the tap” (i.e., at the point of use by consumers in, for example, their home and
office) and are enforceable by the State. When fully health-protective, maximum
contaminant levels may also be used to interpret narrative water quality objectives
prohibiting toxicity to humans in water designated as a source of drinking water in the
basin plan.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Act is California’s statutory authority for the protection of water
quality. Under the act, the State must adopt water quality policies, plans, and
objectives that protect the state’s waters for the use and enjoyment of the people.
The act sets forth the obligations of the SWRCB and the RWQCBs to adopt and
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
periodically update basin plans. Basin plans are the regional water quality control
plans required by both the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Act in which
beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and implementation programs are
established for each of the nine regions in California. The act also requires waste
dischargers to notify the RWQCBs of their activities through the filing of reports of
waste discharge and authorizes the SWRCB and the RWQCBs to issue and enforce
waste discharge requirements (WDR), NPDES permits, Section 401 water quality
certifications, or other approvals. The RWQCBs also have authority to issue waivers to
reports of waste discharge and/or waste discharge requirements for broad categories
of “low threat” discharge activities that have minimal potential for adverse water
quality effects when implemented according to prescribed terms and conditions.
Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan
The city and SOI are in the Colorado River Basin RWQCB, which is responsible for the
preparation and implementation of the water quality control plan for the Colorado
River Basin. The basin plan defines the beneficial uses, water quality objectives,
implementation programs, and monitoring and assessment programs for the waters in
the region.
California State Nondegradation Policy
In 1968, the SWRCB adopted a nondegradation policy aimed at maintaining high
quality for waters in California. The nondegradation policy states that the disposal of
wastes into state waters shall be regulated to achieve the highest water quality
consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state and to promote the
peace, health, safety, and welfare of the people of California. The policy provides as
follows:
Where the existing quality of water is better than required under existing
water quality control plans, such quality would be maintained until it has
been demonstrated that any change would be consistent with maximum
benefit to the people of the state and would not unreasonably affect present
and anticipated beneficial uses of such water.
Any activity which produces waste or increases the volume or concentration
of waste and which discharges to existing high-quality waters would be
required to meet waste discharge requirements, which would ensure (1)
pollution or nuisance would not occur and (2) the highest water quality
consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state would be
maintained.
NPDES Permit System and Waste Discharge Requirements for Construction
The SWRCB and the Colorado River Basin RWQCB have adopted specific NPDES
permits for a variety of activities that have potential to discharge wastes to waters of
the State. The SWRCB General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2009-0009-Division of Water
Quality) applies to all land-disturbing construction activities that would affect 1 acre or
more. The Colorado Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board has issued a general
NPDES permit and general WDRs governing construction-related discharges in the
Colorado Basin RWQCB’s jurisdictional area (Colorado Basin RWQCB Order No. R7-
2015-0006, NPDES No. CAG997001 for low threat discharges to surface waters).
Activities subject to the NPDES general permit for construction activity must develop
and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP includes
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.9-9
a site map and description of construction activities and identifies the best
management practices (BMPs) that will be employed to prevent soil erosion and
discharge of other construction-related pollutants, such as petroleum products,
solvents, paints, and cement that could contaminate nearby water resources.
California Toxics Rule (CTR) and State Implementation Plan (SIP)
The CTR was issued in 2000 in response to requirements of the EPA National Toxics
Rule and establishes numeric water quality criteria for approximately 130 priority
pollutant trace metals and organic compounds. The CTR criteria are regulatory criteria
adopted for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries in California that are
subject to Clean Water Act Section 303(c). The CTR includes criteria for the protection
of aquatic life and human health. Human health criteria (water- and organism-based)
apply to all waters with a Municipal and Domestic Water Supply Beneficial Use
designation as indicated in the basin plans.
Municipal Stormwater Permit Program
The SWRCB Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program regulates stormwater
discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4). The current MS4
permit requires the discharger to develop and implement a stormwater management
plan/program with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants in stormwater to
the maximum extent practicable (MEP). The MEP is the performance standard
specified in Clean Water Act Section 402(p). The management programs specify what
BMPs will be used to address certain program areas.
Urban Water Management Act
Each urban water supplier in California is required to prepare an urban water
management plan (UWMP) and update the plan on or before December 31 in years
ending in 5 and 0, pursuant to California Water Code Sections 10610–10657, as last
amended by Senate Bill (SB) 318 (Chapter 688, Statutes of 2004), the Urban Water
Management Planning Act. SB 318 is the eighteenth amendment to the original bill
requiring an UWMP, which was initially enacted in 1983. The city and SOI are included
in the CVWD Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (2012).
Recycled Wastewater Requirements
Wastewater recycling in California is regulated under California Code of Regulations
Title 22, Division 4, under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Public
Health. The intent of these regulations is to ensure protection of public health
associated with the use of recycled water. The regulations establish acceptable levels
of constituents in recycled water for a range of uses and prescribe means for ensuring
reliability in the production of recycled water. Using recycled water for nonpotable
uses is common throughout the state and is an effective means of maximizing use of
water resources. The Colorado River Basin RWQCB establishes water reclamation
requirements under the Title 22 regulations and is responsible for implementing
wastewater recycling projects.
Regional
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin
The city and SOI are under the jurisdiction of the Colorado River Basin RWQCB, which
is responsible for the preparation and implementation of the water quality control
plan for the basin. The basin plan defines the beneficial uses, water quality objectives,
implementation programs, and monitoring and assessment programs for the waters in
the region.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin (Basin Plan): The Water
Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin designates beneficial uses for water
bodies in the Palm Desert region and establishes water quality objectives and
implementation plans to protect those beneficial uses. Specifically, the Basin Plan
designates beneficial uses for surface water and groundwater; sets narrative and
numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated
beneficial uses and conform to the state's anti-degradation policy; describes
implementation programs to protect the beneficial uses of all waters in the region;
and describes surveillance and monitoring activities to evaluate the effectiveness of
the Basin Plan.
The Colorado River Basin RWQCB issues permits, called waste discharge requirements
and master reclamation permits, which require that waste and reclaimed water not be
discharged in a manner that would cause an exceedance of applicable water quality
objectives or adversely affect beneficial uses designated in the Basin Plan. The
Colorado River Basin RWQCB enforces these permits through a variety of
administrative means. Table 4.9-3 lists beneficial uses of the receiving waters in the
Salton Sea watershed.
Table 4.9-3 Beneficial Uses for the Receiving Waters for the
Salton Sea Watershed
Beneficial Uses
Water Body
Whitewater River Snow Creek Colorado River
MUN X X X
AGR X X
AQUA X
IND X X
GWR X X X
REC-1 X X X
REC-2 I X
WARM X X
COLD X X
WILD X X X
POW X X
RARE X
Source: Colorado River Basin RWQCB, 2014
Notes: X = Existing Beneficial Use; I = Intermittent Beneficial Use
As listed in Table 4.9-3, beneficial uses include the following:
Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN) – Uses of water for community,
military, or individual water supply systems including, but not limited to,
drinking water supply.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.9-11
Agricultural Supply (AGR) – Includes uses of water for farming, horticulture,
or ranching including, but not limited to, irrigation, stock watering, or support
of vegetation for range grazing.
Aquaculture (AQUA) - Uses of water for aquaculture or mariculture
operations including, but not limited to, propagation, cultivation,
maintenance, or harvesting of aquatic plants and animals for human
consumption or bait purposes.
Industrial Service Supply (IND) – Uses of water for industrial activities that do
not depend primarily on water quality including, but not limited to, mining,
cooling water supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel washing, fire protection,
or oil well re-pressurization.
Groundwater Recharge (GWR) – Uses of water for natural or artificial
recharge of groundwater for purposes of future extraction, maintenance of
water quality, or halting of saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers.
Water Contact Recreation (REC-1) – Uses of water for recreational activities
involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably
possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading,
water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, whitewater activities, fishing, or
use of natural hot springs.
Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC-2) – Uses of water for recreational
activities involving proximity to water, but not normally involving body
contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These
uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking,
beachcombing, camping, boating, tidepool and marine life study, hunting,
sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities.
Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM) – Uses of water that support warm water
ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of
aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates.
Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD) – Includes uses of water that support cold
water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement
of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates.
Wildlife Habitat (WILD) – Uses of water that support terrestrial ecosystems
including, but not limited to, preservation and enhancement of terrestrial
habitats, vegetation, wildlife (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians,
invertebrates), or wildlife water and food sources.
Hydropower Generation (POW) – Uses of water for hydropower generation.
Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species (RARE) – Waters that support the
habitats necessary for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or
animal species designated under state or federal law as rare, threatened, or
endangered.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-12 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Local
City of Palm Desert Municipal Code
Chapter 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. The purpose of this
chapter is to ensure the future health, safety, and general welfare of city citizens by:
Regulating non-stormwater discharges to the municipal separate storm drain.
Controlling the discharge to municipal separate storm drains from spills,
dumping, or disposal of materials other than stormwater.
Reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent
practicable.
The intent of this chapter is to protect and enhance the water quality of city
watercourses, water bodies, groundwater, and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and
consistent with the Clean Water Act.
Title 28, Flood Damage Prevention. Title 28 seeks to promote the public health,
safety, and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood
conditions in specific areas. This title requires an applicant to obtain a development
permit before any construction or other development begins within any area of
special flood hazard.
Comprehensive Storm Drain Master Plan
The Palm Desert Comprehensive Storm Drain Master Plan, prepared in March 1993, is
a strategy for the construction, maintenance and funding of storm drainage
improvements in the city. It has been implemented by the Master Drainage Plan
ordinance and serves as the operational tool for technical guidelines and developer
requirements regarding site retention or installation specifics.
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
The Coachella Valley Regional Management Group is a collaborative effort led by the
five water purveyors in the Coachella Valley to develop an Integrated Regional Water
Management Plan to address the valley’s water resources planning needs.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
The analysis of impacts is based on the likely consequences of adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update compared to existing conditions. The
following analysis of impacts on hydrology and water quality is qualitative and based
on available hydrologic and water quality information for the Planning Area along with
a review of regional information. The analysis assumes that all future and existing
development in the Planning Area complies with applicable laws, regulations, and
plans. An analysis of cumulative impacts uses qualitative information for the Planning
Area and the Whitewater River (Indio) subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater
Basin.
Draft General Plan Update Policies and Implementation Actions
General Plan update policies and implementation actions that reduce potential
hydrology and water quality impacts include the following.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.9-13
Policies
Public Utilities & Services Element
Policy 1.1: Stormwater infrastructure for new development. Require
development projects pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or
improvements necessitated by that development (regional shallow
groundwater).
Policy 1.2: On-site stormwater retention and infiltration. Whenever
possible, stormwater shall be infiltrated, evapotranspirated, reused or
treated on-site in other ways that improve stormwater quality and reduce
flows into the storm drain system.
Policy 1.3: Groundwater infiltration. Encourage the use of above-ground and
natural stormwater facilities in new development and redevelopment, such
as vegetated swales and permeable paving.
Policy 1.4: Stormwater re-use and recycling. Encourage innovative ways of
capturing and reusing stormwater for non-drinking purposes to reduce the
use of potable drinking water.
Policy 1.5: Recycled water. Work with the CVWD to encourage existing golf
courses to connect to its recycled water system.
Policy 1.6: Collaborative stormwater management. Encourage collaborative,
integrated stormwater management between multiple property owners and
sites.
Policy 1.7: Low impact development. Require the use of low-impact
development strategies to minimize urban run-off, increase site infiltration,
manage stormwater and recharge groundwater supplies.
Policy 1.8: Green infrastructure in public rights-of-way. Encourage green
streets with in-street bio-retention and other forms of stormwater retention
and infiltration in streets and public rights-of-way.
Policy 1.9: Regional and local collaboration. Collaborate with Thousand
Palms, Rancho Mirage, Cahuilla Hills, Bermuda Dunes, and agencies in the
watershed to reduce and remove contaminants from stormwater runoff.
Policy 1.10: Stormwater in urban context. Development projects shall
incorporate stormwater management into landscaping, except in downtown
designations where catch basins shall be prohibited.
Policy 1.11: Water quality detention basins. Require water detention basins
to be aesthetically pleasing and to serve recreational purposes, such as in the
form of a mini park. Detention basins designed for active uses are intended to
supplement park and open space and should not be counted towards a
developer’s minimum park requirements, unless otherwise determined by
the Planning Commission or City Council.
Policy 1.12: Retention basins. Encourage storm water retention basins,
especially in the City Center Area, to be underground in future development
so as to achieve the most efficient use of land and compact development and
promote the urban character goals of the General Plan.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-14 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Policy 1.13: Soil erosion. Require the prevention of water-born soil erosion
from sites, especially those undergoing grading and mining activities.
Safety Element
Policy 1.1: Hazards Information. Establish and maintain a database
containing maps and other information that identifies and describes the
community’s hazards.
Policy 1.2: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Maintain and regularly update the
City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) as an integrated component of the
General Plan, in coordination with Riverside County and other participating
jurisdictions, to maintain eligibility for maximum grant funding.
Policy 1.3: Hazards Education. Consult with agencies and partners to provide
public education materials on safe locations and evacuation routes in case of
emergency or hazardous event.
Policy 1.4: Critical Facilities. Prepare existing critical facilities for resilience to
hazards and develop new facilities outside of hazard-prone areas.
Policy 1.5: Emergency Plans and Processes. Consult with the Coachella Valley
Emergency Managers Association and CVAG to maintain and update the
City’s Emergency Operations Plan, and maintain disaster preparedness plans
for evacuation and supply routes, communications networks, and critical
facilities’ capabilities.
Policy 1.6: Utility Reliability. Coordinate with providers and agencies
including the CVWD and Southern California Edison for access to reliable
utilities and water supply to minimize potential impacts of hazards and
emergencies to pipelines and infrastructure.
Policy 3.1: Flood Risk in New Development. Require all new development to
minimize flood risk with siting and design measures, such as grading that
prevents adverse drainage impacts to adjacent properties, on-site retention
of runoff, and minimization of structures located in floodplains.
Policy 3.2: Flood Infrastructure. Require new development to contribute to
funding regional flood control infrastructure improvements.
Policy 3.3: Stormwater Management. Monitor, update, and enforce
stormwater management plans in coordination with regional agencies,
utilities, and other jurisdictions.
Policy 3.4: Open Space for Flood Control. Prioritize open space or uses that
serve recreational purposes as a preferred land use within areas of high flood
risk.
Policy 3.5: Dam Failure. Disseminate information on dam inundation areas
subject to potential risks of flooding in the event of dam failure or seismic
hazard, including preparation for seiche events, which can be caused by
seismic events and consist of the occurrence of a standing wave that
oscillates in a body of water, such as a dam.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.9-15
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 1.1: Water conservation technologies. Promote indoor and outdoor
water conservation and reuse practices including water recycling, grey water
re-use and rainwater harvesting.
Policy 1.2: Landscape design. Encourage the reduction of landscaping water
consumption through plant selection and irrigation technology.
Policy 1.3: Conservation performance targeted to new construction.
Incentivize new construction to exceed the state’s Green Building Code for
water conservation by an additional 10 percent.
Policy 1.4: Greywater. Allow the use of greywater and establish criteria and
standards to permit its safe and effective use (also known as on-site water
recycling).
Policy 1.5: Waterways as amenities. When considering development
applications and infrastructure improvements, treat waterways as amenities,
not hazards, and encourage designs that embrace the waterways.
Implementation Actions
Public Utilities & Services Element
Action 2.46. Coordinate with FEMA, state agencies, Riverside County, and
other jurisdictions to understand potential changes to the extent or severity
of flood hazards based on the impacts of a changing climate.
Action 2.47. Prohibit development in the 100-year floodplain, unless
adequate flood mitigation is provided on-site as well as downstream of the
project area.
Action 2.48. Monitor and update the floodplain management ordinance and
continue participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Action 2.49. Continue to maintain and enforce regulations and guidelines for
the development and maintenance of project-specific on-site retention/
detention basins to control stormwater and implement the NPDES program,
including measures to enhance groundwater recharge, complement regional
flood control facilities, and address applicable community design policies.
Action 2.50. Identify opportunities for creative public projects that provide
“proof of concept” for innovative dual-use and stormwater management
while also addressing risks to floods.
Safety Element
Action 2.38. Update the City’s public GIS database with information on the
extent and potential impact of seismic, geotechnical, fire, and flood hazards
occurring in the city and the SOI. All future developments will be required to
submit their data for incorporation into this database.
Action 4.16. Update and enforce Title 28 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
to integrate and account for FEMA flood maps, as necessary.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-16 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Environmental Resources Element
Action 3.1. Support and expand programs to educate and incentivize the
community on water conservation practices for landscaping
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, impacts on hydrology and water quality are considered
significant if adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would:
Threshold Determination
1. Violate water quality standards and waste
discharge requirements
Less Than Significant
2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level
Less Than Significant
3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial on- or off-site
erosion or siltation
Less Than Significant
4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in on- or off-site
flooding
Less Than Significant
5. 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
Less Than Significant
6. Substantially degrade water quality Less Than Significant
7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map
Less Than Significant
8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows
Less Than Significant
9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam
Less Than Significant
10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow Less Than Significant
11. Cumulative effects Less Than Cumulatively
Considerable
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.9-17
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.9-1
Violate Water Quality Standards and Waste Discharge Requirements.
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would
potentially increase the amount of impervious surface in the Planning
Area, thereby increasing the total volume and peak discharge rate of
stormwater runoff and associated pollutants. Construction activities
resulting from implementation of the General Plan update could also
increase the amount of sediments and pollutants in stormwater runoff.
However, implementation of the General Plan update policies and
implementation actions and enforcement of existing grading, erosion,
and flood control regulations would result in a less than significant
impact.
Urban runoff (both dry and wet weather) discharges into storm drains and, in most
cases, flows directly to creeks, rivers, lakes, and the ocean. Polluted runoff can have
harmful effects on drinking water, recreational water, and wildlife. Urban runoff
pollution includes a wide array of environmental, chemical, and biological compounds
from both point and nonpoint sources. In the urban environment, stormwater
characteristics depend on site conditions (e.g., land use, impervious cover, pollution
prevention, types and amounts of best management practices), rain events (duration,
amount of rainfall, intensity, and time between events), soil type and particle sizes,
multiple chemical conditions, the amount of vehicular traffic, and atmospheric
deposition. Major pollutants typically found in runoff from urban areas include
sediments, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, heavy metals, petroleum
hydrocarbons, pathogens, and bacteria.
Urban runoff can be divided into two categories: dry and wet weather urban runoff.
Dry weather urban runoff occurs when there is no precipitation-generated
runoff. Typical sources include landscape irrigation runoff, driveway and
sidewalk washing, noncommercial vehicle washing, groundwater seepage,
fire flow, potable water line operations and maintenance discharges, and
permitted or illegal non-stormwater discharges.
Wet weather urban runoff refers collectively to nonpoint source discharges
that result from precipitation events. Wet weather runoff includes
stormwater runoff. Stormwater discharges are generated by runoff from land
and impervious areas such as building rooftops and paved streets and parking
lots.
Wet and dry weather runoff typically contains similar pollutants of concern. However,
except for the first flush concentrations following a long period between rainfall, the
concentration levels found in wet weather flows are typically lower than levels found
in dry weather flows because the larger wet weather flows dilute the amount of
pollution in runoff waters. Most urban stormwater discharges are considered
nonpoint sources and are regulated by an NPDES Municipal General Permit or
Construction General Permit.
A net effect of development can be to increase pollutant export over naturally
occurring conditions. The impact of the higher export can be on the adjacent streams
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-18 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
and also on the downstream receiving waters. However, an important consideration in
evaluating stormwater quality from a project is to assess whether it impairs the
beneficial use to the receiving waters. Receiving waters can assimilate a limited
quantity of various constituent elements; however, there are thresholds beyond which
the measured amount becomes a pollutant and results in an undesirable impact. For
this evaluation, impacts to stormwater quality would be considered significant if the
project did not attempt to address stormwater pollution to the maximum extent
practicable.
Short-Term Construction
Construction associated with development under the General Plan update would
consist of grading and vegetation removal activities that could increase soil erosion
rates on the areas proposed for development. During construction activities, erosion
potential and the possibility of water quality impacts are always present and occur
when protective vegetative cover is removed and soils are disturbed. Construction
activities can result in sediment runoff rates that greatly exceed natural erosion rates
of undisturbed lands, causing siltation and impairment of receiving waters. In addition
to sediment, stormwater flowing over a construction site can carry various pollutants
such as nutrients, bacteria and viruses, oil and grease, heavy metals, organics,
pesticides, gross pollutants, and miscellaneous waste into receiving waters. These
pollutants can originate from soil disturbances, construction equipment, building
materials, and workers.
Potential grading for development associated with the updated General Plan, along
with other construction activities, may introduce sediments and other contaminants
typically associated with construction into stormwater runoff, potentially resulting in
the degradation of downstream surface water and groundwater. The General Plan
update has the potential to result in the generation of new dry weather runoff
containing these pollutants and to increase the concentration and/or total load of the
pollutants in wet weather stormwater runoff. Dry weather urban runoff in the storm
drain system occurs when there is no measurable precipitation. It originates from
human activities, including car washing, landscape irrigation, street washing,
dewatering during construction activities, and natural groundwater seepage that
discharges to the storm drain system. Dry weather urban runoff can contain high
levels of pollutants, as the water typically flows over paved or highly developed
surfaces.
The SWRCB is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act and has issued a
Statewide General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-
DWQ) for construction activities in the state (see the Regulatory Setting subsection
above). In Palm Desert, the Construction General Permit (CGP) is implemented and
enforced by the Colorado River Basin RWQCB. In accordance with the requirements of
the CGP, prior to construction of any project, a risk assessment must be prepared and
submitted to the Colorado River Basin RWQCB to determine the project’s risk level
and associated water quality control requirements. These requirements will, at a
minimum, include the preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution
prevention plan identifying specific BMPs to be implemented and maintained in order
to comply with the applicable narrative effluent standards.
The best management practices that must be implemented as part of a SWPPP can be
grouped into two major categories: (1) erosion and sediment control BMPs and
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.9-19
(2) non-stormwater management and materials management BMPs. Erosion and
sediment control BMPs fall into four main subcategories:
Erosion controls
Sediment controls
Wind erosion controls
Tracking controls
Erosion controls include practices to stabilize soil, to protect the soil in its existing
location, and to prevent soil particles from migrating. Examples of erosion control
BMPs are preserving existing vegetation, mulching, and hydroseeding. Sediment
controls are practices to collect soil particles after they have migrated, but before the
sediment leaves the site. Examples of sediment control BMPs are street sweeping,
fiber rolls, silt fencing, gravel bags, sand bags, storm drain inlet protection, sediment
traps, and detention basins. Wind erosion controls prevent soil particles from leaving
the site in the air. Examples of wind erosion control BMPs include applying water or
other dust suppressants to exposed soils on the site. Tracking controls prevent
sediment from being tracked off site via vehicles leaving the site to the extent
practicable. A stabilized construction entrance not only limits the access points to the
construction site but also functions to partially remove sediment from vehicles prior to
leaving the site.
Non-stormwater management and material management controls reduce non-
sediment-related pollutants from potentially leaving the construction site to the
extent practicable. The Construction General Permit prohibits the discharge of
materials other than stormwater and authorized non-stormwater discharges (such as
irrigation and pipe flushing and testing). Non-stormwater BMPs tend to be
management practices with the purpose of preventing stormwater from coming into
contact with potential pollutants. Examples of non-stormwater BMPs include
preventing illicit discharges and implementing good practices for vehicle and
equipment maintenance, cleaning, and fueling operations, such as using drip pans
under vehicles. Waste and materials management BMPs include implementing
practices and procedures to prevent pollution from materials used on construction
sites. Examples of materials management BMPs include:
Good housekeeping activities such as storing of materials covered and
elevated off the ground, in a central location
Securely locating portable toilets away from the storm drainage system and
performing routine maintenance
Providing a central location for concrete washout and performing routine
maintenance
Providing several dumpsters and trash cans throughout the construction site
for litter/floatable management
Covering and/or containing stockpiled materials and overall good
housekeeping on the site
The Construction General Permit also requires that construction sites be inspected
before and after storm events and every 24 hours during extended storm events. The
purpose of the inspections is to identify maintenance requirements for the BMPs and
to determine the effectiveness of the BMPs that are being implemented. The SWPPP is
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-20 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
a “living document” and as such can be modified as construction activities progress.
Additional requirements include compliance with post-construction standards
focusing on low impact development (LID) and preparation of rain event action plans.
The SWRCB has also issued a Statewide General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ as
amended by 2010-0014-DWQ) for dewatering and other low-threat discharges to
surface waters in the state. Should construction of a proposed project require
dewatering, the project applicant would be required to submit a Notice of Intent, as
well as a BMP Plan, to comply with the general permit. The BMP Plan would include
disposal practices to ensure compliance with the general permit, such as the use of
sediment basins or traps, dewatering tanks, or gravity or pressurized bag filters.
Monitoring and reporting would also be performed to ensure compliance with the
permit.
Project Operation
Runoff from urban land use typically contains oils, grease, fuel, antifreeze, and
byproducts of combustion (such as lead, cadmium, nickel, and other metals), as well as
nutrients from fertilizers, sediment, pesticides, herbicides, and other pollutants. Also,
sizable quantities of animal waste from pets contribute bacterial pollutants into
surface and source waters. Precipitation during the early portion of the wet season
displaces these pollutants into stormwater runoff, resulting in high pollutant
concentrations in the initial wet weather runoff. This initial runoff, containing peak
pollutant levels, is referred to as the “first flush” of storm events. It is estimated that
during the rainy season, the first flush of heavy metals and hydrocarbons would occur
during the first inches of seasonal rainfall.
The amount and type of runoff generated by land uses in the city with implementation
of the updated General Plan may be greater than that under existing conditions due to
increases in impervious surfaces. An increase in impervious surface area would
substantially increase runoff potentially containing urban pollutants and first flush
roadway contaminants such as heavy metals, oil and grease, and nutrients (i.e.,
nitrates and phosphates). Additionally, runoff associated with landscaped areas
typically contributes pollutants from fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Expected
pollutants for the proposed project include sediment/turbidity, nutrients, organic
compounds (petroleum hydrocarbons), trash and debris, oxygen demanding
substances, bacteria and viruses, oil and grease, pesticides, and metals. These
constituents may result in water quality impacts to on- and off-site drainage flows and
to downstream area waterways.
As identified above, water in the Planning Area drains to the Salton Sea watershed, to
the receiving waters in Table 4.9-3. However, as discussed previously, there are no
impaired water bodies within the Planning Area.
To reduce urban runoff impacts associated with potential pollutants, the updated
General Plan contains policies with requirements that address surface water quality
impacts. For instance, Public Utilities & Services Element Policy 1.2 requires on-site
stormwater retention and infiltration to improve stormwater quality and reduce flows
into the storm drain system. Additionally, Policy 1.1 requires development projects to
pay for their fair share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements
necessitated by that development (regional shallow groundwater). Policy 1.4
encourages the reuse and recycling of stormwater for non-drinking purposes to
reduce the use of potable drinking water. Further, Policy 1.7 requires the use of low-
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.9-21
impact development strategies to minimize urban runoff, increase site infiltration,
manage stormwater and recharge groundwater supplies. Policy 1.10 requires
developers to incorporate stormwater management into landscaping.
City of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 24.20 establishes requirements for
stormwater and non-stormwater quality discharge and control by prohibiting
discharges of pollutants or waters containing pollutants that cause or contribute to a
violation of applicable water quality standards. In addition, a project-specific water
quality management plan (WQMP), in compliance with the Areawide Urban Runoff
Management Program, would be required. Compliance with Municipal Code Chapter
24.20 and adherence to policies contained in the General Plan update and to State
General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit requirements would result in
impacts to water quality that are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.9-2
Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Interfere with Groundwater
Recharge. Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update
would potentially increase the amount of impervious surface in the
planning area, thereby decreasing the area available to provide
groundwater recharge. However, the new areas of impervious surface
would be minimal, existing areas of open space would be preserved,
and implementation of General Plan update policies and
implementation actions would require an increase permeable area in
new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure investments,
resulting in a less than significant impact.
Palm Desert is in the service area of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), which
delivers a total potable water supply of 104,309 AFY and projected to deliver a total of
151,000 AFY in 2020. Water demand is met through local groundwater supplies.
CVWD does not rely on a wholesale agency for its urban water supply.
According to CVWD’s (2012) Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the
Whitewater River (Indio) subbasin has a total storage capacity of 28,800,000 acre-feet.
However, the amount of water in the basin has decreased over the years due to
pumping to serve urban, rural, and agricultural development in the Coachella Valley.
The groundwater basin is not adjudicated; rather, it is jointly managed by CVWD and
the Dessert Water Agency (DWA) under the terms of the 1976 Water Management
Agreement. DWA and CVWD jointly operate a groundwater replenishment program
whereby groundwater pumpers (other than minimal pumpers) pay a per-acre-foot
charge that is used to pay the cost of importing water and recharging the aquifer.
According to the California Department of Water Resources (2014), close to 90
percent of the groundwater used in California is extracted from only about 126 of the
515 alluvial groundwater basins. Some communities throughout the state rely solely
on groundwater sources, some rely solely on surface water, and some rely on both.
Based on average annual data for years 2005 to 2010, groundwater use was near 16.5
million acre-feet and accounted for 39 percent of the total water supply in California
(DWR 2014). In response to the current drought and as required by Governor’s
January 17, 2014, Emergency Drought Proclamation (Order Action 11), the DWR
prepared a groundwater report to identify groundwater basins with potential water
shortages and gaps in groundwater monitoring. According to the report, since spring
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-22 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
2008, groundwater levels have experienced all-time historical lows (for the period of
record) in most areas of the state and especially in the northern portion of the San
Francisco Bay Area Hydrologic Region, the southern San Joaquin Valley, and the South
Lahontan and South Coast hydrologic regions. Groundwater levels typically decline
during drought, and when groundwater levels decline below the level of the pump in a
water well, the pump must be lowered. If groundwater levels decline to the point
where the pump cannot be lowered, the yield is too small, or the well goes dry, a well
owner may need to deepen the existing well or potentially drill a new well (DWR
2014). The DWR analyzed available well completion reports for water wells that were
deepened from 2010 through early 2014. The analysis identified the location of each
well and determined whether the well is in a defined groundwater basin or in an area
of fractured bedrock. The analysis also determined whether the well is for domestic
use, irrigation, or public water supply.
Additionally, of the 515 alluvial groundwater basins, 169 are fully or partially
monitored under the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation (CASGEM) Program.
The CASGEM basin prioritization process was developed to assess and rank the alluvial
groundwater basins throughout the state. The basin prioritization process is based on
an evaluation of the eight required data components specified in the California Water
Code. As of December 2013, the draft basin prioritization results ranked 46 of the 515
alluvial groundwater basins as high priority, 80 as medium priority, 35 as low priority,
and 354 as very low priority. The CASGEM basin prioritization program identified that
a good portion of South Coast hydrologic region is ranked as high priority or medium
priority. The DWR is working cooperatively with monitoring entities to improve the
existing statewide CASGEM monitoring network and reduce data gaps.
Development that could result from implementation of the updated General Plan may
create areas of new impervious surface that would no longer serve as locations for
infiltration of water to recharge the underlying Whitewater River (Indio) subbasin of
the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin.
However, multiple General Plan update policies and implementation actions would
maintain and enhance groundwater recharge occurring in the Planning Area. Public
Utilities & Services Element Policy 1.3 encourages the use of aboveground and natural
stormwater facilities in new development and redevelopment, such as vegetated
swales and permeable paving. Policy 1.7 requires the use of low-impact development
strategies to minimize urban runoff, increase site infiltration, manage stormwater, and
recharge groundwater supplies. Action 2.49 continues to maintain and enforce
regulations and guidelines for the development and maintenance of project-specific
on-site retention/detention basins to control stormwater and implement the NPDES
program, including measures to enhance groundwater recharge, complement regional
flood control facilities, and address applicable community design policies.
Because of the minimal amount of new impervious surfaces that would result with
implementation of the General Plan update, the rate of infiltration needed to support
groundwater recharge would not be substantially decreased. Additionally,
implementation of General Plan update policies and actions would maintain and
protect groundwater recharge resources. Therefore, this impact would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.9-23
IMPACT
4.9-3
Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern of the Site or Area
so as to Result in Substantial On- or Off-Site Erosion or Siltation.
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update could
increase the amount of impervious surface in the Planning Area,
thereby increasing the total volume and peak discharge rate of
stormwater runoff and the potential for erosion and sedimentation.
However, implementation of General Plan update policies and
implementation actions and enforcement of existing grading, erosion,
and flood control regulations would result in a less than significant
impact.
Proposed project land use policies are based on long-established existing land use
patterns and promote the redevelopment of existing urbanized areas. Multiple
General Plan policies would increase stormwater infiltration, manage stormwater in a
more comprehensive way, and reduce erosion and sedimentation in the planning
area. Public Utilities & Services Element Policy 1.1 requires development projects to
pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements necessitated by
that development. Policy 1.2 recommends that whenever possible, stormwater shall
be infiltrated, evapotranspirated, reused, or treated on-site in other ways that
improve stormwater quality and reduce flows into the storm drain system.
Furthermore, Policy 1.3 encourages the use of aboveground and natural stormwater
facilities in new development and redevelopment, such as vegetated swales and
permeable paving. Policy 1.7 requires the use of low-impact development strategies to
minimize urban runoff, increase site infiltration, manage stormwater, and recharge
groundwater supplies. Additionally, Policy 1.13 requires the prevention of water-
borne soil erosion from sites, especially those undergoing grading and mining
activities. Safety Element Policy 3.3 requires the monitoring, updating, and enforcing
of stormwater management plans in coordination with regional agencies, utilities, and
other jurisdictions.
In addition to the policies listed above, the General Plan update contains
implementation actions intended to mitigate erosion and sedimentation impacts.
Action 2.49 continues to maintain and enforce regulations and guidelines for the
development and maintenance of project-specific on-site retention/ detention basins
to control stormwater and implement the NPDES program, including measures to
enhance groundwater recharge, complement regional flood control facilities, and
address applicable community design policies.
Existing requirements and regulations, as well as the General Plan update policies and
implementation actions, would reduce the amount of surface water runoff in the
Planning Area. Compliance with these regulations and the minimal amount of new
surface runoff that would result from implementation of the General Plan update
would minimize the potential for existing drainage patterns to be altered in a manner
that could cause increased erosion or sedimentation. Therefore, this impact would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-24 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
IMPACT
4.9-4
Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern of the Site or Area
so as to Result in On- or Off-Site Flooding. Adoption and
implementation of General Plan update could increase the amount of
impervious surface in the planning area, thereby increasing the total
volume and peak discharge rate of stormwater runoff and the
potential for flooding. However, implementation of General Plan
update policies and implementation actions and enforcement of
existing grading, erosion, and flood control regulations would result in
a less than significant impact.
The drainage systems and patterns of the area are not anticipated to be substantially
altered because of the existing built-out conditions of the city, plans for new
development to focus on infill locations, and programs to require on-site retention
and infiltration of stormwater. Thus, very small amounts of new impervious surface
would result with implementation of the updated General Plan, and the minimal
amount of newly generated surface runoff would not be of the volume or magnitude
necessary to alter drainage patterns of the area. Additionally, the minimal amounts of
new surface runoff would not substantially add to an increased risk of flooding.
Existing requirements and regulations, as well as General Plan update policies and
implementation actions, would reduce the amount of surface water runoff. Multiple
General Plan update policies would increase stormwater infiltration, manage
stormwater in a more comprehensive way, and reduce erosion and sedimentation in
the planning area. Public Utilities & Services Element Policy 1.1 requires development
projects to pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements
necessitated by that development. Policy 1.2 recommends that whenever possible,
stormwater shall be infiltrated, evapotranspirated, reused, or treated on-site in other
ways that improve stormwater quality and reduce flows into the storm drain system.
Furthermore, Policy 1.3 encourages the use of aboveground and natural stormwater
facilities in new development and redevelopment, such as vegetated swales and
permeable paving. Policy 1.6 encourages collaborative, integrated stormwater
management between multiple party owners and sites. Additionally, Policy 1.7
requires the use of low-impact development strategies to minimize urban runoff,
increase site infiltration, manage stormwater, and recharge groundwater supplies.
Policy 1.10 requires that development projects incorporate stormwater management
into landscaping, except in downtown designations where catch basins shall be
prohibited. Safety Element Policy 3.3 requires the monitoring, updating, and enforcing
of stormwater management plans in coordination with regional agencies, utilities, and
other jurisdictions.
In addition to the policies listed above, the General Plan update contains
implementation actions intended to mitigate erosion and sedimentation impacts.
Action 2.49 continues to maintain and enforce regulations and guidelines for the
development and maintenance of project-specific on-site retention/ detention basins
to control stormwater and implement the NPDES program, including measures to
enhance groundwater recharge, complement regional flood control facilities, and
address applicable community design policies.
Compliance with these regulations and the minimal amount of new surface runoff that
would result from implementation of General Plan update would minimize the
potential for existing drainage patterns to be altered in a manner that could cause
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.9-25
increased on- or off-site flooding. Therefore, this impact would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.9-5
Create or Contribute Runoff Water Exceeding the Capacity of Existing
or Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems or Providing Substantial
Additional Sources of Polluted Runoff. Adoption and implementation
of General Plan update would increase the amount of impervious
surface in the Planning Area, thereby increasing the total volume of
stormwater runoff that could exceed the capacity of stormwater
drainage systems or create substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff. However, implementation of General Plan update policies and
implementation actions and enforcement of existing grading, erosion,
and flood control regulations would result in a less than significant
impact.
A minimal amount of new runoff would be created by implementation of the General
Plan update because most new development would consist of infill or redevelopment
in areas currently urbanized with impervious surfaces. Site redevelopment may
provide opportunities to create new permeable surfaces through new landscaping and
use of porous pavements, potentially reducing the amount of runoff and associated
pollutants. Because the volume of new runoff generated by implementation of the
General Plan update would be minimal, it would not likely exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.
Construction activities may result from development associated with implementation
of the General Plan update and generate the potential for increased pollutants in
runoff or add substantial sources of polluted runoff. However, regulatory
requirements would serve to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and pollutants
generated by new development. Specifically, projects would be required to comply
with NPDES requirements. Mandatory compliance would control construction
activities and minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the degradation of water
quality. These requirements would include BMPs appropriate to reduce the overall
discharge volume and amount of pollutants in stormwater.
Additionally, multiple General Plan update policies would minimize runoff and protect
water quality. Public Utilities &Services Element Policy 1.1 requires development
projects pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements
necessitated by that development (regional shallow groundwater). Policy 1.2 requires
that whenever possible, stormwater shall be infiltrated, evapotranspirated, reused, or
treated on-site in other ways that improve stormwater quality and reduce flows into
the storm drain system. Policy 1.3 encourages the use of aboveground and natural
stormwater facilities in new development and redevelopment, such as vegetated
swales and permeable paving. Additionally, Policy 1.4 encourages innovative ways of
capturing and reusing stormwater for non-drinking purposes to reduce the use of
potable drinking water. Policy 1.6 encourages collaborative, integrated stormwater
management between multiple property owners and sites. Policy 1.7 requires the use
of low-impact development strategies to minimize urban runoff, increase site
infiltration, manage stormwater, and recharge groundwater supplies. Furthermore,
Policy 1.10 requires development projects to incorporate stormwater management
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-26 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
into landscaping, except in downtown designations where catch basins shall be
prohibited. Policy 1.12 encourages stormwater retention basins, especially in the City
Center area, to be underground in future development so as to achieve the most
efficient use of land and compact development and promote the urban character
goals of the General Plan. In the Safety Element, Policy 3.3 requires the monitoring,
updating, and enforcing of stormwater management plans in coordination with
regional agencies, utilities, and other jurisdictions. Action 2.49 requires the
continuation of maintaining and enforcing regulations and guidelines for the
development and maintenance of project-specific on-site retention/detention basins
to control stormwater and implement the NPDES program, including measures to
enhance groundwater recharge, complement regional flood control facilities, and
address applicable community design policies. Action 2.50 requires identification
opportunities for creative public projects that provide “proof of concept” for
innovative dual-use and stormwater management while also addressing risks to
floods.
Because only small areas of new impervious surface would result from development
associated with implementation of the plan, the increased volumes or rates of
discharge and associated pollutants in runoff would be minimal. Additionally,
adherence to applicable water quality regulations and implementation of General Plan
Update policies and implementation actions would minimize the potential to create or
contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.9-6
Substantially Degrade Water Quality. Adoption and implementation
of the General Plan update could result in development that would
increase pollutants and cause degradation of water quality during
construction activities or long-term operation. However,
implementation of General Plan update policies and implementation
actions and enforcement of existing grading, erosion, and flood control
regulations would result in a less than significant impact.
Implementation of the General Plan update has the potential to result in development
that could increase pollutants during both construction and operation. However,
development is required to comply with multiple regulations and legal requirements
regarding the protection of water quality, and best management practices must be
implemented to ensure water quality is not degraded during construction or long-
term operation. As described in the Regulatory Setting subsection above, multiple
water quality protection laws, regulations, and permitting requirements serve to
minimize the potential to degrade water quality.
Additionally, multiple General Plan update policies and implementation actions reduce
the potential to degrade water quality and require steps to improve water quality.
Public Utilities &Services Element Policy 1.2 states that whenever possible,
stormwater shall be infiltrated, evapotranspirated, reused, or treated on-site in other
ways that improve stormwater quality and reduce flows into the storm drain system.
Policy 1.7 requires the use of low-impact development strategies to minimize urban
runoff, increase site infiltration, manage stormwater and recharge groundwater
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.9-27
supplies. Additionally, Policy 1.9 requires collaboration with Thousand Palms, Rancho
Mirage, Cahuilla Hills, Bermuda Dunes, and agencies in the watershed to reduce and
remove contaminants from stormwater runoff. Policy 1.11 requires water detention
basins to be aesthetically pleasing and to serve recreational purposes, such as in the
form of a mini-park.
Adherence to required water quality control permits and requirements and
implementation of the General Plan update policies and implementation actions
would reduce the potential for future development to degrade water quality.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.9-7
Place Housing within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area. Adoption and
implementation of General Plan update would not place housing within
a 100-year flood hazard area. Additionally, the General Plan update
includes policies and implementation actions to decrease exposure to
and impact from flood hazards throughout the city. Therefore, this
impact would be less than significant.
Flooding may occur when streams and channels overflow as a result of excessive
precipitation, storm runoff, or inadequate, undersized, or unmaintained storm
drainage infrastructure. As described previously, FEMA mapping delineates areas
located in flood hazard zones. New development in the watershed could potentially
result in housing located in 100-year flood hazard areas, or new or redeveloped
housing may continue to be allowed in flood hazard areas in other jurisdictions. As
shown in Figure 9.3 (FEMA Flood Zones), 100-year flood zones are found along the
Whitewater Channel, at the Ironwood Country Club and into and through the Dead
Indian Creek and Canyons at Bighorn, and the very southeastern portion of the City.
These locations are either already developed as golf courses/country clubs or are
zoned open space.
However, all future projects, regardless of jurisdiction, would be required to comply
with regulatory requirements related to floodplain development. FEMA has
established the design standard for flood protection in areas covered by Flood
Insurance Rate Maps, with the minimum level of flood protection for new
development determined to be within a 100-year flood hazard area. The California
Building Code also contains requirements for constructing structures in flood hazard
zones. Required compliance with these regulations and building codes would minimize
risk due to the placement of housing in flood hazard zones, thereby reducing the
potential impact.
Additionally, multiple General Plan update policies and implementation actions would
minimize flooding potential and reduce hazards associated with flooding, and future
development would be required to comply with flood hazard development regulations
and requirements. For example, Public Utilities & Services Element Action 2.47
prohibits development in the 100-year floodplain, unless adequate flood mitigation is
provided on-site as well as downstream of the project area.
Therefore, the General Plan update’s contribution to impacts related to the placement
of housing in flood hazard areas would not be considerable, and the impact would be
less than significant.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-28 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.9-8
Place within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area Structures That Would
Impede or Redirect Flood Flows. Adoption and implementation of the
General Plan update could allow development or expansion of facilities
to support coastal access in the 100-year flood hazard area. However,
implementation of General Plan update policies and implementation
actions and adherence to development regulations specific to flood
hazard areas would result in a less than significant impact.
As described in the TBR (Appendix 4.0, Figure 9-3), most of the portion of the city and
SOI north of Interstate 10 is in a 100- or 500-year flood zone. The Palm Valley
Stormwater Channel and the Whitewater River are in a 100-year flood zone. In
addition, a small portion of the city and SOI near the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel
is in a 500-year flood zone.
General Plan update policies and implementation actions would minimize flooding
potential and hazards. Safety Element Policy 1.2 requires maintaining and regularly
updating the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as an integrated component of the
General Plan, in coordination with Riverside County and other participating
jurisdictions, to maintain eligibility for maximum grant funding. Public Utilities &
Service Element Action 2.46 requires coordination with FEMA, state agencies,
Riverside County, and other jurisdictions to understand the potential changes to the
extent or severity of flood hazards based on the impacts of a changing climate. Action
2.47 prohibits development in the 100-year floodplain, unless adequate flood
mitigation is provided on-site as well as downstream of the project area. Furthermore,
Action 2.48 monitors and updates the floodplain management ordinance and
continues participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Because the General Plan update would continue existing land use patterns and any
new development would be required to comply with flood hazard development
regulations and requirements, implementation of the updated General Plan would not
substantially redirect or impede flood flows due to placement of structures in flood
hazard areas. Additionally, General Plan update policies and implementation actions
would minimize flooding potential and flood hazards. Therefore, this impact would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.9-9
Expose People or Structures to a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury, or
Death Involving Flooding. Adoption and implementation of the
General Plan update would not allow habitable development in
locations designated as 100-year flood hazard areas, which generally
precludes loss, injury, or death from flooding, including flooding from
the failure of a dam or levee. Implementation of General Plan update
policies and implementation actions and adherence to development
regulations specific to flood hazard areas would result in a less than
significant impact.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.9-29
New development would be required to comply with regulations and building
standards for flood hazard areas. Thus, increased exposure to flood hazards that might
result in significant loss, injury, or death would be minimized.
Furthermore, General Plan update policies and implementation actions would
minimize flooding potential and hazards. Safety Element Policy 1.2 requires
maintaining and regularly updating the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as an
integrated component of the General Plan, in coordination with Riverside County and
other participating jurisdictions, to maintain eligibility for maximum grant funding.
Additionally, Policy 1.3 requires consultation with agencies and partners to provide
public education materials on safe locations and evacuation routes in case of
emergency or hazardous event. Policy 1.5 requires consultation with the Coachella
Valley Emergency Managers Association and the Coachella Valley Association of
Governments (CVAG) to maintain and update the City’s Emergency Operations Plan,
and maintain disaster preparedness plans for evacuation and supply routes,
communication networks, and critical facilities’ capabilities. Policy 3.1 requires all new
development to minimize flood risk with siting and design measures, such as grading
that prevents adverse drainage impacts to adjacent properties, on-site retention of
runoff, and minimization of structures located in floodplains. Additionally, Policy 3.2
requires new developments to contribute to funding regional flood control
infrastructure improvements. Policy 3.3 requires the monitoring, updating, and
enforcing of stormwater management plans in coordination with regional agencies,
utilities, and other jurisdictions. Policy 3.4 prioritizes open space or uses that serve
recreational purposes as a preferred land use within areas of high flood risk. Policy 3.5
requires the dissemination of information on dam inundation areas subject to
potential risks of flooding in the event of dam failure or seismic hazard, including
preparation for seiche events, which can be caused by seismic events and consist of
the occurrence of a standing wave that oscillates in a body of water, such as a dam.
Public Utilities & Safety Element Action 2.46 requires coordination with FEMA, state
agencies, Riverside County, and other jurisdictions to understand the potential
changes to the extent or severity of flood hazards based on the impacts of a changing
climate. Action 2.47 prohibits development in the 100-year floodplain, unless
adequate flood mitigation is provided on-site as well as downstream of the project
area. Action 2.48 monitors and updates the floodplain management ordinance and
continue participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Adherence to development requirements and regulations in flood hazard areas
throughout the watershed, and implementation of General Plan update policies and
implementation actions, would reduce the potential for loss, injury, or death from
flooding, including flooding from the failure of a dam or levee. The General Plan
update would not result in new situations where increased loss, injury, or death from
flooding would be substantial. Therefore, the updated General Plan’s contribution to
this impact would not be considerable, and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-30 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
IMPACT
4.9-10
Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow. Adoption and
implementation of General Plan update would allow continued
development in locations that may be subject to inundation by tsunami
or mudflow. However, implementation of General Plan update policies
and implementation actions would result in a less than significant
impact.
The northwestern portion of the city is in proximity to the Salton Sea. While there
have been a number of seismic events since the formation of the Salton Sea, no
significant seiches have occurred to date. However, a seiche could occur in the Salton
Sea under the appropriate seismic conditions. The closest tsunami-producing body of
water is the Pacific Ocean, which is located approximately 70 miles from Palm Desert.
Mudflows can develop when water accumulates in the ground during periods of heavy
rainfall and results in a flowing river of mud, rock, and other materials. The risk of
mudflow inundation is a relatively site-specific impact and is generally dependent on
the immediate development in the area and on the specific hillside. As such, the
potential for inundation by seiche or mudflow is very small and the potential for
inundation by tsunami is nonexistent.
The General Plan update includes policies and implementation actions to mitigate,
prepare for, and respond to seiche and mudflow-related inundation. For example,
Safety Element Policy 3.5 requires the dissemination of information on dam
inundation areas subject to potential risks of flooding in the event of dam failure or
seismic hazard, including preparation for seiche events, which can be caused by
seismic events and consist of the occurrence of a standing wave that oscillates in a
body of water, such as a dam. Additionally, Action 2.38 requires an update of the
City’s public GIS database with information on the extent and potential impact of
seismic, geotechnical, fire, and flood hazards occurring in the city and the SOI. All
future developments will be required to submit their data for incorporation into this
database. Therefore, the General Plan update’s contribution to inundation impacts
from seiches, tsunamis, and mudflows would not be considerable, and the impact
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Water quality and hydrology are not confined by jurisdictional boundaries; rather,
they are dependent on the regional watershed and hydrologic conditions in
surrounding areas. When analyzing cumulative impacts to water quality and
hydrology, it is necessary to consider upstream and downstream areas and water
bodies that could influence or be influenced by actions in the Planning Area. Thus, the
watershed is the general area of influence used in analysis of cumulative impacts for
this topic.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.9-31
IMPACT
4.9-11
Cumulative Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update in addition to potential
regional growth would increase the amount of impervious surface in
the watershed, alter drainage conditions, rates, volumes, and water
quality, which could result in potential erosion, flooding, and water
quality impacts in the overall watershed. However, with
implementation of the General Plan update policies and
implementation actions and compliance with existing regulations, this
impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable.
Implementation of the General Plan update has the potential to result in development
that could create increased pollutants during both construction and operation.
However, development is required to comply with multiple regulations and legal
requirements regarding the protection of water quality, and best management
practices must be implemented to ensure water quality is not degraded during
construction or long-term operation. Additionally, multiple General Plan update
policies and implementation actions reduce the potential to degrade water quality and
require steps to improve water quality. Adherence to required water quality control
permits and requirements and implementation of the General Plan update policies
and implementation actions would reduce the potential for future development to
degrade water quality. In addition, development that could result from
implementation of the updated General Plan may create areas of new impervious
surface that would no longer serve as locations for infiltration of water to recharge the
underlying Whitewater River (Indio) subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater
Basin. Multiple General Plan update policies and implementation actions would
maintain and enhance groundwater recharge in the Planning Area. Because of the
minimal amount of new impervious surface that would result with implementation of
the General Plan update, the rate of infiltration needed to support groundwater
recharge would not be substantially decreased. Additionally, implementation of
General Plan update policies and actions would maintain and protect groundwater
recharge resources.
The land use policies in the General Plan update are based on long-established existing
land use patterns and promote the redevelopment of existing urbanized areas.
Multiple General Plan update policies would increase stormwater infiltration, manage
stormwater in a more comprehensive way, and reduce erosion, sedimentation, and
potential flooding in the Planning Area. Compliance with regulations and the General
Plan update would minimize the potential for existing drainage patterns to be altered
in a manner that could cause increased erosion, sedimentation, or the likelihood of
flooding. Therefore, impacts associated with hydrology and water quality are less than
cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.9: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-32 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
References
Colorado River Basin RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2014. Water
Quality Control Plan (Colorado River Basin – Region 7).
CVWD (Coachella Valley Water District). 2012. Coachella Valley Water Management
Plan.
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2014. Report to the Governor’s
Drought Task Force—Groundwater Basins with Potential Water Shortages and
Gaps in Groundwater Monitoring.
http://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/docs/Drought_Response-
Groundwater_Basins_April30_Final_BC.pdf.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2014. Flood Insurance Map,
Riverside County. Accessed July 16. https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/NFHL/.
CHAPTER 4.10: LAND USE AND PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.10-1
4.10. Land Use and Planning
Introduction
This resource chapter evaluates the potential environmental effects related to land
use and planning associated with implementation of the General Plan update. The
analysis includes a review of the updated General Plan for potential land use impacts
and consistency with existing regional land use plans and policies. Potential
inconsistencies between the General Plan update and the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP), Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and Compass
Blueprint, as well as airport land use consistency, are discussed in this chapter.
Policies and implementation actions from the updated General Plan Land Use &
Community Character Element guide land use decisions and future redevelopment in a
manner that provides living, working, and entertainment options in the Planning Area.
NOP Comments: No comment letters were received in response to the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) addressing land use concerns.
Reference Information: Information for this resource chapter is based on numerous
references, including the City of Palm Desert Technical Background Report (TBR) and
other publicly available documents. The TBR prepared for the project is attached to
this document as Appendix 4.0. The EIR, including the TBR, is also available
electronically on the City’s website (http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-
city/general-plan-update).
Environmental Setting
Section 10 of the TBR (Appendix 4.0) describes the existing land uses, General Plan
designations, zoning, past and future growth trends, recent and proposed
development projects, and an analysis of existing planning documents. Key findings in
the TBR are summarized below.
The Planning Area (City and SOI)
The Planning Area covers 42,488 acres (69.6 square miles), of which 17,226 acres are
within the corporate boundaries of the City of Palm Desert and 27,277 acres (42.6
square miles) are in the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence (SOI). The city is bordered by
cities of Rancho Mirage to the west and Indian Wells to the south and east, and by the
unincorporated community of Bermuda Dunes to the east.
The existing city limits generally extend southward from Interstate 10 (I-10), past
Highway 111 and along Route 74 to the foot of the Santa Rosa Mountains between
Monterey Avenue and Washington Street. The SOI encompasses areas to the north
and south of the city, including portions of the Santa Rosa Mountains south of the city
limits, Sun City Palm Desert north of I-10, and the unincorporated community of
Bermuda Dunes to the east. Figure 10.1 in the TBR depicts the Palm Desert city limits,
SOI, and location relative to other nearby cities or communities.
Existing Land Uses
Predominant land uses in the Palm Desert Planning Area include residential,
commercial, industrial, institutional, and open space.
CHAPTER 4.10: LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Low-density residential uses account for 50 percent of the land area in the city and are
distributed throughout the city. Low-density residential neighborhoods include both
traditional urban neighborhoods and residential planned developments surrounding
golf courses and other recreational amenities. Medium- and high-density uses are
generally concentrated along the city’s main thoroughfares, including Highway 111,
Washington Street, Country Club Drive, and in the University Park area, north of Frank
Sinatra Drive.
Regional and community commercial uses in Palm Desert are primarily concentrated
along Highway 111 and I-10. The city’s industrial and business park uses are located
along the Interstate 10 corridor and along Cook Street between Hovley Lane and the
Whitewater Storm Channel. Business park land uses account for 3 percent of the land
area in the Planning Area.
The majority of remaining vacant land with development potential in the city limits is
limited to the University Park Planning Area, located between Interstate 10 and Frank
Sinatra Drive. The development of the University Park Planning Area is likely to be
influenced by future expansion of the California State University, University of
California, and College of the Desert campuses, as well as nearby resort and
commercial developments.
Within the SOI, the predominant land use is Open Space-Public Reserves, which
accounts for 74 percent of the land area in the SOI, or approximately 20,090 acres.
The area surrounding Highway 111, the primary commercial corridor in Palm Desert,
includes a mix of Regional Commercial (C-R), Community Commercial (C-C), and Office
Professional (C-OP) uses. Other uses along Highway 111 include Resort/Hotel
Commercial (C-R/H) and High Density Residential (R-H). The El Paseo commercial
corridor and Westfield Palm Desert Shopping Center are major retail attractions in
Palm Desert, drawing shoppers from across the region.
Growth Patterns
Early development patterns in Palm Desert came in the form of traditional urban
neighborhoods surrounding Highway 111. Since city incorporation in 1973,
development patterns in Palm Desert have shifted toward larger master planned
communities, with a mix of single-family, apartment, and condominium residences.
Palm Desert’s largest period of growth occurred between 1980 and 2000. During that
time, the city grew from a community of 10,142 housing units to 28,021 housing units,
adding nearly 18,000 housing units, or an average of 900 housing units per year,
according to the TBR.
While single-family detached and attached housing units remain the predominant
housing type in Palm Desert, recent shifts in housing construction patterns and
preferences have resulted in larger numbers of multi-family housing units and mobile
homes in the city.
Regulatory Setting
Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies pertain to land use and
planning, including general plans, specific plans, and zoning ordinances. They provide
the regulatory framework for addressing aspects of land use planning that would be
affected by adoption and implementation of the General Plan update. The regulatory
CHAPTER 4.10: LAND USE AND PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.10-3
setting for land use is discussed in the TBR (Appendix 4.0). Key regulations used to
reduce environmental impacts are summarized below.
State
California Government Code
The California Government Code (Section 65300) describes the scope and authority of
local jurisdictions to prepare, adopt, and amend general plans. Communities prepare
general plans to guide the long-term physical development of the jurisdiction and any
land within the jurisdiction’s sphere of influence. At a minimum, the California
Government Code requires general plans to address land use, circulation, housing,
noise, conservation, open space, and safety issues.
Additionally, California Government Code assigns equal importance to each general
plan element and requires general plan elements to be internally and externally
consistent, meaning that policies between elements should not be in conflict with one
another, nor should subsequent plans or implementation programs, such as the
zoning ordinance, capital improvement plan, or specific plans, conflict with general
plan policies.
The land use portion of a general plan is expected to describe and identify the general
location and extent of uses of land for housing, business, industry, open space, public
facilities, and categories for public or private uses of land. The land use element is also
expected to establish and define population density and building standards for each
district and other territories covered by the plan.
California Building Code
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the
California Building Code (CBC) (California Code of Regulations, Title 24). The City of
Palm Desert enforces the CBC through its Municipal Code. The City Building Code
incorporates the CBC, including recent changes. The CBC is based on the Uniform
Building Code, which is used widely throughout the United States (generally adopted
on a state-by-state or district-by-district basis) and has been modified for conditions in
California. State regulations and engineering standards related to geology, soils, and
seismic activity in the Uniform Building Code are reflected in the CBC requirements.
Through the CBC, the State of California provides a minimum standard for building
design and construction.
Regional and Local
SCAG 2012–2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for
developing, implementing, and funding the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for the Southern California region, including the
counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The
most recent RTP/SCS was adopted in 2016 and prioritizes investment in land use,
housing, and transportation solutions to improve mobility, safety, air quality, and
financial challenges in the region. In Palm Desert, the lands surrounding Highway 111
and Interstate 10 were designated as high quality transit areas in the RTP/SCS.
CHAPTER 4.10: LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Riverside County General Plan
The Riverside County General Plan provides a countywide vision and a set of goals and
policies to manage the growth and preservation of both the natural and built
environments of the unincorporated areas of Riverside County, including areas within
the Palm Desert SOI though outside of the city limits. Both the City of Palm Desert and
the County of Riverside have given land use designations to unincorporated areas in
the Palm Desert SOI. The City’s General Plan land use designations in the SOI are
largely consistent with the Riverside County land use designations, with limited
exceptions along Interstate 10 and in the eastern portion of Thousand Palms.
Riverside County Integrated Project
When the California Department of Finance estimated that Riverside County’s
population would double from 1.5 million to over 3 million residents between 2000
and 2020, county leaders embarked on a 3-year integrated planning process to
prepare a comprehensive set of planning guidelines known as the Riverside County
Integrated Project (RCIP) to maintain and enhance the quality of life for existing and
new residents in the county. The RCIP addresses conservation, transportation, and
housing needs through a coordinated effort of county plans and government
cooperation and includes policies and programs from the Riverside County General
Plan, Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and Community Environmental
Transportation Corridor Acceptability Process.
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) was
adopted by all affected agencies in October 2007, in compliance with state and federal
endangered species laws, to protect approximately 240,000 acres of open space and
27 species unique to the Coachella Valley desert environment. The CVMSHCP is
divided into 21 conservation areas. Portions of Palm Desert and the SOI include land in
the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain Conservation Area and the Thousand Palms
Conservation Area.
Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission
The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) of Riverside County is a state-
mandated local agency that administers California Government Code Sections 56000
et seq., known as the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of
2000. Among the purposes of LAFCo are discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging
the orderly formation and development of local government agencies, including cities
and special districts, based on local conditions and circumstances (Section 56301).
LAFCo regulates, through approval and denial, the boundary changes proposed by
other public agencies or individuals. In reviewing proposals for boundary changes,
LAFCo is required to consider certain factors such as the conformity between city and
county plans, current service levels, and the need for future services to the area, as
well as the social, physical, and economic effects that agency boundary changes
present to the community (Government Code Section 56841).
City of Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance
The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, serves as the
implementation component of the General Plan to ensure the orderly development of
the city and to protect, promote, and enhance the public health, safety, and general
welfare. The Zoning Ordinance establishes standards and procedures for development
in each zoning district including height, setback, density, yard, parking, walls,
landscaping, and use standards.
CHAPTER 4.10: LAND USE AND PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.10-5
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
The analysis of impacts is based on the likely consequences of adoption and
implementation of the updated General Plan, compared to existing conditions. The
following analyses of impacts on land use and planning is based on the expected
development capacity for the Planning Area compared to current conditions. The
analysis assumes that all future and existing development in the Planning Area
complies with the Land Use Diagram. An analysis of cumulative impacts uses
qualitative information for the Planning Area.
The proposed General Plan update land use policy is based on long-established land
use patterns, allowing incremental intensification of existing uses to reinforce
historical patterns and accommodate future economic and residential growth. The
General Plan update land use policy enables intensification of existing land use
patterns to better utilize existing development and accommodate market-driven
redevelopment in limited areas, focused along the Highway 111 corridor and around
the universities.
The analysis herein is based on projected growth for Palm Desert as provided in
Section 3.0, Project Description. This analysis does not assess impacts associated with
the phasing of projects or interim improvements.
Draft General Plan Update Policies and Implementation Actions
The General Plan update policies and implementation actions that reduce potential
land use impacts include:
Policies
Land Use & Community Character Element
Policy 1.1: Scale of development. Require new development along the city’s
corridors use design techniques to moderate height and use and ensure
compatible fit with surrounding development.
Policy 1.4: Phasing of public facilities. Require new parks, open spaces and
public facilities be constructed concurrent with, or prior to, the development
of each Neighborhood. All required parks, open spaces and public facilities
should be constructed before 75 percent of the dwelling units are
constructed.
Policy 1.6: Community Amenities. Balance the impacts of new development,
density, and urbanization through the provision of a high-level of
neighborhood and community amenities and design features.
Policy 2.5: Streetscape. Enhance the pedestrian experience through
streetscape improvements that could include new street lighting, tree
planting, and easement dedications to increase the size of the sidewalks and
pedestrian amenities.
Policy 2.9: Commercial requirements. Require development projects in non-
residential and mixed use areas to provide for enhanced pedestrian activity
through the following techniques:
CHAPTER 4.10: LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
‒ Requiring that the ground floor frontage be oriented to and accessible
from the sidewalk.
‒ Locating the majority of a building’s frontages in close proximity to the
sidewalk edge;
‒ Requiring that the first level of the building occupy a majority of the lot’s
frontage, with exceptions for vehicle access;
‒ Requiring that the majority of the linear ground floor retail frontage
(where it occurs) be visually and physically “penetrable,” incorporating
windows and other design treatments to create an attractive street
frontage;
‒ Requiring that the first level of building where retail uses are allowed
have a minimum 15 feet floor to floor height for non-residential uses;
‒ Minimizing vehicle intrusions across the sidewalk;
‒ Allowing for the development of outdoor plazas and dining areas;
‒ Discouraging new surface parking lots; and
‒ Locating parking (surface or structured) behind buildings, wherever
feasible.
‒ Address parking on a regional basis to maximize efficiency.
Policy 2.10: Auto-oriented uses. Consider allowing uses that serve occupants
of vehicles (such as drive-through windows) and discourage uses that serve
the vehicle (such as car washes and service stations), in places that are clearly
automobile oriented, ensuring that such uses do not disrupt pedestrian flow,
are not concentrated, do not break up the building mass of the streetscape,
and are compatible with the planned uses of the area.
Policy 2.11: Roadway scale. In pedestrian prioritized areas of the city, limit
roadway size and design techniques that emphasize and/or prioritize
automobile operation at the expense of pedestrian and bicycle operation.
Policy 3.1: Complete neighborhoods. Through the development entitlement
process, ensure that all new Neighborhoods (areas with a “Neighborhood”
General Plan Designation) are complete and well-structured such that the
physical layout and land use mix promote walking to services, biking and
transit use, are family friendly and address the needs of multiple ages and
physical abilities. New neighborhoods should have the following
characteristics:
‒ Contain short, walkable block lengths.
‒ Contain a high level of connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles
where practicable.
‒ Are organized around a central focal point such as a park, school, civic
building or neighborhood retail such that most homes are no more than
one quarter-mile from this focal point.
‒ Have goods and services within a short walking distance.
CHAPTER 4.10: LAND USE AND PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.10-7
‒ Contain a diversity of housing types, where possible.
‒ Have homes with entries and windows facing the street.
‒ Have a grid or modified grid street network (except where topography
necessitates another street network layout).
‒ Provide a diversity of architectural styles.
Policy 3.2: Conventional neighborhood design. Discourage the construction
of new residential neighborhoods that are characterized by cul-de-sacs,
soundwalls, long block lengths, single building and housing types and lack of
access to goods and services.
Policy 3.3: Variety of types of neighborhoods. Promote a variety of
neighborhoods within the City and ensure that neighborhood types are
dispersed throughout the City.
Policy 3.4: Balanced neighborhoods. Within the allowed densities and
housing types, promote a range of housing and price levels within each
neighborhood in order to accommodate diverse ages and incomes. For
development projects larger than five acres, require that a diversity of
housing types be provided and that these housing types be mixed rather than
segregated by unit type.
Policy 3.7: Walkable neighborhoods. Require that all new neighborhoods be
designed and constructed to be pedestrian friendly and include features such
as short blocks, wide sidewalks, tree-shaded streets, buildings that define and
are oriented to streets or public spaces, traffic-calming features, convenient
pedestrian street crossings, and safe streets that are designed for
pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.
‒ Provision of sidewalks. Except within designated rural areas, require
sidewalks of at least six feet in width on both sides of streets in
neighborhoods and prohibit obstructions that would impede use of the
sidewalk.
‒ Block size. Require new neighborhoods to be designed with blocks no
longer than 600 to 800 feet. Exceptions can be made if mid-block
pedestrian and bicycle connections are provided.
Policy 3.8: Neighborhood intersection density. Require new neighborhoods
to provide high levels of intersection density. Town Center and Small Town
Neighborhoods should strive for 400 intersections per square mile.
Conventional Suburban Neighborhoods should strive for at least 200
intersections per square mile.
Policy 3.14: Access to daily activities. Require development patterns such
that the majority of residents are within one-half mile walking distance to a
variety of neighborhood goods and services, such as supermarkets,
restaurants, churches, cafes, dry cleaners, laundromats, farmers markets,
banks, hair care, pharmacies and similar uses.
CHAPTER 4.10: LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Policy 3.16: Neighborhood transitions. Require that new neighborhoods
provide appropriate transitions in scale, building type and density between
different General Plan designations.
Policy 3.17: Gated communities. Strongly discourage the construction of new
gated communities except in the Rural or Resort General Plan Designations.
Policy 3.18: Soundwalls. Allow the use of soundwalls to buffer new
Neighborhoods from existing sources of noise pollution such as railroads and
limited access roadways. Prohibit the use of soundwalls to buffer residential
areas from arterial or collector streets. Instead design approaches such as
building setbacks, landscaping and other techniques shall be used. In the case
where soundwalls might be acceptable, require pedestrian access points to
improve access from the Neighborhoods.
Policy 4.3: Regional retail districts. Facilitate major regional serving
commercial centers that provide a mix of uses in a pedestrian oriented
format and become vibrant destinations for people to live, work, shop and
congregate. Allow a wide variety of uses to locate in Regional Retail Districts
including destination retail centers, mixed-use town centers, and hotels,
among other uses.
Policy 4.4: Regional retail district design. Allow for significant flexibility in the
design of Regional Retail Districts so long as city-wide and project-level
connectivity standards are met, the uses do not adversely affect adjacent
uses and accommodations are made for pedestrians, bicycle and transit
users. Design internal streets and parking into blocks and require sidewalks
along both sides of these streets.
Policy 4.6: Industrial compatibility. Where industrial uses are near existing
and planned residential development, require that industrial projects be
designed to limit the impact of truck traffic on residential areas.
Policy 4.7: Impact of industrial development. Require new development
within the city’s industrial areas be designed for compatibility with
surrounding uses to minimize impact and cultivate connectivity with each
district.
Policy 5.5: Changing retail format. Provide incentives to transform existing,
auto-oriented suburban centers into neighborhood destinations by adding a
diversity of uses, providing new pedestrian connections to adjacent
residential areas, reducing the visual prominence of parking lots, making the
centers more pedestrian-friendly and enhance the definition and character of
street frontage and associated streetscapes.
Policy 5.6: Neighborhood center design. Design new neighborhood centers
to be walkable and pedestrian-friendly with buildings that front internal
streets and public sidewalks and with buildings facing major roadways. No
more than 50 percent of the frontage on streets may be parking lots.
Policy 6.1: Citywide connectivity. Establish and preserve a citywide street
network throughout the city where through roads occur approximately every
one-quarter mile, except where connections cannot be made because of
previous large development projects or physical constraints such as railroads,
CHAPTER 4.10: LAND USE AND PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.10-9
waterways, steep slopes, limited access roadways and similar natural and
man-made barriers.
Policy 6.2: Subarea connectivity. Ensure a high-level of connectivity in all
Neighborhoods, Centers and Districts throughout the city. The connectivity
shall be measured as block perimeter and in external connectivity on the
perimeter of a new development project.
Policy 6.3: Connections between development projects. Require the
continuation of the street network between adjacent development projects
and discourage the use of cul-de-sacs except where necessary because
connections cannot be made due to existing development, topographic
conditions or limited access to transportation systems.
Policy 6.4: Cook Street. Facilitate the development of Cook Street into a
multimodal street that serves as community amenity, connecting both east
and west sides of the street, as well as the north and south ends of the city.
Mobility Element
Policy 3.1: Pedestrian Network. Provide a safe and convenient circulation
system for pedestrians that include sidewalks, crosswalks, place to sit and
gather, appropriate street lighting, buffers from moving vehicles, shading,
and amenities for people of all ages.
Policy 3.2: Prioritized Improvements. Prioritize pedestrian improvements in
areas of the city with community and/or education facilities, supportive land
use patterns, and non-automotive connections such as multi-use trails and
transit stops.
Policy 3.3: Roadway Sidewalks. Where feasible, provide adequate sidewalks
along all public roadways.
Policy 3.4: Access to Development. Require that all new development
projects or redevelopment projects provide connections from the site to the
external pedestrian network.
Policy 3.5: Pedestrian Education and Awareness. Support regional efforts to
encourage walking and also to reduce vehicular/pedestrian collisions.
Policy 3.6: Safe Pedestrian Routes to School. Consider school access as a
priority over vehicular movements when any such conflicts occur.
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 3.1: Open space network. Require new development to comply with
requirements of the CVMSHCP.
Health & Wellness Element
Policy 7.2: Walkable streets. Regulate new development to ensure new
blocks encourage walkability by maximizing connectivity and route choice,
create reasonable block lengths to encourage more walking and physical
activity and improve the walkability of existing neighborhood streets.
Policy 7.3: Pedestrian barriers. Discourage physical barriers to walking and
bicycling between and within neighborhoods and neighborhood centers. If
physical barriers are unavoidable, provide safe and comfortable crossings for
CHAPTER 4.10: LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
pedestrians and cyclists. Physical barriers may include arterial streets with
speed limits above 35 mph, transit or utility rights-of-way, very long blocks
without through-streets, and sound walls, amongst others.
Implementation Actions
Land Use & Community Character Element
Action 2.16. Play an active role in the Coachella Valley Association of
Governments, the Southern California Association of Governments and other
regional agencies to protect and promote the interests of the City
Action 2.18. Develop and provide incentives to assist developers in
revitalization and rehabilitation of existing structures, uses and properties
through
Mobility Element
Action 4.9. Develop and update guidelines for development projects that
require connections from the site to the external pedestrian network (both
for residential developing and on commercial sites).
Action 4.10. Develop and update guidelines for development projects that
promote connections to existing transit facilities
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, land use-related impacts are considered significant if
adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would:
Threshold Determination
1. Physically divide an established community No Impact
2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect
Less Than Significant
Impact
3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan
Less Than Significant
Impact
4. Cumulative effects Less Than Significant
Impact
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.10-1
Physically Divide an Established Community. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update would not result in the
division of an existing community, nor would it result in substantial
land use compatibility issues. No impact would occur.
Division of an established community commonly occurs as a result of development
and construction of physical features that constitute a barrier to easy and frequent
travel between two or more constituent parts of a community. For example, a large
freeway structure with few crossings could effectively split a community. Likewise,
geographic features could similarly affect a community, such as the development of a
large residential project on the opposite side of a river from the existing community.
CHAPTER 4.10: LAND USE AND PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.10-11
One of the goals of the General Plan update is to increase the mobility of residents
throughout the community and not only provide vehicular connections but also
address non-motorized transportation options. Land Use & Community Character
Element Policy 6.3 requires the continuation of the street network between adjacent
development projects and discourages the use of cul-de-sacs except where necessary
because connections cannot be made due to existing development, topographic
conditions, or limited access to transportation systems. Policy 3.4 requires that all new
development projects or redevelopment projects provide connections from the site to
the external pedestrian network. Health & Wellness Element Policy 7.3 seeks to
discourage physical barriers to walking and bicycling between and within
neighborhoods and neighborhood centers.
Several of the policies and actions would improve not only connectivity but
compatibility between existing and future development. A primary goal of the General
Plan update is to retain the city’s current character, and a number of policies address
consistency of new development with existing developments through the use of
materials, siting, and other design techniques (see Land Use & Community Character
Element Policies 1.1, 3.4, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, and 4.6).
No aspect of the proposed General Plan update would divide the existing city. In
addition, the updated General Plan includes provisions that directly address land use
connectivity, compatibility, and encroachment of new development on existing
neighborhoods and land uses. Thus, the General Plan update would result in no
impact regarding division of an established community or land use compatibility
issues.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.10-2
Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update in addition to anticipated
local and regional growth would increase the number of housing units,
nonresidential square footage, and the population in Palm Desert in
combination with transportation improvements. However, these
changes would be consistent with existing local and regional planning
documents. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Consistency with City Land Use Plans and Regulations
The General Plan update, if approved, would instigate the state requirement to update
the City’s Municipal Code, Zoning Map, and other regulations to be consistent with the
new General Plan and/or to address compatibility issues. State law requires zoning to
be consistent with General Plan land use designations. The City is responsible for
ensuring that the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan are in conformity. In most
instances, this consistency will mean that land is designated in the General Plan and
zoned for similar uses with similar development standards (i.e., similar densities and
minimum parcel sizes). Where zoning and General Plan land use designations are not
identical, General Plan policies would be consulted carefully for guidance in amending
the Zoning Ordinance for consistency with the updated General Plan. As such,
inconsistency with City land use plans and regulations would be less than significant.
CHAPTER 4.10: LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-12 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Consistency with Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
The City of Palm Desert is a permittee to the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). This partnership is further supported by the proposed
General Plan through Environmental Resources Element Policy 3.1, which requires
new development to comply with requirements of the CVMSHCP.
Consistency with Neighboring Jurisdictions’ Land Use Plans and Regulations
The city is bordered by Rancho Mirage to the west and Indian Wells to the south and
east, the unincorporated community of Bermuda Dunes to the east, and
unincorporated lands to the north. The City of Palm Desert is committed to working
with all surrounding jurisdictions in an effort to deal with cross-border and regional
issues. The General Plan update includes policies that support coordination with
adjacent jurisdictions on land use. Additional provisions also ensure that the City will
work with other agencies to coordinate planning in the implementation of the General
Plan update (Action 2.16). Further, the General Plan update focuses future growth as
infill development along the Highway 111 corridor and around the universities. One
intent of this land use focus is to reduce the environmental impact associated with the
General Plan update by eliminating the controversy and cost that often arises from
changing land use patterns along jurisdictional boundaries as part of a General Plan
update. For these reasons, the updated General Plan would not result in conflicts with
the land use planning documents of adjacent jurisdictions.
As noted above, the General Plan update includes provisions that call for coordination
with other agencies and adjacent jurisdictions and state law would instigate an update
to the City’s Municipal Code, Zoning Map, and other regulations to be consistent with
the new General Plan and/or to address compatibility issues. Impacts to adopted land
use regulations are therefore less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The cumulative setting associated with the General Plan update includes approved,
proposed, planned, and other reasonably foreseeable projects and development in
Palm Desert and surrounding municipalities. Developments and planned land uses,
including the General Plan update, could cumulatively contribute to land use–related
impacts.
IMPACT
4.10-3
Cumulative Land Use. Implementation of the General Plan update, in
addition to existing, proposed, approved, and reasonably foreseeable
development in the region, would not contribute to cumulative land
use impacts associated with the division of an established community
or conflicts with land use plans and regulations that provide
environmental protection. This cumulative impact would be less than
cumulatively considerable.
Under cumulative conditions, the General Plan update and subsequent development
would not contribute to land use conflicts beyond those discussed in Impacts 4.10-1
and 4.10-2. There would be no further contribution to the division of an established
community or conflicts between planning documents and regulations. As identified
above, General Plan update policies and implementation actions provide for land use
CHAPTER 4.10: LAND USE AND PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.10-13
compatibility in Palm Desert and coordination with adjacent jurisdictions as well as
continued participation in the CVMSHCP. Therefore, this impact is less than
cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.10: LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-14 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
(This page is intentionally left blank)
CHAPTER 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.11-1
4.11. Mineral Resources
Introduction
This chapter draws on data from the California Department of Conservation, Division
of Mines and Geology, Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. The Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act (SMARA) was developed to ensure the preservation of mineral
resources while concurrently addressing the need to protect the environment. No
known mineral resources exist in the city and Sphere of Influence (SOI).
NOP Comments: No comment letters were received in response to the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) addressing mineral resource concerns.
Reference Information: Information for this section is based on numerous references,
including the Palm Desert Technical Background Report (TBR) and other publicly
available documents. The TBR prepared for the project is attached to this Draft EIR as
Appendix 4.0. The EIR, including the Technical Background Report, is also available
electronically on the City’s website (http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-
city/general-plan-update).
Environmental Setting
As mapped in the Riverside County General Plan, Palm Desert is located in an MRZ-3
zone. The MRZ-3 classification indicates that the area has known mineral deposits that
may qualify as mineral resources (MRZ-3a) or the area may have inferred deposits
which may qualify as mineral resources (MRZ-3b). Current maps of the Planning Area
are not sufficiently detailed to distinguish between MRZ-3a and MRZ-3b. Per the
Riverside County General Plan, in 1988, the State of California Department of
Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, under the direction of SMARA, released
a report identifying aggregate materials in the Palm Springs Production Consumption
Region, which includes the Planning Area and is designated as a MRZ-3 resource (see
Figure 11-1 in Appendix 4.0).
Desert Hot Springs Subbasin
Groundwater in the Desert Hot Springs subbasin is characterized by high
concentrations of fluoride, total dissolved solids, sodium sulfates, and other
undesirable minerals, which have limited the subbasin’s use for agricultural and
domestic water purposes. The presence of high mineral concentrations is largely due
to faulting along the margins of the subbasin.
Thousand Palms Subarea
The southwestern boundary of the Thousand Palms subarea (within the Whitewater
River subbasin) has been determined based on distinctive groundwater mineral
characteristics. Groundwater in the subarea contains high concentrations of sodium
sulfate, while groundwater in other subareas of the Whitewater River subbasin is
generally composed of calcium bicarbonate. This is largely attributed to limited
recharge to the Thousand Palms subarea.
Regulatory Setting
Regulations and policies provide a regulatory framework to address mineral resources
that would be affected by adoption and implementation of the updated Palm Desert
CHAPTER 4.11: MINERAL RESOURCES
4.11-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
General Plan. The City has also adopted local regulations and policies addressing
mineral resources.
Federal Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Laws
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to mineral resources apply to
Palm Desert.
State Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Laws
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 (Public Resources Code,
Division 2, Chapter 9, Section 2710 et seq.) mandated the classification of mineral
lands throughout the state to help identify and protect mineral resources in areas
subject to urban expansion or other irreversible land uses that would preclude mineral
extraction. Since 1975, the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) has mapped areas
in California that contain regionally significant mineral resources. Deposits of
construction aggregate resources (sand, gravel, or crushed stone) were the initial
commodity targeted for classification by the SMGB because of their importance to the
state. Once areas are mapped, the SMGB is required to designate for future use those
areas that contain aggregate deposits that are of prime importance to meeting the
region’s future need for construction quality aggregates.
The key objective of mineral lands classification under SMARA is for each jurisdiction
to develop policies that will conserve important mineral resources, if feasible, when
such resources are needed. SMARA requires that once policies are adopted, land use
decisions by the local agency must be in accordance with that local agency’s
management policies for mineral resources. These decisions must also balance the
mineral value of the resource to the market region as a whole, not just their
importance to the local jurisdiction.
The State Geologist developed the California Mineral Land Classification System to
assist in the implementation of SMARA. The system identifies the following types of
MRZs for mapping and reporting purposes (DOC 2016:
MRZ-1: Areas where adequate geologic information indicates that no
significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little
likelihood exists of their presence.
MRZ-2a: Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data show that
significant measured or indicated resources are present. Areas classified
MRZ-2a contain discovered mineral deposits that are either measured or
indicated reserves as determined by such evidence as drilling records, sample
analysis, surface exposure, and mine information. Land included in the MRZ-2a
category is of prime importance because it contains known economic mineral
deposits.
MRZ-2b: Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic information
indicates that significant inferred resources are present. Areas classified
MRZ-2b contain discovered deposits that are either inferred reserves or
deposits that are presently sub-economic as determined by limited sample
analysis, exposure, and past mining history.
CHAPTER 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.11-3
MRZ-3a: Areas containing known mineral deposits that may qualify as mineral
resources, which could be considered hypothetical resources. MRZ-3a areas
are considered to have a moderate potential for the discovery of economic
mineral deposits.
MRZ-3b: Areas containing inferred mineral deposits that may qualify as
mineral resources, which could be considered speculative resources. Land
classified MRZ-3b represents areas in geologic settings which appear to be
favorable environments for the occurrence of specific mineral deposits.
MRZ-4: Areas where geologic information does not rule out either the
presence or absence of mineral resources. The distinction between the MRZ-1
and MRZ-4 categories is important for land use considerations. It must be
emphasized that the MRZ-4 classification does not imply that there is little
likelihood for the presence of mineral resources, but rather that there is a lack
of knowledge regarding mineral occurrence.
Regional and Local Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Laws
Riverside County General Plan
While most of the Planning Area is in the incorporated city limits of Palm Desert, some
of the Planning Area is in the unincorporated Sphere of Influence. Land in the
unincorporated area remains subject to the Riverside County General Plan and
development codes until annexed into the city. The General Plan contains the
following policies relative to mineral resources:
OS 14.1. Require that the operation and reclamation of surface mines be
consistent with the State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and
County Development Code provisions.
OS 14.2. Restrict incompatible land uses within the impact area of existing or
potential surface mining areas.
OS 14.3. Restrict land uses incompatible with mineral resource recovery within
areas designated Open Space-Mineral Resources.
OS 14.4. Impose conditions as necessary on mining operations to minimize or
eliminate the potential adverse impact of mining operations on surrounding
properties, and environmental resources.
OS 14.5. Require that new non-mining land uses adjacent to existing mining
operations be designed to provide a buffer between the new development
and the mining operations. The buffer distance shall be based on an evaluation
of noise, aesthetics, drainage, operating conditions, biological resources,
topography, lighting, traffic, operating hours, and air quality.
OS 14.6. Accept California Land Conservation (Williamson Act) contracts on
land identified by the state as containing significant mineral deposits subject
to the use and acreage limitations established by the County
LU 21.1. Require that surface mining activities and lands containing mineral
deposits of statewide or of regional significance comply with Riverside County
Ordinances and the SMARA.
CHAPTER 4.11: MINERAL RESOURCES
4.11-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
LU 21.2. Protect lands designated as Open Space-Mineral Resource from
encroachment of incompatible land used through buffer zones or visual
screening.
LU 21.3. Protect road access to mining activities and prevent or mitigate traffic
conflicts with surrounding properties.
LU 21.4. Require the recycling of mineral extraction sites to open space,
recreational, or other uses that are compatible with the surrounding land uses.
LU 21.5. Require an approved reuse plan prior to the issuing of a permit to
operate an extraction operation.
City of Palm Desert Municipal Code
Municipal Code Section 8.50.190, Water Quality Standards, relates to mineral
resources in Palm Desert:
8.50.190, Water Quality Standards. Water from all new, repaired, and
reconstructed community water supply wells shall be tested for and meet the
standards for microbiological, general mineral, general physical, chemical, and
radiological quality in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title
22, Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
The analysis of impacts is based on the likely consequences of adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update compared to existing conditions.
Implementation Actions
No Palm Desert General Plan policies or implementation actions address mineral
resources.
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this Draft EIR, impacts on mineral resources are considered
significant if adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would:
Threshold Determination
1. 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
Less Than Significant
2. 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
Less Than Significant
CHAPTER 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.11-5
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.11-1
Loss of Availability of Mineral Resources. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update would not result in the loss
of availability of a known mineral resource or of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site. Local policies would ensure a less than
significant impact to mineral resources.
The entirety of Palm Desert is classified as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3) under the
California Mineral Land Classification System. In MRZ-3 areas, mineral resources are
present, but the significance of the resource is considered speculative because no
mining has historically occurred in the area. In addition, Riverside County General Plan
Policy OS 14.5 requires that new non-mining land uses adjacent to existing mining
operations be designed to provide a buffer between the new development and the
mining operations. The buffer distance would be based on an evaluation of noise,
aesthetics, drainage, operating conditions, biological resources, topography, lighting,
traffic, operating hours, and air quality.
Implementation of the Palm Desert General Plan update would not result in the direct
or indirect loss of availability of a known or locally important mineral resource because
of urbanization in the MRZ-3 area. Therefore, the General Plan update would have a
less than significant impact on mineral resources.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.11: MINERAL RESOURCES
4.11-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
References
County of Riverside. 2008. County of Riverside General Plan.
DOC (California Department of Conservation). 1945. Map of Riverside County,
California, Showing Locations of Mines and Mineral Deposits. Accessed July 5,
2016.
http://cgsdigitalarchive.conservation.ca.gov/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16780co
ll6/id/201/rec/1.
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.12-1
4.12. Noise
Introduction
This resource chapter of the EIR describes existing and forecasted noise conditions
within Palm Desert and evaluates the potential environmental effects related to noise
associated with implementation of the City of Palm Desert’s General Plan. Noise
Element goals and policies guide development and infrastructure practices to protect
the ambient noise environment from degradation due to changes in land uses and
increases in transportation volumes. Mitigation measures are recommended, as
necessary, to reduce significant noise impacts.
NOP Comments: In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), no comments were
received regarding Noise impacts.
Reference Information: Information for this resource chapter is based on numerous
references, including the City of Palm Desert’s General Plan Technical Background
Report (TBR) and other publicly available documents. The TBR is attached to this
document as Appendix 4.0. This EIR, including the TBR, is also available electronically
on the City’s website (http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/general-plan-
update). Appendix 4.12 to this EIR provides noise-modeling data used to complete this
analysis. Information used to complete noise modeling includes existing average daily
traffic (ADT) and forecasted ADT for major City roadways.
Environmental Setting
Section 12 of the TBR (Appendix 4.0) describes the basic science of acoustics and
specific acoustic practices related to environmental noise and vibration, summarizes
how noise affects humans in the built environment, and provides noise levels and
descriptions of the existing noise sources and sensitive receptors within the city. Noise
topics discussed in the TBR are summarized below.
Noise Background
Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted
sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound
pressure levels to be consistent with that of human hearing response, which is most
sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (about the highest note on a piano) and
less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hertz).
Sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dB level based on
the lowest detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound
that is not zero sound pressure level). Based on the logarithmic scale, a doubling of
sound energy is equivalent to an increase of 3 dBA, and a sound that is 10 dBA less
than the ambient sound level has no effect on ambient noise. Because of the nature of
the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dBA greater than the reference sound to be
judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dBA change in community noise levels is
noticeable, while 1-2 dBA changes generally are not perceived. Quiet suburban areas
typically have noise levels in the range of 40-50 dBA, while arterial streets are in the
50-60+ dBA range. Normal conversational levels are in the 60-65 dBA range, and
ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA can interrupt conversations.
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
4.12-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Noise levels typically drop off at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from point
sources (such as industrial machinery). Noise from lightly traveled roads typically
attenuates at a rate of about 4.5 dB per doubling of distance. Noise from heavily
traveled roads typically attenuates at about 3 dB per doubling of distance. Noise levels
may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings
between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA,
while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. Standard new
residential construction typically provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise
levels of 25 dBA or more with windows closed (FTA, May 2006).
In addition to the actual instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of
sound is important since sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely
to be an annoyance or cause direct physical damage or environmental stress. One of
the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and sound power
level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-
weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in
the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level).
Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period. Lmax is the highest RMS (root mean
squared) sound pressure level within the measuring period, and Lmin is the lowest
RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period.
The time period in which noise occurs is also important since noise that occurs at night
tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the day. Community noise
is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour average
noise level with a 10-dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10 p.m. to 7
a.m.) hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour
average noise level with a 5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
and a 10-dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Noise levels described
by Ldn and CNEL usually do not differ by more than 1 dB.
Existing Traffic Noise
Traffic noise is the predominant noise source in Palm Desert. The City’s roadway
system includes regional freeways, major highways and other arterials, collector, and
local streets. Regional connectivity to the City is provided by Interstate (I-10),
California State Route 111 (SR 111), and California State Route 74 (SR 74). Major
roadways within the City include Monterey Ave, Washington Street, Fred Waring
Drive, Country Club Drive, Frank Sinatra Drive, Gerald Ford Drive, Dinah Shore Drive,
Portola Avenue, and Cook Street. From these major roadways, higher volumes of
traffic are observed on Washington Street (over 40,000 vehicles per day) Monterey
Avenue (over 40,000 vehicles per day), and Fred Waring Drive (over 30,000 vehicles
per day). Existing and future traffic noise contours, ranging from 60 to 75 A-weighted
decibels (dBA), of all major roadways within the City are shown in Figures 4.12-1 and
4.12-2.1 Existing and future traffic noise levels of all major roadway segments are
shown in Table 4.12-4.
1 Because the human ear can detect a wide range of sound-pressure fluctuations, sound-
pressure levels are expressed in logarithmic units called decibels (dB) to avoid a very large and
inconvenient range in numbers. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all audible
frequencies, a frequency-dependent rating scale was devised to relate noise to human
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.12-3
Existing Aircraft Noise
The Bermuda Dunes Airport is located approximately 1.75 miles east of the current
city limits and is located within Palm Desert’s sphere of influence. Palm Springs
International Airport is located approximately seven miles northwest of Palm Desert,
and generates noise due to medical evacuation flights traversing to and from Desert
Regional Medical Center. Both airports generate air traffic that can impact the
community’s noise environment.
Existing Train Noise
Freight rail service along the Union Pacific Railroad lines located immediately south of
and parallel to Interstate 10 are also responsible for generating substantial noise levels
in this area, which combines with noise levels due to high volumes of daily traffic on
the interstate. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, this railroad
experiences up to 16 daytime trains daily (6AM to 6PM) and 14 nighttime trains (6PM
to AM). Although the passage of trains is an intrusive noise source, it occurs only
periodically and with limited duration. A more substantial noise source in this area is
Interstate 10, which experiences high levels of truck traffic accounting for
approximately 28% of the total daily traffic.
Existing Construction, Stationary, and Operational Source Noise
Noise is produced as a result of many processes and activities, even when the best
available noise control technology is applied. Noise exposures within industrial
facilities are controlled by federal and state employee health and safety regulations,
but noise levels that extend beyond the facility’s property line may exceed locally
acceptable standards. Loading and materials transfer areas, outdoor materials
warehousing operations and other acoustically unscreened operations would raise
issues of noise impact. Activities associated with commercial, recreational, and public
service facilities can also produce noise that affects adjacent sensitive land uses.
For example, the operation of mechanical equipment (e.g. refrigerator units, chillers,
heating/air conditioner equipment and roof-mounted equipment) associated with
facilities can create a continual and audible drone. On the other hand, emergency-use
sirens and backup alarms are a more substantial noise source; however, they may not
occur frequently enough to be considered incompatible with noise-sensitive land uses.
Noise sources can either be continuous or periodic and may contain tonal components
that can negatively affect the quality of life and be a nuisance to individuals who live
nearby.
Existing Noise Sensitive Receptors
Particularly sensitive land uses include residences, schools, libraries, churches,
hospitals and nursing homes, and destination resort areas. Golf courses, parks, and
other outdoor activity areas can be sensitive to noise disturbances. Less sensitive land
uses include commercial and industrial uses, conventional hotels and motels,
neighborhood ballparks, and other outdoor spectator sport areas. Least sensitive to
noise are heavy commercial and industrial uses, transportation, communication and
utility land uses. The location of existing land uses in Palm Desert are described in
sensitivity. An A-weighted dB (dBA) scale performs this by deemphasizing the low-frequency
sounds because humans are more sensitive to high frequency sounds.
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
4.12-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Section 10, Land Use and Planning, of Appendix 4.0. Table 4.12-1 shows the ranges of
allowable exterior ambient noise levels for various land uses.
Regulatory Setting
Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies regulate noise in the planning
area. They provide the regulatory framework for addressing all aspects of noise that
would be affected by implementation of City of Palm Desert’s General Plan. The
regulatory setting for noise is discussed in detail in the TBR (Appendix 4.0). While
federal and state guidelines outline noise requirements, specific noise policies are
enacted at the local level. Regulations most applicable to the City as it relates to the
impact analysis are provided below.
Federal
Federal Transportation Administration Vibration Impact Criteria
The Vibration Impact Criteria thresholds adopted by the Federal Transit
Administration are designed to identify acceptable noise levels for noise‐sensitive
buildings, residences, and institutional land uses near railroads. The thresholds that
apply to residences and buildings where people normally sleep (e.g., nearby
residences) are 72 VdB for frequent events (more than 70 events of the same source
per day), 75 VdB for occasional events (30 to 70 vibration events of the same source
per day), and 80 VdB for infrequent events (less than 30 vibration events of the same
source per day).
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning
Advisory in nature, FAR Part 150 prescribes a system for measuring airport noise
impacts and presents guidelines for identifying incompatible land uses. Completion of
an FAR Part 150 plan by the airport proprietor is a prerequisite for obtaining Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) funding for noise abatement projects.
HUD Environmental Criteria and Standards, 24 CFR Part 51
The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires new
residential construction qualifying for HUD financing proposed in high noise areas
(exceeding 65 dBA Ldn) to incorporate noise attenuation features to maintain
acceptable interior noise levels. HUD requires that all structures provide sufficient
attenuation to achieve an interior level of 45 dBA Ldn or less if the exterior level is 65
dBA Ldn or less. HUD approvals in a "normally unacceptable noise zone" (exceeding 65
decibels but not exceeding 75 decibels) requires a minimum of five decibels additional
noise attenuation for buildings if the day‐night average is greater than 65 decibels but
does not exceed 70 decibels, or minimum of 10 decibels of additional noise
attenuation if the day‐night average is greater than 70 decibels but does not exceed
75 decibels.
Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires new Federal or Federal‐aid
highway construction projects, or alterations to existing highways that substantially
change either the horizontal or vertical alignment and/or increases the number of
through‐traffic lanes, to abatement noise per Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. FHWA considers noise abatement for sensitive receivers such as picnic
areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sport areas, parks, residences, motels,
hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals when “worst‐hour” noise levels
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.12-5
approach or exceed 67 dBA Leq. Caltrans has further defined “approaching the NAC”
to be 1 dBA below the NAC (e.g., 66 dBA Leq is considered approaching the NAC for
Category B activity areas).
State
California Code of Regulations (Title 24)
Known as the California Building Code, the California Code of Regulations contains
standards for allowable interior noise levels associated with exterior noise sources.
The standards state that “Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not
exceed 45 dB in any habitable room.” The standards apply to new hotels, motels,
dormitories, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single‐family
residences (i.e., apartments). The code goes on to indicate that: “Residential
structures to be located where the annual Ldn or CNEL exceeds 60 dB shall require an
acoustical analysis showing that the proposed design will achieve the prescribed
allowable interior level. For public use airports or heliports the Ldn or CNEL shall be
determined from the airport land use plan prepared by the County in which the
airport is located. For all other airports or heliports, or public use airports or heliports
for which a land use plan has not been developed, the Ldn or CNEL shall be
determined from the noise element of the general plan of the local jurisdiction.”
California Code of Regulations (Title 21)
The State Division of Aeronautics has adopted standards for airport-related noise. The
standards establish an acceptable noise level of 65 dB for uses near airports. This
standard applies to persons residing in urban residential areas where houses are of
typical California construction and may have windows partially open.
California Department of Transportation Construction Vibration
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has adopted guidance for
construction vibrations. Caltrans uses a vibration limit of 12.7 mm/sec (0.5 inches/sec)
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) for buildings that are structurally sound and designed to
modern engineering standards. A conservative vibration limit of five mm/sec (0.2
inches/sec) PPV has been used for buildings that are found to be structurally sound
but where structural damage is a major concern. For historic buildings or buildings
that are documented to be structurally weakened, a conservative limit of two mm/sec
(0.08 inches/sec) PPV is often used to provide the highest level of protection. All of
these limits have been used successfully and compliance with these limits has not
been known to result in appreciable structural damage. All vibration limits referred to
in this chapter apply on the ground level and take into account the response of
structural elements (i.e., walls and floors) to ground‐borne excitation. Typically
vibrations in Palm Desert would be related to construction operations or passing of
trains near homes and buildings built near the railroad tracks.
California Government Code Section 65302(f)
California Government Code Section 65302(f) requires all General Plans to include a
Noise Element that addresses noise‐related impacts in the community. The State
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has prepared guidelines for the content of the
noise element, which includes the development of current and future noise level
contour maps.
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
4.12-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Local
City of Palm Desert Noise Element
The intent of the Noise Element is to help assure compatibility of the community’s
land uses with the existing and future noise environment, and to ensure that any
potentially negative effects of noise on the community are minimized or avoided
entirely. The Noise Element identifies noise conditions within the City, its Sphere-of-
Influence and the General Plan study area, and projects future noise conditions in the
community resulting from continued growth. Through the implementation of the
policies and programs in the Noise Element, current and future potential noise
impacts are addressed, with the goal of assuring that the general health, safety and
welfare of the community is, to the greatest extent practical.
City of Palm Desert Noise Ordinance
The Palm Desert Noise Control Ordinance, found in Title 9 Chapter 9.24 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code (PDMC), contains guidance for the purpose of striking a
balance between normal, everyday noises that are unavoidable in an urban
environment and those noises that are so excessive and annoying to persons of
ordinary sensitivity that they must be mitigated to protect the comfort and tranquility
of all persons who live and work in the City.
Within the City of Palm Desert, the applicable limit ten-minute average sound level
limits for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is 55 dBA from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.,
and 45 dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The standard used for maximum outdoor noise
levels in residential areas in California and the City specifically is a CNEL of 65 dBA.
Section 9.24.060 of the PDMC establishes the following activities that are considered
exempt from the provision of the Code. The following exemptions are applicable:
School bands, school athletic and school entertainment events;
Outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows and sporting and entertainment
events; provided, the events are authorized by the city;
Activities conducted in public parks and public playgrounds;
Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected
with emergency machinery, vehicle or work;
All mechanical devices, apparatus or equipment which are utilized for the
protection or salvage of agricultural crops during periods of potential or actual
frost damage or other adverse weather conditions;
Mobile noise sounds associated with agricultural operations provided such
operations do not take place between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m.
on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal
holiday;
Mobile noise sources associated with agricultural pest control through
pesticide application;
Noise sources associated with property maintenance activities referred to in
Section 9.24.075 of the PDMC;
The provisions of this regulation shall not preclude the construction,
operation, maintenance and repairs of equipment, apparatus or facilities of
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.12-7
park and recreation departments, public work projects or essential public
services and facilities, including those of public utilities subject to the
regulatory jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission;
Carillon chimes between the hours of eight a.m. to seven p.m.
And noise sources associated with construction activities taking place within
specified time periods referred to in Section 9.24.070 of the PDMC. Currently
those time periods are seven a.m. through five-thirty p.m Monday through
Friday and eight a.m. through five p.m. on Saturday during the period of
October 1st through April 30th. For the period of May 1st through September
30th the time periods for construction are six a.m. through seven p.m Monday
through Friday and eight a.m. through five p.m. on Saturday. No construction
is permitted on holidays or Sundays.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
The analysis of impacts is based on the likely consequences of adoption and
implementation of City of Palm Desert General Plan, compared to existing conditions.
The following analyses of impacts on ambient noise levels are based on available
information for the planning area, along with review of regional information. The
analysis assumes that all future and existing development within the planning area
complies with applicable laws, regulations, design standards, and plans.
Draft General Plan Goals and Policies
The City of Palm Desert’s General Plan goals and policies that address potential noise
impacts include the following:
Noise Element
The Noise Element provides a comprehensive program for including noise control in
the planning process. It is a tool for local planners to use in achieving and maintaining
land uses that are compatible with environmental noise levels. The Noise Element
identifies noise-sensitive land uses and noise sources, and defines areas of noise
impact for the purpose of developing and implementing programs to ensure that Palm
Desert residents will be protected from excessive noise intrusion.
Goal 1: Land Use Planning and Design. A city where noise compatibility between
differing types of land uses is ensured through the land use planning process and
design strategies.
Policy 1.1: Noise Compatibility. Apply the Noise Compatibility Matrix, shown
in Figure 7.1, as a guide for planning and development decisions. The City will
require projects involving new development or modifications to existing
development to implement mitigation measures, where necessary, to reduce
noise levels to at least the normally compatible range shown in the City’s
Noise Compatibility Matrix shown in Figure 7.1. Mitigation measures should
focus on architectural features and building design and construction, rather
than site design features such as excessive setbacks, berms and sound walls, to
maintain compatibility with adjacent and surrounding uses.
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
4.12-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Policy 1.2: Noise Buffers. Require an open space or other noise buffer
between new projects that are a source of excessive noise and nearby noise-
sensitive receptors.
Policy 1.3: Mixed Use. Require that mixed-use structures and areas be
designed to prevent transfer of noise from commercial uses to residential
uses, and ensure a 45 dBA CNEL level or lower for all interior living spaces.
Policy 1.4: County and Regional Plans. Periodically review County and regional
plans for transportation facilities and airport operation, to identify and
mitigate potential noise impacts on future development.
Policy 1.5: Airport Land Use Planning. Ensure that new development in the
city complies with all applicable policies contained in the Riverside County
General Plan Noise Element relating to airport noise, including those policies
requiring compliance with the airport land use noise compatibility criteria
contained in the airport land use compatibility plan for Bermuda Dunes
Airport, which is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence
Policy 1.6: Land Use and Community Design. Prioritize the building design and
character policies in the Land Use and Community Character Element over
those in the Noise Element to ensure that new development meets the design
vision of the city. This policy will not apply when noise levels are clearly in the
incompatible range as shown in the City’s Noise Compatibility Matrix shown in
Figure 7.1.
Goal 2: Stationary Sources of Noise. A city with minimal noise from stationary
sources.
Policy 2.1: Noise Ordinance. Minimize noise conflicts between neighboring
properties through enforcement of applicable regulations such as the City’s
Noise Control Ordinance.
Policy 2.2: Noise Control. Ensure that noise impacts from stationary sources
on noise-sensitive receptors and noise emanating from construction activities,
private developments/residences, landscaping activities, night clubs and bars,
and special events are minimized.
Policy 2.3: Entertainment Uses. Ensure that entertainment uses, restaurants,
and bars engage in responsible management and operation to control the
activities of their patrons on-site and within reasonable and legally justifiable
proximity to minimize noise impacts on adjacent residences and other noise-
sensitive receptors, and require mitigation as needed for development of
entertainment uses near noise-sensitive receptors
Policy 2.4: Industrial Uses. Ensure that industrial uses engage in responsible
operational practices that minimize noise impacts on adjacent residences and
other noise-sensitive receptors, and require mitigation as needed for
development of industrial uses near noise-sensitive receptors.
Policy 2.5: Noise Barriers for Industrial/Commercial Sources. If necessary, and
after implementation of measures utilizing architectural features and building
design and construction consistent with Policy 1.2, require certain industrial
and certain heavy commercial uses to use absorptive types of noise barriers or
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.12-9
walls to reduce noise levels generated by these uses. To be considered
effective, the noise barrier should provide at least a 5-dBA CNEL noise
reduction.
Goal 3: Mobile Sources of Noise. A city with minimal noise from mobile sources.
Policy 3.1. Roadway Noise. Implement the policies listed under Goal 1 to
reduce the impacts of roadway noise on noise-sensitive receptors where
roadway noise exceeds the normally compatible range shown in Table 4.12-1.
Policy 3.2 Traffic Calming. Implement traffic calming measures such as
reduced speed limits or roadway design features to reduce noise levels
through reduced vehicle speeds and/or diversion of vehicle traffic where
roadway noise exceeds the normally compatible range shown in Table 4.12-1.
Policy 3.3 Synchronization of Traffic Lights. Ensure that all new traffic signals
are appropriately timed and synchronized with adjacent lights, even if in
neighboring cities, to the extent feasible in order to help promote a smooth
flow of traffic and minimize excessive noise from acceleration and braking.
Also periodically assess the timing of existing traffic signals and make any
appropriate adjustments.
Policy 3.4 Railway Noise. Ensure that noise from rail lines is taken into account
during the land use planning and site development processes.
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, impacts on noise are considered significant if adoption
and implementation of City of Palm Desert General Plan would result in:
Threshold Level of Significance
1. Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of applicable local,
state, or federal exterior and interior noise
standards;
Less Than Significant Impact
2. Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
ground borne noise levels;
Less Than Significant Impact
3. A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project;
Less Than Significant Impact
4. A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project; or
Less Than Significant Impact
5. Exposure of persons residing or working in
the area to excessive noise levels, for a
project located within an airport land use
plan or within 2 miles of a public airport.
Less Than Significant Impact
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
4.12-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Threshold Level of Significance
6. Exposure of persons residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels,
for a project within the vicinity of a private
air strip
Less Than Significant Impact
The private airstrip nearest to the project site is the Desert Regional Medical Center
Heliport, located approximately 9 miles northwest of the City limits. The project would
not be subject to excessive noise levels associated with airstrip operations. Further
discussion in this EIR is not warranted. Each impact below is given a descriptive title,
with the CEQA thresholds to which it relates listed in parentheses.
The City of Palm Desert has developed exterior land use compatibility standards that
rate compatibility using the terms normally acceptable, possibly acceptable, and
normally unacceptable, and also provide standards for interior acceptable noise levels.
Using these land use compatibility guidelines, the City has established interior and
exterior noise standards or thresholds of significance. Standards proposed by The City
of Palm Desert General Plan are presented in Table 4-12-1. These standards, which use
the CNEL/Ldn noise descriptor, provide for normally acceptable conditions based on
state recommendations. They are intended to apply to land uses exposed to noise
levels generated by transportation sources (e.g., traffic, railroad operations, aircraft).
These standards also establish maximum interior noise levels for new residential
development, requiring that sufficient insulation be provided to reduce interior
ambient noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL/Ldn
Table 4.12-1 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Land Use
Compatibility
Land Use Category
Exterior
Normally
Acceptable1
(dBA
CNEL/Ldn)
Exterior
Possibly
Acceptable2
(dBA
CNEL/Ldn)
Exterior
Normally
Unacceptable3
(dBA
CNEL/Ldn)
Interior
Acceptable4
(dBA
CNEL/Ldn
except where
noted)
Residential, single-
family
Up to 60 61-70 71 and higher 45
Residential, multi-
family
Up to 65 66-70 71 and higher 45
Residential, multi-
family mixed-use
Up to 65 66-70 71 and higher 45
Transient lodging Up to 65 66-70 71 and higher 45
Hospitals; nursing
homes
Up to 60 61-70 71 and higher 45
Theaters; auditoriums;
music halls
Up to 60 61-70 71 and higher 35 dBA Leq5
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
Table 4.12-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.12-11
Land Use Category
Exterior
Normally
Acceptable1
(dBA
CNEL/Ldn)
Exterior
Possibly
Acceptable2
(dBA
CNEL/Ldn)
Exterior
Normally
Unacceptable3
(dBA
CNEL/Ldn)
Interior
Acceptable4
(dBA
CNEL/Ldn
except where
noted)
Churches; meeting halls Up to 60 61-70 71 and higher 40 dBA Leq
Playgrounds;
neighborhood parks
Up to 70 71-75 76 and higher --
Schools; libraries;
museums
Up to 60 61-70 71 and higher 45 dBA Leq
Offices Up to 70 71-75 76 and higher 45 dBA Leq
Retail/commercial -Upt to 70 71-75 76 and higher --
Industrial Upt to 75 76-80 81 and higher --
Notes:
1 Normally acceptable means that land uses may be established in areas with the stated
ambient noise level, absent any unique noise circumstances.
2 Possibly acceptable means that land uses should be established in areas with the
stated ambient noise level only when exterior areas are omitted from the project or
noise levels in exterior areas can be mitigated to the normally acceptable level.
3 Normally unacceptable means that land uses should generally not be established in
areas with the stated ambient noise level. If the benefits of the project in addressing
other City of Palm Desert General Plan goals and policies outweigh concerns about
noise, the use should be established only where exterior areas are omitted from the
project or where exterior areas are located and shielded from noise sources to
mitigate noise to the maximum extent feasible.
4 Interior acceptable means that the building must be constructed so that interior noise
levels do not exceed the stated maximum, regardless of the exterior noise level.
Stated maximums are as determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of
use.
5 dBA Leq is as determine for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.
Application of the noise standards will vary on a case-by-case basis according to
location, development type, and associated noise sources. When stationary noise is
the primary noise source, and to ensure that noise producers do not adversely affect
noise-sensitive land uses, the City applies a second set of standards. These hourly
daytime and nighttime performance standards (expressed in Leq) for stationary noise
sources are designed to protect noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to stationary
sources from excessive noise. Table 4.12-2 summarizes stationary-source noise
standards for various land use types, which represent acceptable noise levels at
exterior spaces of the sensitive receptor.
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
4.12-12 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 4.12-2 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure—Stationary
Noise Sources
Noise Source
Noise
Level
Descriptor
Exterior Spaces2—
Daytime
(7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
Exterior Spaces2—
Nighttime
(10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
Typical Hourly
dBA Leq
551 451
Tonal, impulsive, repetitive,
or consisting primarily of
speech or music
Hourly
dBA Leq
501 401
Any dBA Lmax 75 65
Notes:
1 The City may impose noise level standards that are more or less restrictive than those
specified above based upon determination of existing low or high ambient noise
levels.
2 Where the location of exterior spaces (i.e., outdoor activity areas) is unknown, the
exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land
use. Where it is not practical to mitigate exterior noise levels at patio or balconies of
apartment complexes, a common area such as a pool or recreation area may be
designated as the exterior space.
To account for permanent increases in ambient noise levels, the City has established
numeric thresholds of significance. Where the existing ambient noise level is less than
60 dBA, a project-related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 5 dBA
CNEL/Ldn or greater would be considered substantial. Where the existing ambient
noise level is greater than 60 dBA, a project-related permanent increase in ambient
noise levels of 3 dBA CNEL/Ldn or greater would be considered substantial. Application
of the noise standards will vary on a case-by-case basis according to location,
development type, and associated noise sources.
The State CEQA Guidelines do not define the levels at which groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise is considered “excessive.” For the purpose of this analysis,
groundborne vibration impacts associated with human annoyance would be
considered significant if the proposed project exceeds 85 VdB, which is the vibration
level that is considered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to be acceptable
only if there are an infrequent number of daily events. In terms of groundborne
vibration impacts on structures, this analysis will use the FTA’s vibration damage
threshold of approximately 100 VdB for fragile buildings, and approximately 95 VdB
for extremely fragile historic buildings (FTA, 2006).
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.12-13
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.12-1
Expose Noise Sensitive Receptors to Construction Noise Levels
(Thresholds 1, 4). Short-term construction noise levels associated with
implementation of the General Plan could exceed applicable City of Palm
Desert standards at nearby noise-sensitive receptors. In addition, if
construction activities were to occur during more noise-sensitive hours
(outside the construction hours defined in PDMC Section 9.24.070),
construction noise levels could also create a substantial temporary
increase in ambient noise levels creating a potentially significant
impact.
While implementation of the City of Palm Desert General Plan would not directly
result in new development within Palm Desert, it would allow development and
redevelopment, which would generate noise during construction activity. Future
development within the City would occur primarily where existing development has
not reached the developmental potential or capacity allowed by the existing General
Plan designations.
Construction activity within these areas would have the potential to impact noise
sensitive land uses. Table 4.12-3 illustrates typical noise levels associated with the
operation of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet. As shown, construction
equipment generates high levels of intermittent noise ranging from 55 dBA to 95 dBA
and would result in a significant impact where noise sensitive land uses adjoin
construction sites.
Although construction activities will result in a substantial noise increase in such
locations, this impact will be short term and will cease upon completion of
construction.
The City of Palm Desert exempts construction noise between the hours of 7:00 a.m.to
5:30 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays, but does not contain
quantified noise level limits for construction activities. The regulatory exemption
reflects the City’s acknowledgement that construction noise is a necessary part of new
development and does not create an unacceptable public nuisance when conducted
during the least noise sensitive hours of the day.
As discussed in the TBR, noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of
distance between the noise source and receptor. However, intervening structures
would also result in lower noise levels at the receptor. Sound levels may be attenuated
3.0 dBA to 5.0 dBA by a first row of houses/buildings and 1.5 dBA for each additional
row of houses in built-up environments (FHWA, 1978). These factors generally limit
the distance construction noise travels and ensure noise impacts from construction
are localized.
Table 4.12-3 Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Item Typical Maximum Noise Level (dBA) at 50 Feet
Earthmoving
Backhoes 80
Bulldozers 85
Front Loaders 80
Graders 85
Paver 85
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
Table 4.12-3, continued
4.12-14 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Equipment Item Typical Maximum Noise Level (dBA) at 50 Feet
Roller 85
Scrapers 85
Tractors 84
Slurry Trencher 82
Dump Truck 84
Pickup Truck 55
Materials Handling
Concrete Mixer Truck 85
Concrete Pump Truck 82
Crane 85
Man Lift 85
Stationary Equipment
Compressors 80
Generator 82
Pumps 77
Impact Equipment
Compactor 80
Jack Hammers 85
Impact Pile Drivers (Peak Level) 95
Pneumatic Tools 85
Rock Drills 85
Other Equipment
Concrete Saws 90
Vibrating Hopper 85
Welding Machine / Torch 73
Source: Bolt, Beranek and Newman Inc., 1981; FTA, 2006:12-6
Although construction noise would attenuate rapidly from individual construction
sites, noise sensitive land uses could be intermittently exposed to substantial
temporary increases in ambient noise levels. Due to the potential for high short-term
and instantaneous noise levels during peak construction activity at nearby residential
properties, several General Plan Noise Element policies have been developed to
reduce noise levels associated with construction.
The City of Palm Desert General Plan Noise Element Policies 1.1, 2.1, and 2.2 include
measures to limit exposure of noise sensitive land uses to excessive noise levels from
point sources, including construction activities. Policy 1.1, 2.1, and 2.2 are outlined
below.
1.1 Noise Compatibility. Apply the Noise Compatibility Matrix, shown in Figure
7.1, as a guide for planning and development decisions. The City will require
projects involving new development or modifications to existing development
to implement mitigation measures, where necessary, to reduce noise levels to
at least the normally compatible range shown in the City’s Noise Compatibility
Matrix shown in Figure 7.1. Mitigation measures should focus on architectural
features and building design and construction, rather than site design features
such as excessive setbacks, berms and sound walls, to maintain compatibility
with adjacent and surrounding uses.
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.12-15
2.1 Noise Ordinance. Minimize noise conflicts between neighboring properties
through enforcement of applicable regulations such as the City’s Noise Control
Ordinance.
2.2 Noise Control. Ensure that noise impacts from stationary sources on noise-
sensitive receptors and noise emanating from construction activities, private
developments/residences, landscaping activities, night clubs and bars, and
special events are minimized.
Because of the potential for the use of ground moving equipment, compressors,
hammers and similar building activities, noise levels near construction sites would be
higher than existing ambient levels at those locations. There are two types of
construction noise impacts that could occur during construction resulting from future
developments consistent with the General Plan update.
First, construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and
materials to construction sites would incrementally increase noise levels on access
roads leading to these sites. The California Vehicle Code section 27204 limits vehicle
noise for motor vehicles manufactured after 1987 and weighing 10,000 pounds to 80
dba. This size of vehicle would be used to tow trailers containing grading equipment to
and from the site and may be used to move soil to and from a site during construction.
The 80 dba noise level, measured at 50 feet from the vehicle, is also the limit for
passenger vehicles. All vehicle travelling on public roadways must be registered and
comply with the California Vehicle Code.
For larger projects, the project-specific environmental analysis would examine the
extent of construction, the probable route and staging areas, and then determine the
extent of impact. Other than the transport of heavy construction equipment to and
from a construction site, most of the commuting is done with personal vehicles such
as cars and pickup trucks that have noise patterns similar to the existing traffic. Since
workers would commute on existing roadways, construction times (including the
relocation of large equipment) are limited by ordinance to daytime hours. For smaller
projects, the provisions of the California Vehicle Code will regulate noise from the
vehicle itself, and the construction hour limitations limiting noise exposure to the
areas adjacent to the project. Because the construction and equipment movement
noise would be similar to existing traffic, this impact is less than significant.
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during site
preparation, grading, building construction and site improvements. Noise levels
associated with typical construction equipment are summarized in Table 4.12-3 above.
Construction noise is exempt from the City’s noise ordinance, and the City has no
adopted threshold for construction, which is intermittent and temporary in nature. To
determine a threshold for construction noise, construction-related standards of other
agencies were reviewed. Specifically, noise standards from the California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), and the California Department of Industrial Relations
(DIR) were reviewed. Their limits are as follows:
Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14-8
Do not exceed 86 dBA LMax (maximum instantaneous sound level) at 50 feet from the
job site activities from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m.
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
4.12-16 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
The American National Standards Institute
A10.46-2007, Hearing Loss Prevention in Construction and Demolition Workers.
Applies to all construction and demolition workers with potential noise exposures
(continuous, intermittent, and impulse) of 85 dBA and above.
The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
The ACGIH has established exposure guidelines for occupational exposure to noise in
its Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) (85 dBA PEL with a 3 dBA exchange rate).
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR 227, Occupational Noise Exposure for Railroad Operating Employees. Requires
railroads to conduct noise monitoring and implement a hearing conservation program
for employees whose exposure to cab noise equals or exceeds an 8-hour time-
weighted-average of 85 dBA. This final rule became effective February 26, 2007.
California Department of Industrial Relations
Employers shall make hearing protectors available to all employees exposed to an 8-
hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels or greater at no cost to the employees.
Hearing protectors shall be replaced as necessary. The DIR also establishes time-based
exposure limits to different noise levels; however, their table starts at the 90 dBA
level.
As shown above, these agencies seem to settle on 85 dBA as a reasonable threshold of
noise exposure for construction workers. Construction activities would be intermittent
and temporary, and it is highly unlikely that a noise-sensitive receptor (as exposed to a
construction worker) would be exposed to construction-related noise levels above 85
dBA continuously for the length of the project’s construction. However, the City has
determined that exposure of noise-sensitive receptors to construction noise levels
above 85 dBA would result in a potentially significant impact.
It is unknown where and when construction resulting from future developments
consistent with the General Plan update will occur, and what specific receptors may
be affected by the noise. To ensure that construction noise is below 85 dBA, mitigation
measure NOI-1 requires the use of grading and excavation equipment that has been
certified to generate noise levels of no more than 85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, or
erecting a temporary noise barrier during construction to ensure that the noise level is
not exceeded, and coordinating with the adjacent receptors such that they are aware
of the construction schedule.
Compliance with mitigation measure NOI-1 will ensure notification of the adjacent
receptors, a contact to call concerning noise, a requirement to conduct the noisiest
construction activities (e.g., grading and trenching) during the time of day when most
residents are at work, and that the noise wall is constructed to reduce noise during the
noisiest construction activities of the project. This will ensure that noise levels are at
or below the 85 dBA threshold; therefore, this impact is less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
NOI-1 Construction Noise Impacts. Construction resulting from future
developments consistent with the General Plan update would
potentially result in higher noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors.
The following best management practices (BMPs) would reduce
short-term construction-related noise impacts:
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.12-17
1. Notification shall be mailed to owners and occupants of all
developed land uses immediately bordering the
construction site, and posted directly across the street from
the construction site, providing a schedule for major
construction activities that will occur for the duration of the
construction period. In addition, the notification will include
the identification of and contact number for a community
liaison and a designated construction manager who would
be available on-site to monitor construction activities. The
construction manager will be located at the on-site
construction office during construction hours for the
duration of all construction activities. Contact information
for the community liaison and the construction manager
will be located at the construction office, City Hall, and the
police department.
2. During all construction site excavation and grading, the
construction contractor shall equip all construction
equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and
maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’
standards.
3. The construction contractor shall place all stationary
construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed
away from sensitive receptors nearest the construction site.
4. For off road construction the contractor shall utilize grading
and excavation equipment that is certified to generate
noise levels of no more than 85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.
5. All equipment designed for use on public roads shall be
properly maintained with operating mufflers and air intake
silencers as effective as those installed by the original
manufacturer.
6. The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging
in areas that will create the greatest distance between
construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive
receptors nearest the construction site during all project
construction.
Timing/Implementation:
Prior to any earth movement permit or activity
Enforcement/Monitoring:
City Planning and Public Works Departments
Additionally, the City’s Noise Element requires future projects to conduct project-level
noise analyses. With incorporation of the General Plan policies, compliance with the
City’s noise ordinance, and implementation of NOI-1, noise impacts would be less
than significant with mitigation incorporated.
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
4.12-18 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
IMPACT
4.12-2
Long-Term Increase in Traffic Noise Levels at Existing Noise-Sensitive
Receptors (Thresholds 1, 3). Development facilitated by the General
Plan would increase traffic and associated noise levels along area
roadways in and around the City, which would expose existing and
planned receptors to noise level increases. However, implementation of
City of Palm Desert General Plan policies and programs would improve
traffic flow, roadway design, and site design to reduce overall traffic
noise within the city. Based on traffic modeling conducted for City of
Palm Desert General Plan, this impact would be less than significant.
Implementation of the proposed project would allow new development and
redevelopment within the city that would generate additional traffic, which would
increase ambient noise levels along local and regional roadways. However, the
proposed project includes policies that would reduce noise related to vehicular traffic.
These policies require new development and/or modifications to existing
development to include sound-reducing design measures to maintain compatibility
with adjacent and surrounding uses; promote alternative transportation technologies
that minimize noise impacts; and require performance of project-specific acoustical
studies for individual development projects. To examine traffic noise impacts, traffic
noise levels associated within the City of Palm Desert were calculated for roadway
segments in the city using the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Day/Night Noise Level (DNL) Calculator (HUD, 2014) Traffic noise levels were modeled
under existing and 2040 conditions. Average daily traffic volumes were obtained from
the traffic analysis prepared for the City of Palm Desert General Plan. (Fehr & Peers,
2016) Vehicle mix classification and speeds for local area roadways were based on
field observations and the 2014 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California
State Highway System prepared by Caltrans (Caltrans, 2014). Figure 4.12-1 shows
existing noise contours along major roadways, while Figure 4.12-2 shows future 2040
noise contours.
Table 4.12-4 summarizes modeled noise levels at 100 feet from the roadway
centerline for affected roadway segments in the city. These traffic noise levels
represent an application of conservative traffic noise modeling methodologies, which
assume no natural or artificial shielding from existing or proposed structures or
topography. Actual traffic noise exposure levels at noise sensitive receptors in the
project vicinity would vary depending on a combination of factors, including variations
in daily traffic volumes, shielding provided by existing and proposed structures, and
meteorological conditions. Please refer to Appendix 4.12 of this EIR for complete
modeling inputs and results.
Based on the modeling presented in Table 4.12-4, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in a substantial change in traffic noise levels under 2040
conditions, when compared to existing conditions. When comparing future 2040 noise
levels to existing noise levels, no roadway segment would experience increases in
ambient noise levels that exceed significance criteria and impacts would be considered
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation is required.
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.12-19
Figure 4.12-1 Existing Noise Contours
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
4.12-20 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Figure 4.12-2 Future Noise Contours
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.12-21
IMPACT
4.12-3
Exposure of Noise Sensitive Receptors to Stationary Source Noise in
Excess of Applicable Standards (Thresholds 1, 3). Implementation of the
City of Palm Desert General Plan would result in increases in on-site
stationary-source noise levels associated with the proposed residential,
commercial, mixed-use, office/industrial, park, and educational land
uses. These stationary noise sources could exceed applicable hourly and
maximum noise standards and result in a substantial increase in
ambient noise levels. However, adherence to and implementation of
General Plan policies and programs and adherence to the City’s Noise
Control Ordinance would result in a less-than-significant impact.
As described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, implementation of the City of Palm
Desert General Plan would include a University Neighborhood Specific Plan for the
development of a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood west of the California State
University San Bernardino-Palm Desert Campus. Additionally, the General Plan would
include a 111 Corridor Plan, which contains detailed policy guidance, development
standards, and design guidelines for the transformation of the Highway 111 corridor
into a walkable, mixed-use city center. As a result of increased residential
development in the City, the number of noise-sensitive receptors would also increase.
As a consequence, the increase in dwelling units could result in locating noise-sensitive
receptors near existing and planned noise-generating land uses.
Where exterior noise levels are below 65 dBA Ldn, interior noise levels for new
construction would typically meet the interior 45 dBA Ldn standard established in Title
24 of the California Code of Regulations, due to standard construction techniques that
reduce interior noise. Where exterior noise levels range from 60 dBA to 70 dBA Ldn,
interior noise can be mitigated by standard wall and window construction, and the
inclusion of mechanical forced-air ventilation to allow occupants the option to keep
windows closed to control noise. Where exterior noise levels exceed 70 dBA Ldn,
residential units would not normally be able to meet the 45 dBA Ldn interior standard
simply through typical construction methods. Thus, noise-sensitive uses (as described
under the heading Existing Noise Sensitive Receptors in Section 4.12.2,) located within
the 70 dBA Ldn contour may require additional noise reduction measures, such as
windows and doors with high Sound Transition Class (STC) ratings to meet the 45 dBA
Ldn criteria.
The City of Palm Desert General Plan also proposes an increase in non-residential land
uses in the City. Noise sources associated with commercial and industrial land uses
could include mechanical equipment operations, public address systems, parking lot
noise (e.g., opening and closing of vehicle doors, people talking, car alarms), delivery
activities (e.g., use of forklifts, hydraulic lifts), trash compactors, and air compressors.
Noise from such equipment can reach intermittent levels of approximately 90 dBA 50
feet from the source (EPA, 1974: B-1). However, these noise generating activities
would be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Control Ordinance, which
establishes limits on noise generated by machinery, equipment, fans, and HVAC
equipment.
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
4.12-22 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 4.12-4 Traffic Noise Levels Existing and Future City of Palm Desert Conditions
Roadway Segment
Ldn at 100 Feet, dBA
Existing Condition*
Future
2040
Project
Net Change from Existing Conditions
Significant
Impact?
Monterey Ave N/O Dinah Shore Drive 72.6 72.6 0.0 No
Monterey Ave N/O Gerald Ford Drive 71.5 71.6 0.1 No
Monterey Ave N/O Country Club Drive 71.8 71.9 0.1 No
Monterey Ave N/O Fred Waring Drive 70.9 71.2 0.3 No
Portola Ave S/O Highway 111 66.5 66.7 0.2 No
Portola Ave N/O Fred Waring Drive 67.8 67.1 -0.7 No
Portola Ave N/O Country Club Drive 67.0 67.8 0.8 No
Portola Ave N/O Frank Sinatra Drive 66.7 68.0 1.3 No
Cook Street N/O Fred Waring Drive 69.2 69.5 0.3 No
Cook Street N/O Country Club Drive 69.5 69.5 0.0 No
Cook Street N/O Frank Sinatra Drive 69.7 69.9 0.2 No
Cook Street N/O Gerald Ford Drive 70.6 70.7 0.1 No
Washington Street N/O Fred Waring Drive 71.4 71.4 0.0 No
Washington Street N/O Hovley Lane 71.0 71.0 0.0 No
Washington Street N/O Country Club Drive 71.6 71.9 0.3 No
Fred Waring Drive E/O Highway 111 67.7 68.3 0.6 No
Fred Waring Drive E/O Monterey Avenue 69.9 71.0 0.1 No
Fred Waring Drive W/O Cook Street 70.9 70.9 0.0 No
Fred Waring Drive W/O Washington Street 70.1 70.5 0.4 No
Country Club Drive W/O Portola Avenue 68.6 69.8 1.3 No
Country Club Drive W/O Washington Street 69.6 70.7 1.1 No
Frank Sinatra Drive W/O Portola Avenue 66.0 66.4 0.4 No
Frank Sinatra Drive W/O Cook Street 66.1 67.0 0.9 No
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
Table 4.12-4, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.12-23
Roadway Segment
Ldn at 100 Feet, dBA
Existing Condition*
Future
2040
Project
Net Change from Existing Conditions
Significant
Impact?
Gerald Ford Drive E/O Cook Street 64.4 66.6 2.2 No
Gerald Ford Drive E/O Monterey Avenue 66.7 68.3 1.6 No
Dinah Shore Drive W/O Monterey Avenue 69.9 70.2 0.3 No
Dinah Shore Drive E/O Monterey Avenue 66.7 67.8 1.1 No
El Paseo E/O Highway 74 64.1 64.1 0.0 No
Highway 111 E/O Bob Hope Drive 72.6 72.6 0.0 No
Highway 111 E/O Fred Waring Drive 73.7 73.7 0.0 No
Highway 111 W/O Monterey Avenue 72.2 72.3 0.1 No
Highway 111 E/O San Pablo Avenue 72.8 73.2 0.4 No
Highway 111 W/O Cook Street 72.8 72.9 0.1 No
Highway 74 N/O Mesa View Drive 66.4 66.4 0.0 No
Interstate 10 Monterey Ave Portola Avenue 84.2 86.1 1.9 No
Interstate 10 Portola Avenue Cook Street 84.2 86.1 1.9 No
Interstate 10 Cook Street Washington Street 84.0 86.2 2.2 No
Note:
* Traffic noise levels are predicted at a standard distance of 100 feet from the roadway centerline and do not account for shielding from existing noise barriers or intervening
structures. Traffic noise levels may vary depending on actual setback distances and localized shielding.
Source: Data modeled using the HUD DNL Calculator (HUD, 2014). Traffic data used from traffic impact study prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2016.
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
4.12-24 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
In addition, the City of Palm Desert’s General Plan Noise Element Policies 1.1 through
1.6, and 2.1 through 2.5 include actions to reduce noise related conflicts between
residential and non-residential land uses.
Policy 1.1: Noise Compatibility. Apply the maximum allowable noise exposure
for different land uses, shown in Figure 7 Noise Compatibility Matrix, as a
guide for planning and development decisions. The City will require projects
involving new development or modifications to existing development to
implement mitigation measures, where necessary, to reduce noise levels to at
least the normally compatible range. Mitigation measures should focus on
architectural features and building design and construction, rather than site
design features such as excessive setbacks, berms and sound walls, to
maintain compatibility with adjacent and surrounding uses.
Policy 1.2: Noise Buffers. Require an open space or other noise buffer
between new projects that are a source of excessive noise and nearby noise-
sensitive receptors.
Policy 1.3: Mixed Use. Require that mixed-use structures and areas be
designed to prevent transfer of noise from commercial uses to residential
uses, and ensure a 45 dBA CNEL level or lower for all interior living spaces.
Policy 1.4: County and Regional Plans. Periodically review County and regional
plans for transportation facilities and airport operation, to identify and
mitigate potential noise impacts on future development.
Policy 1.5: Airport Land Use Planning. Ensure that new development in the
city complies with all applicable policies contained in the Riverside County
General Plan Noise Element relating to airport noise, including those policies
requiring compliance with the airport land use noise compatibility criteria
contained in the airport land use compatibility plan for Bermuda Dunes
Airport, which is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence
Policy 1.6: Land Use and Community Design. Prioritize the building design and
character policies in the Land Use and Community Character Element over
those in the Noise Element to ensure that new development meets the design
vision of the city. This policy will not apply when noise levels are clearly in the
incompatible range as shown the Noise Compatibility Matrix
Policy 2.1: Noise Ordinance. Minimize noise conflicts between neighboring
properties through enforcement of applicable regulations such as the City’s
Noise Control Ordinance.
Policy 2.2: Noise Control. Ensure that noise impacts from stationary sources
on noise-sensitive receptors and noise emanating from construction activities,
private developments/residences, landscaping activities, night clubs and bars,
and special events are minimized.
Policy 2.3: Entertainment Uses. Ensure that entertainment uses, restaurants,
and bars engage in responsible management and operation to control the
activities of their patrons on-site and within reasonable and legally justifiable
proximity to minimize noise impacts on adjacent residences and other noise-
sensitive receptors, and require mitigation as needed for development of
entertainment uses near noise-sensitive receptors
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.12-25
Policy 2.4: Industrial Uses. Ensure that industrial uses engage in responsible
operational practices that minimize noise impacts on adjacent residences and
other noise-sensitive receptors, and require mitigation as needed for
development of industrial uses near noise-sensitive receptors.
Policy 2.5: Noise Barriers for Industrial/Commercial Sources. If necessary, and
after implementation of measures utilizing architectural features and building
design and construction consistent with Policy 1.2, require certain industrial
and certain heavy commercial uses to use absorptive types of noise barriers or
walls to reduce noise levels generated by these uses. To be considered
effective, the noise barrier should provide at least a 5-dBA CNEL noise
reduction.
With adherence to and implementation of these City of Palm Desert General Plan
policies and adherence to the City’s Noise Control Ordinance, program-level stationary
noise source and land use conflict noise impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
None required.
IMPACT
4.12-4
Exposure of Noise Sensitive Receptors to Rail Noise (Thresholds 1, 4).
Implementation of the City of Palm Desert General Plan could result in
increased exposure of sensitive receptors to rail-generated noise.
However, General Plan policies and programs would reduce potential
noise exposure. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
Freight rail service along the Union Pacific Railroad lines located immediately south of
and parallel to Interstate 10 is responsible for generating substantial noise levels in
this area. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, this railroad experiences
up to 16 daytime trains (6AM to 6PM) and 14 nighttime trains (6PM to 6AM). Given
the variety of freight and length of trains that use the corridor, it is not possible to
precisely quantify rail noise levels. Although the passage of trains is an intrusive noise
source, it occurs only periodically and with limited duration. A more substantial noise
source in this area is Interstate 10, which experience high levels of truck traffic
accounting for approximately 28% of the total daily traffic. The Town Center
Neighborhood, Employment District, Industrial District, Public Facility/Institutional
District, Regional Retail District, and Suburban Retail Center would experience the
most growth adjacent to Interstate 10 under buildout of the General Plan. These areas
would allow a variety of uses, including residential, research and development, retail,
recreational, governmental, and industrial. Some of these uses may include future
sensitive receptors. However, the City of Palm Desert General Plan Policies 1.1, 1.2,
1.4, and 3.4, included in the Noise Element are designed to prevent and reduce
sources of excessive noise, including rail operations. Policy 1.1 is listed above, in
Impact 4.12-1, and the remaining Policies are listed below:
1.2 Noise Buffers. Require an open space or other noise buffer between new
projects that are a source of excessive noise and nearby noise-sensitive
receptors.
1.4 County and Regional Plans. Periodically review County and regional plans
for transportation facilities and airport operation, to identify and mitigate
potential noise impacts on future development.
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
4.12-26 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
3.4 Railway Noise. Ensure that noise from rail lines is taken into account
during the land use planning and site development processes.
Guidance included in the General Plan will be applied at the project level as the City
considers land use changes in the future. Development projects located along the
railroad line would be required to reduce noise levels in accordance with the City of
Palm Desert General Plan policies and an updated Noise Control Ordinance through
project design and site planning. This would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
None required.
IMPACT
4.12-5
Exposure of Noise Sensitive Receptors to Aircraft Noise (Thresholds 5,
6). The City of Palm Desert General Plan implementation could result in
increased exposure of sensitive receptors to aircraft generated noise.
However, City of Palm Desert General Plan policies and programs would
reduce potential noise exposure; this impact would be less than
significant.
The Bermuda Dunes Airport is located approximately 1.75 miles east of the current
city limits and located within Palm Desert’s sphere of influence. The Bermuda Dunes
Airport is a privately owned “Public Use General Aviation, Utility Category Airport.” It
is FAA approved and operates under State of California and County of Riverside
permits. In 2015, the airport underwent various, substantial changes with regards to
staffing and facilities. The airport has since introduced a new maintenance operation
and is currently engaged in a remodeling process for both the lobby and the adjacent
15,000 square foot hangar. In total, the airport has parking accommodations for
approximately 250 aircraft. There are approximately 11,500 operational activities
(landings and takeoffs) per year, which equates to an average daily traffic count of 32
operations (Bermuda Dunes, 2016). The City of Palm Desert General Plan Policies 1.1,
1.4, and 1.5, included in the Noise Element, are designed to prevent and reduce
sources of excessive noise, including airport operations. Policy 1.1 is outlined above in
Impact 4.12-1, Policy 1.4 is outlined above in Impact 4.12-2, and Policy 1.5 is outlined
below.
1.5 Airport Land Use Planning. Ensure that new development in the city
complies with all applicable policies contained in the Riverside County General
Plan Noise Element relating to airport noise, including those policies requiring
compliance with the airport land use noise compatibility criteria contained in
the airport land use compatibility plan for Bermuda Dunes Airport, which is
located within the City’s Sphere of Influence.
Any development in Palm Desert or its Sphere of Influence that is also within the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan of Bermuda Dunes Airport would also require
review by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), which would
help ensure compliance with Policy 1.5. As such, additional existing and future
residents within the city would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of city
standards as a result of continued operation of the airport. This would be a less than
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
None required.
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.12-27
IMPACT
4.12-6
Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Groundborne Vibration (Threshold
2). Sensitive receptors could be subjected to operational and
construction vibration levels in excess of established thresholds.
However, adherence to and implementation of General Plan policies and
programs and adherence to the City’s Municipal Code (9.24.070
Construction Activities) would result in a less-than-significant impact.
Construction and operation of projects resulting from future developments consistent
with the General Plan update would create a significant impact if it resulted in
groundborne vibration levels that could cause disturbance to sensitive receptors or
physical damage to fragile buildings.
Groundborne vibration in the City of Palm Desert is generated primarily by two
sources: temporary construction activities and permanent traffic on roadways and
railways. Both of these activities, while they are occurring, create “frequent” vibration
events as defined in the FTA’s May 2006 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment, which sets a 72 VdB threshold for frequent events affecting residences
and buildings where people normally sleep and a 100 VdB threshold for minor
cosmetic damage to fragile buildings (vibration levels below 100 VdB produce no
damage to buildings).
Construction activities that would occur under the proposed project would generate
groundborne vibration. Table 4.12-5 below identifies vibration levels for common
types of construction equipment.
Under the proposed project, construction activities would occur at discrete locations
in the city and vibration from such activity may impact existing buildings and their
occupants if they are located close enough to the construction sites. Based on the
information presented in Table 4.12-5, if sensitive receptors are located close enough
to potential project construction sites these sensitive receptors (such as residences or
schools) could experience vibration levels exceeding the FTA’s vibration impact
threshold of 72 VdB. However, this threshold is for residences where people normally
sleep. Section 9.24.070 of the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) specifically
exempts noise sources associated with construction, erection, demolition, alteration,
repair, addition to or improvement of any building, structure, road or improvement to
realty, provided that such activities take place during daytime hours, as follows:
October 1st through April 30th
Monday – Friday: 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Saturday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Sunday: None.
Holidays: None
May 1st through September 30th
Monday – Friday: 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Saturday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Sunday: None.
Holidays: None
These restrictions on hours of construction would keep any such construction
activities exceeding 72 VdB at the nearest sensitive receptor from significantly
interfering with people’s sleep.
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
4.12-28 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 4.12-5 Representative Vibration Source Levels for
Construction Equipment
Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec)1, 3
Approximate Lv (VdB) at
25 feet2
Pile Driver
(impact)
Upper range 1.518 112
Typical 0.644 104
Pile Driver
(sonic)
Upper range 0.734 105
Typical 0.170 93
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Heavy-duty Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Notes:
1 Where PPV is the peak particle velocity.
2 Where Lv is the RMS velocity expressed in vibration decibels (VdB), assuming a crest
factor of 4.
3 Vibration levels can be approximated at other locations and distances using the above
reference levels and the following equation: PPVequip = PPVref (25/D)1.1 (in/sec);
where “PPV ref” is the given value in the above table, “D” is the distance for the
equipment to the new receiver in feet.
Source: FTA 2006
As shown in Table 4.12-5, construction activities involving pile drivers can cause higher
vibration levels with the potential to cause physical damage to nearby buildings. For
example, at its upper range, an impact pile driver can produce 100 VdB at up to 100
feet from the source, which would exceed the FTA’s threshold for minor cosmetic
damage to fragile buildings. However, whether or not this would occur would depend
on the circumstances of individual construction projects, such as whether or not they
involve pile driving and their proximity to any fragile building. Section 9.24.040 of the
PDMC forbids any person to “make, cause, or continue to make or cause loud,
excessive, impulsive, or intrusive sound, or noise that annoys or disturbs persons of
ordinary sensibilities of a distance of greater than fifty feet from property line.”
Although daytime construction noise would be exempt from this provision under
Section 9.24.070 of the PDMC as discussed above, construction vibration impacts
would be subject to City review. The City reviews the potential for construction
vibration impacts before it issues building permits, and would require measures to
ensure that physical damage to neighboring building would not occur before issuing a
building permit.
Automotive traffic on roadways and train traffic on railways also produce
groundborne vibration. These sources of vibration are not governed by the PDMC. As
shown in Table 4.12-5, a loaded truck can produce 86 VdB at 25 feet, and 74 VdB at
100 feet. Such vibration levels may occasionally exceed the FTA’s 72 VdB threshold,
but would not exceed the 100 VdB threshold. Although the proposed project may
increase automotive traffic levels in the City of Palm Desert as the community grows in
population and accommodates new business activity, the same policies within the
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.12-29
General Plan Update that would reduce impacts from auto traffic-related noise would
also reduce impacts from auto traffic-related vibration.
Vibration levels from trains depend on the kind of train. Palm Desert already
experiences freight rail traffic on the rail line that runs from northwest to southeast
through the community along Interstate 10. The trains running on these lines are
generally referred to as “heavy rail”. Vibration levels from heavy rail would be
approximately 80 VdB (FTA, May 2006), which is lower than that of a loaded truck at
25 feet, and which would not exceed the 100 VdB threshold. Vibration from the
railroad tracks is and would continue to be intermittent, and traffic on this freight rail
line would not significantly increase due to implementation of the General Plan
Update to the extent that it would expose persons to or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Future development in the city of Palm Desert consistent with the General Plan
update would be subject to the City’s standards and review process as discussed
above, which would ensure that such development would not expose persons to or
generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This impact
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
None required.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Considering the proposed project is a General Plan Update, which takes into account
existing and potential development over approximately the next twenty years, the
analysis of noise-related impacts contained within this chapter of the EIR is already
cumulative in nature. Cumulative development in the City of Palm Desert would add
population, business, and traffic to the community. This cumulative development
would also increase noise levels in the community, especially in the vicinity of its
busiest roadways. However, this impact has already been analyzed and determined to
be less than significant under Impacts 4.12-2 and 4.12-3, which found that the General
Plan Update’s potential to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity is less than significant with implementation of the policies
of the proposed project and enforcement of the City’s Noise Ordinance. This impact is
therefore less than cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is necessary.
CHAPTER 4.12 NOISE
4.12-30 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 4.13: POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.13-1
4.13. Population, Employment, and Housing
Introduction
This chapter evaluates the potential environmental effects related to population,
employment, and housing associated with implementation of the General Plan
update. The analysis includes a review of the potential to induce population growth
and the potential for displacement of people or housing. The updated General Plan
Land Use & Community Character Element policies and the implementation actions
presented in the Land Use & Community Character Element and the City Center Area
Plan describe development and infrastructure practices that permit orderly growth
while protecting existing residential neighborhoods.
NOP Responses: No comment letters in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP)
addressed concerns for population, employment, and housing.
Reference Information: Information for this resource chapter is based on numerous
references, including the General Plan Update Technical Background Report (TBR),
California Department of Finance) data, and other publicly available documents. The
TBR prepared for the project is attached to this document as Appendix 4.0. The EIR,
including the TBR, is also available electronically on the City’s website
(http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/general-plan-update).
Environmental Setting
Demographic Profile
Population
The 2015 population of Palm Desert, one of nine incorporated communities in the
Coachella Valley, was 49,335 (DOF 2016a). This makes Palm Desert the third largest
city in the Coachella Valley and the twelfth largest city in Riverside County, accounting
for 2.2 percent of the county’s total population.
The California Department of Finance (2012, 2016b) estimates that Palm Desert added
9,262 residents, representing a 22.5 percent level of growth, between 2000 and 2014.
This translates to an average annual population growth of 662 persons per year over
the 14-year period. This rate of growth was more rapid than the state’s but was
significantly less than the growth rate experienced in Riverside County over the same
period. Between 2000 and 2014, Riverside County grew by 734,580 people,
representing 47.5 percent growth. California, Riverside County, and Palm Desert
population growth from 2000 through 2014 is depicted in Table 4.13-1.
CHAPTER 4.13: POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
4.13-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 4.13-1 Population Growth
Year California Riverside County Palm Desert
2016 39,255,883 2,347,828 49,335
2015 38,907,642 2,317,924 48,835
2014 38,340,074 2,279,967 48,494
2013 37,984,138 2,255,653 48,282
2012 37,668,804 2,234,209 49,786
2011 37,427,946 2,205,731 48,957
2010 37,223,900 2,179,692 48,445
2009 36,966,713 2,140,626 47,993
2008 36,704,375 2,102,741 47,453
2007 36,399,676 2,049,902 46,867
2006 36,116,202 1,975,913 47,270
2005 35,869,173 1,895,695 47,422
2004 35,570,847 1,814,485 43,899
2003 35,163,609 1,730,219 43,204
2002 34,725,516 1,655,291 42,279
2001 34,256,789 1,589,708 41,685
2000 33,873,086 1,545,387 41,155
Source: DOF 2016a, 2016b
Housing Characteristics
There are approximately 38,167 housing units in Palm Desert (DOF 2016a). These units
are in residential neighborhoods located throughout the city. Detached single-family
dwellings are the predominant type of residence.
Consistent with the prevalence of seasonal occupancy, Palm Desert has a significantly
higher occurrence of multi-unit housing than is found in the county as a whole.
Structures with 5 to 9 units make up just under 6 percent of the city’s total housing
stock compared to 4 percent in the county as a whole. Palm Desert has significantly
higher proportion of multi-unit properties in every category in comparison to the
county. In most parts of California, multi-unit housing tends to produce housing
overcrowding with large numbers of occupants per room; however, in Palm Desert
there is significantly less housing overcrowding (defined as more than one occupant
per room) than is observed in Riverside County as a whole. Slightly more than 2
percent of all of the units identified in the 2012 American Community Survey in Palm
Desert identified as being overcrowded. This compares to over 7 percent for the
county overall. The prevalence of single-person households and seasonal occupancy
explains both the relatively higher proportion of multi-unit structures in Palm Desert
and the low rates of observed overcrowding.
The number of housing units in Palm Desert increased by 1,094 units, or 2.9 percent
between 2010 and 2015 (DOF 2016a).
Approximately 40 percent of housing units in Palm Desert were vacant in 2016 (DOF
2016a), compared to 13.9 percent countywide. According to the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (2000), a housing vacancy rate
of 5 percent is considered normal. Vacancy rates below 5 percent indicate a housing
shortage in a community. Palm Desert’s higher than normal vacancy rate seems to
indicate either an oversupply of housing or seasonal ‘second’ homes that are vacant
for much of the year.
CHAPTER 4.13: POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.13-3
In 2016, the city had 49,027 households with an average household size of 2.16
persons (DOF 2016a). Household size was smaller than in Riverside County as a whole
(3.24 persons) (DOF 2016a).
Compared to most other jurisdictions in the Coachella Valley, Palm Desert has a higher
proportion of non-family households. Approximately 54 percent of Palm Desert
households comprised families in 2012, while 46 percent were non-family households
or households with just one person. The only jurisdiction in the area to have a higher
rate of non-family households was Palm Springs (TBR).
33.8 percent of the total dwelling units in the city were built between 1980 and 1989.
Of the existing dwelling units in Palm Desert, 202, just over 0.5 percent, were built
prior to 1940, compared to 2.1 percent for Riverside County as a whole (TBR).
Employment
As of 2011, there were 15,977 residents of Palm Desert in the labor force, while the
city’s businesses employed a total of 25,630 people. While most industries have
similar numbers for residents and employees, the Retail Trade; Accommodation &
Food Service; and Administration & Support, Waste Management positions had higher
rates of nonresidents (US Census Bureau 2011).
Of employed residents, the largest age group is 30–54 (53 percent), while those over
55 or under 29 each made up approximately one-quarter of the employed residents.
In comparison, for those who are employed in Palm Desert (and may or may not live in
the city), there is a higher proportion of employees under the age of 29 (34 percent)
and a smaller share of employees over the age of 55 (US Census Bureau 2011).
The largest segment of employees earns between $1,251 and $3,333 per month (44
percent), followed by less than $1,250 (31 percent) and those earning more than
$3,333 (25 percent) (US Census Bureau 2011).
Jobs/Housing Balance
The jobs to housing ratio is a measure that can reveal whether a community is
primarily an employment center or a residential center often referred to as a bedroom
community. Jobs-rich areas are net importers of employees from other areas because
they have more jobs than resident workers.
In Palm Desert, a small number of people both live and work in the city (3,233), while
the majority of employees commute in from other communities (87 percent), and the
majority of residents commute to communities outside of Palm Desert for work (80
percent).
Growth Trends and Projections
The General Plan update anticipates and plans for growth in the city in a flexible
manner, understanding that ultimately market forces, demographics, and migration
will dictate how much growth the city actually realizes. As identified in Chapter 3.0,
Project Description, the updated General Plan anticipates growth as follows:
Table 4.13-2 Palm Desert Forecasts for 2040
2040
Population 61,691
Households 31,401
Jobs 50,536
CHAPTER 4.13: POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
4.13-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Regulatory Setting
State and local laws, regulations, and policies pertain to population, employment, and
housing in the planning area. They provide the regulatory framework for addressing all
aspects of population, employment, and housing that would be affected by adoption
and implementation of the General Plan update. The regulatory setting for population,
employment, and housing is discussed in further detail in the TBR (Appendix 4.0). Key
regulations used to reduce the potential impacts of the General Plan update are
summarized below.
State
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65300 describes the scope and authority of local
jurisdictions to prepare, adopt, and amend general plans. Communities prepare
general plans to guide the long-term physical development of the jurisdiction and any
land within the jurisdiction’s sphere of influence. At a minimum, the California
Government Code requires general plans to address land use, circulation, housing,
noise, conservation, open space, and safety issues.
Additionally, the California Government Code assigns equal importance to each
general plan element and requires general plan elements to be internally and
externally consistent, meaning that policies between elements should not be in
conflict with one another, nor should subsequent plans or implementation programs,
such as the zoning ordinance, capital improvement plan, or specific plans, conflict with
general plan policies.
The housing portion of the general plan is expected to analyze existing and projected
housing needs, examine special housing needs, evaluate the effectiveness of current
goals and policies, identify constraints to providing affordable housing, identify land
available in the jurisdiction to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional
housing need, and identify opportunities to incorporate energy conservation
measures into the housing stock. The housing element is the only portion of the
general plan that has a statutory requirement to be reviewed and certified by a state
agency and must be updated within a specified time period on a 4- or 8-year cycle.
California Health and Safety Code
In addition to the regulations set forth in the California Government Code, provisions
related to housing and local policy are set forth in the California Health and Safety
Code under Division 13, Housing, and Division 24, Community Development and
Housing. Division 13 provides rules and regulations related to employee housing,
manufactured housing, mobile home parks, elderly housing, access for physically
handicapped persons, and building standards for new, existing, and historic structures
to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of all California residents.
Regional and Local
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) that represents 6 counties and 191 cities in Southern
California. As the MPO for the region, SCAG is responsible for analyzing the region’s
transportation system, the future of growth in the region, and potential funding
sources to address housing, transportation, and livability issues for the 18 million
residents that call Southern California home.
CHAPTER 4.13: POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.13-5
As part of the Regional Transportation Planning (RTP) process that occurs every 4
years, SCAG is responsible for determining the growth in housing, employment, and
population across the region and for identifying efficient and effective methods to
accommodate that growth. SCAG estimates that by 2035, the region will add more
than 4 million residents, primarily in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. As the
agency charged with identifying population, housing, and employment projections and
trends, SCAG also leads the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process to
identify the amount of growth, at a variety of income levels, that each jurisdiction in
the region will need to accommodate within the housing element planning period, and
assist jurisdictions in analyzing the existing and future housing needs of their
community.
Palm Desert General Plan
To comply with state law, the Palm Desert General Plan Housing Element was most
recently updated in 2013. The streamlined update to the Housing Element was
reviewed and updated to reflect the current status of housing needs, available land,
constraints, program implementation, and compliance with other statutory
requirements enacted since the element was adopted.
Palm Desert Municipal Code
Chapter 25, Zoning, of the City’s Municipal Code serves as the implementation
component of the General Plan to ensure the orderly development of the city and to
protect, promote, and enhance the public health, safety, and general welfare. The
Zoning Ordinance establishes standards and procedures for development in each
zoning district including height, setback, density, yard, parking, walls, landscaping, and
use standards.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
The analysis of impacts is based on the likely consequences of adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update, compared to existing conditions. The
following analysis of population, employment, and housing impacts is qualitative and
based on available demographic and economic data for the Planning Area, along with
review of regional information. The analysis assumes that all future and existing
development in the Planning Area complies with applicable laws, regulations, design
standards, and plans. An analysis of cumulative impacts uses qualitative information
for the Planning Area and the region.
Draft General Plan Update Policies and Implementation Actions
The General Plan update policies and implementation actions that reduce potential
population, employment, and housing impacts include those listed below.
Policies
Land Use & Community Character Element
Policy 3.3: Variety of types of neighborhoods. Promote a variety of
neighborhoods within the City and ensure that neighborhood types are
dispersed throughout the City.
Policy 3.4: Balanced neighborhoods. Within the allowed densities and housing
types, promote a range of housing and price levels within each neighborhood
in order to accommodate diverse ages and incomes. For development projects
CHAPTER 4.13: POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
4.13-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
larger than five acres, require that a diversity of housing types be provided and
that these housing types be mixed rather than segregated by unit type.
Policy 3.5: Housing affordability. Ensure affordable housing is distributed
throughout the City to avoid concentrations of poverty and to be accessible to
jobs.
Policy 3.6: Senior housing. Encourage the development of senior housing only
in neighborhoods that are accessible to public transit, commercial services and
health and community facilities.
Policy 8.1: Long-term economic development. Support the development and
implementation of long-term economic development strategies that seek to
establish and keep new businesses.
Policy 8.2: Regional jobs center. Encourage economic development strategies,
especially those that leverage the College of the Desert, California State
University, and University of California, which will expand the number of living-
wage paying jobs within the city.
Policy 8.3: Jobs-housing balance. Strive to improve the jobs-housing balance
in the city by actively pursuing new employment generating uses for the city.
Policy 8.4: University housing. Encourage the development of affordable
housing to ensure an adequate supply of dedicated housing for students and
university and college faculty.
Policy 9.2: Efficient growth. Manage growth in a manner that is fiscally
sustainable and protects and/or enhances community value.
Implementation Actions
Action 2.17. Regularly review and, as needed, update the impact fees to keep
pace with changing economic conditions and community
Action 2.18. Develop and provide incentives to assist developers in
revitalization and rehabilitation of existing structures, uses and properties
through
Action 2.19. Every five years, review and adjust, as needed, the General Plan’s
population and employment capacities to meet changes in economic and
demographic conditions.
Action 2.20. Develop a plan to encourage businesses to relocate to Palm
Desert to bridge the gap between June and September with year-round.
Action 4.4. Develop creative and innovative zoning and incentives to promote
a variety of high-quality residential units that will also encourage a balance
between housing and jobs.
Action 4.5. Revise zoning to encourage inclusive residential housing products.
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, impacts on population, employment, and housing are
considered significant if adoption and implementation of the General Plan update
would:
CHAPTER 4.13: POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.13-7
Threshold Determination
1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly or indirectly
Less Than Significant
2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere
Less Than Significant
3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere
Less Than Significant
4. Cumulative effects Less Than Significant
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.13-1
Induce Substantial Population Growth. Implementation of the General
Plan update would guide future development and reuse projects in the
city in a manner that would not substantially increase population in
Palm Desert either directly or indirectly. Providing for the orderly
growth of Palm Desert is a basic purpose of the General Plan update,
which would direct expected regional growth. This would be a less
than significant impact.
In Riverside County, forecasting of population and demographic trends is performed
by the local council of governments, the Southern California Association of
Governments. SCAG publishes forecast data demographic and population data for
Riverside County and in 2014, published a population forecast report that projected a
2040 population of 61,700 residents in Palm Desert. Additionally, SCAG has projected
31,400 households and 53,600 jobs in Palm Desert for the year 2040 (see Table
4.13-3).
The updated General Plan includes land use designations that would allow new
residential uses and nonresidential development, generally focused on revitalizing the
Highway 111 corridor into a downtown-type City Center and developing the area
around the Cal State/UC campus with a mix of housing types and new commercial
opportunities. Land Use & Community Character Element Policies 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6,
and 9.2 would ensure affordable housing with a variety of types of neighborhoods and
manage growth in a manner that is fiscally sustainable and protects and/or enhances
community value. Table 4.13-1 identifies a current population of 49,335 in Palm
Desert. The General Plan update proposes a land use concept that anticipates and
plans for growth in the city in a flexible manner, understanding that ultimately market
forces, demographics, and migration will dictate how much growth the city actually
realizes. As identified in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the General Plan forecasts a
2040 population of 61,691 (also see Table 4.13-2). The General Plan further forecasts
31,401 households and 50,536 jobs. Table 4.13-3 compares the SCAG projections with
the forecasts of the proposed General Plan update.
Table 4.13-3 2040 Forecast Comparisons
Palm Desert Year 2040
General Plan
Update Forecasts1
SCAG
Projections2 Difference
Population 61,691 61,700 -9
Households 31,401 31,400 +1
Jobs 50,536 53,600 -3,064
Sources: 1EIR Chapter 3.0, Project Description; 2SCAG 2014
CHAPTER 4.13: POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
4.13-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
As shown, the proposed General Plan land use concept would result in a population
growth potential nearly identical to, and therefore consistent with, that projected by
SCAG. Planning for the SCAG estimated rate of growth ensures that the General Plan
will accommodate development and ensure the availability of land to accommodate
future conditions. The land use concept in the updated General Plan has been
developed to accommodate projected population increases and make sure Palm
Desert is strategically positioned to manage future growth and to capture positive
growth opportunities. The proposed Land Use Map and policy orientation of the
updated General Plan seek to make an efficient and appropriate use of land.
The physical environmental impacts associated with population growth consists of
traffic (commuting for jobs) and the related impacts of traffic noise, air quality, and
greenhouse gas emissions. These environmental issues are addressed elsewhere in
this EIR. Adoption and implementation of the updated General Plan would not result
in a substantial increase in population growth since the development potential
anticipated by the General Plan would be consistent with the SCAG 2040 forecast for
population and employment growth.
This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.13-2
Displace People or Housing. Subsequent land use activities associated
with implementation of the General Plan update would not result in
the displacement of substantial numbers of housing or persons
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. This
is considered a less than significant impact.
The intent of the General Plan update is to accommodate anticipated growth through
efficient use of existing infrastructure and public services, thus minimizing the need
for new or significantly expanded infrastructure that could be the impetus for the
removal of housing units and/or businesses. Where new infrastructure will be
required, roadway sizing and alignments set forth in the updated General Plan were
designed to largely avoid impacts to existing developed areas.
In addition, while implementation of the General Plan update does not directly result
in the construction of any new development, the updated General Plan focuses future
growth as infill development along the Highway 111 corridor and around the Cal
State/UC campus. New development and infill development would not result in
displacement of housing or people. Furthermore, as previously stated, approximately
40 percent of housing units in Palm Desert were vacant in 2016 (DOF 2016a);
therefore, it is unlikely that substantial numbers of housing or people would be
permanently displaced or that such displacement would necessitate the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere.
The General Plan update will not displace substantial numbers of housing units or
people and will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
No demolition or substantial change in land use designation that would result in the
displacement of residents is proposed in the General Plan. Therefore, impacts
associated with implementation of the General Plan update relative to displacement
of a substantial number of persons or housing are considered less than significant.
CHAPTER 4.13: POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.13-9
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The cumulative setting condition includes the unincorporated areas surrounding Palm
Desert, as well as the larger Riverside County region, including La Quinta, Bermuda
Dunes, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells. The cumulative impact analysis herein
focuses on whether the updated General Plan’s contribution to projected regional
population growth would result in a cumulatively considerable environmental impact.
The General Plan’s impact would be cumulatively considerable if, when considered
with other existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in
the cumulative setting, it would contribute to substantial regional population growth.
IMPACT
4.13-3
Cumulative Effects on Population, Employment and Housing.
Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the
General Plan update, in addition to existing, approved, proposed, and
reasonably foreseeable development, could result in a cumulative
increase in population and housing growth in Palm Desert as well as in
the surrounding region, along with associated environmental impacts.
Development would not displace people or housing necessitating the
construction of housing elsewhere. This cumulative increase in
population and housing is consistent with that projected by SCAG.
Therefore, the cumulative impact is less than cumulatively
considerable.
As described in Impact 4.13-1, the population and employment growth instigated by
the updated General Plan would be consistent with the SCAG forecast for 2040.
Therefore, the General Plan update’s contribution to the potential for cumulative
inducement of population growth would not be cumulatively considerable. In
addition, proposed policies and implementation actions are designed to best manage
and accommodate the city’s growth. The physical environmental effects of the city’s
growth on the region are evaluated in the technical resource chapters of this EIR.
Furthermore, changes in Palm Desert and the surrounding region through 2040 could
result in displacement of people or housing through the expansion of nonresidential
land uses, infrastructure improvements such as roadway, utility, or transit expansion,
or other changes. However, as described in Impact 4.13-2, implementation of the
General Plan update would not displace people or housing in the Planning Area, and
the regional effects of the changes forecast (including job and population growth in
the Planning Area) would not make a considerable contribution. Therefore, cumulative
impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.13: POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
4.13-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
(This page is intentionally left blank)
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-1
4.14. Public Services and Utilities
Introduction
This chapter identifies existing conditions for public services and utilities, as well as
related regulations and key issues in Palm Desert. Topics addressed include fire
protection, police protection, water supply and use, wastewater, storm drainage, solid
waste, schools, and parks and recreation.
NOP Comments: In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), a comment was
received from the Riverside County Department of Waste Resources regarding
concern that the General Plan update may have the potential to generate a substantial
amount of waste that might adversely affect solid waste facilities (see Appendix 1.0-
1). No comments regarding other public services and utilities were received in
response to the NOP.
Reference Information: Information for this resource chapter is based on numerous
references, including service agency websites and publicly available documents. The
Technical Background Report (TBR) prepared for the General Plan update is attached
to this document as Appendix 4.0. The EIR, including the TBR, is also available
electronically on the City’s website (http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-
city/general-plan-update).
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
Environmental Setting
Fire protection, first response emergency medical services, and natural disaster
preparedness services in Palm Desert are provided by the Riverside County Fire
Department (RCFD), in cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection (Cal Fire). The City contracts with Riverside County for fire protection
and emergency services and is also a member of the Cove Communities Services
Commission, which includes the Cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian
Wells. The commission meets regularly to discuss mutually related public safety
matters. The RCFD operates under a sound, integrated, and cooperative regional fire
protection system throughout Riverside County. Each city has access to and benefits
from the services provided by fire stations in other communities. The RCFD provides
firefighters, paramedics, fire inspectors, vehicles, maintenance of fire stations and
vehicles, and review of commercial and housing development plans.
The Office of the Fire Marshal provides services aimed at reducing the risk of fire and
injuries to the public. The office consists of the deputy fire marshal, one fire safety
specialist, two fire safety inspectors, and an office assistant. Staff ensures public safety
is maintained by accomplishing the following duties:
Recommends adoption and enforces codes and ordinances relative to fire
and life safety issues associated with commercial, industrial, and residential
development.
Coordinates the inspection of commercial buildings, and enforces hazardous
materials regulations.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Works with developers and city planning departments on development
projects impacting fire protection services, from conception through planning
process approval.
Conducts new construction inspections, and State Fire Marshal–required
inspections (including high rise, educational schools, board and care, and day-
care inspections), enforcing applicable fire codes and ordinances.
Interacts with developers, architects, and engineers, assisting them in
meeting the fire protection requirements for buildings and developments by
reviewing all architectural blue prints, development plans, and proposals
submitted.
Coordinates the business inspection program, so all the businesses in Palm
Desert are evaluated for fire and life safety hazards.
Stations and Staffing
There are currently three fire stations within the Palm Desert city limits—Station No.
33, No. 67, and Station No. 71. Additional fire support is available, when necessary,
from Station No. 55 in Indian Wells and from Stations No. 50 and No. 69 in Rancho
Mirage. The RCFD operates under a Regional Fire Protection Program, which allows its
fire stations to actively support one another regardless of geographic or jurisdictional
boundaries. The program supplies the community with the most effective and efficient
method of emergency response and allows sharing of resources such as specialized
equipment and personnel.
According to the TBR, Palm Desert has a total Fire Department staffing of 44 positions
(not including the shared ladder truck). Table 15.1 of the TBR (see Appendix 4.0)
shows details on staffing and equipment at each station.
Engine 33 is the only Advanced Life Support (ALS) engine in the city. As such, this
engine will always respond to calls with a paramedic on board. ALS services can be
provided immediately even if the medic unit has not yet responded. The other two
engines in Palm Desert are currently Basic Life Support (BLS) engines, but they are
proposed to be phased into an ALS configuration at a later date. Ladder Truck 33 is
shared with the Cities of Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage per the Cove Communities
Services Commission Joint Powers Agreement.
Emergency Medical Service and Fire Service Demand & Response Times
RCFD services also include regional communications and dispatch. The department
serves around 1,360,000 residents in an area spanning 7,200 square miles. In 2013,
the RCFD responded to 133,536 total incidents, with 8,172 calls for service in Palm
Desert. The average en-route-to-on-scene response time was 3.6 minutes, with 86.2
percent of call response under 5 minutes.
Insurance Services Office Rating
The Insurance Services Office (ISO) property class rating is important to a community,
as many insurance companies base the fire risk portion of property insurance
premiums on the community’s ISO rating. The ISO uses a 1 to 10 rating scale, with
Class 1 being the best level of service (and lowest fire insurance premium cost) and
Class 10 representing no service at all. According to the TBR, the RCFD fire stations in
Palm Desert have an ISO Class 3 rating.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-3
Regulatory Setting
Local laws, regulations, and policies pertain to fire protection and emergency medical
services in the Planning Area. The regulatory framework for fire protection and
emergency medical services is discussed in further detail in the TBR (Appendix 4.0) of
this EIR. The following summarizes key regulations used to reduce the potential
environmental impacts of implementing the General Plan update.
Local
Palm Desert Municipal Code: The City’s Municipal Code includes regulations and
standards related to development and operations. Title 2, Administration and
Personnel, contains bylaws and administration procedures for City advisory
committees (including Emergency Preparedness) and commissions (including the
Planning Commission and Public Safety Commission). Title 15, Building and
Construction, establishes building and construction standards to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare through fire prevention, abatement of dangerous buildings,
seismic strengthening, and enforcement of mechanical, plumbing, and electrical
codes.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
Evaluation of potential fire protection and emergency medical service impacts was
based on information provided by the Riverside County Fire Department, as well as a
review of the applicable fire codes and regulations, the Palm Desert Municipal Code,
and other relevant literature.
Draft General Plan Update Policies and Implementation Actions
The following General Plan update policies and implementation actions address fire
protection and emergency medical services:
Policies
Safety Element
Policy 4.1: Fire Preparation. Maintain optimal readiness and response service
in coordination with Riverside County and other agencies.
Policy 4.2: Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Adopt and implement fire mitigation
standards for areas designated as High and Very High Fire Hazards Severity
Zones per Cal Fire.
Policy 4.3: Brush Clearance. Require new development and homeowners
associations to maintain brush clearance criteria that meets 120% of the
current state requirement for fire hazard severity zones in the city.
Policy 4.4: Inventory of Structures for Fire Risk. Prepare an inventory of all
structures and ownership information for structures in each fire hazard
severity zone in the city and the SOI.
Policy 4.5: Fire Education. Disseminate information on fire risks and
minimum standards, including guidance for new development in the
wildland-urban interface and fire hazard severity zones.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Policy 4.6: Future Emergency Service Needs. Require new developments and
homeowners associations along the wildland urban interface to house the
proper equipment and infrastructure to respond to wildland fire incidents.
Public Utilities & Services Element
Policy 7.1: Quality of service. Provide courteous, responsive, and efficient
police and fire services.
Policy 7.2: Review of new development. Work with the Riverside County
Sheriff’s Department and the Riverside County Fire Department to review and
modify development proposals to incorporate defensible space, Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), and other public safety
design concepts into new development.
Policy 7.3: Serving new growth. Expand police and fire service coverage in
conjunction with new growth to ensure quality of service does not diminish.
Policy 7.4: Water pressure. Ensure that sufficient water service and pressure
is available throughout the city for use in firefighting.
Policy 7.5: Recycled water for fire suppression. Consult with the CVWD to
support efforts to expand reclaimed water supply from municipal wastewater
for fire suppression needs.
Policy 7.6: Increasing fire hazards. Encourage Cal Fire and Riverside County
Fire Department to explore the trends of increasing fire hazards associated
with the drought and increasing temperatures and to develop new fire hazard
mitigation strategies.
Policy 7.7: Emergency preparedness. Work with Riverside County Fire
Department, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and the Palm Desert
Police Department, along with residents to ensure that sufficient emergency
plans and resources are established and known by all stakeholders.
Policy 7.8: Fire and emergency services. Continue to coordinate with
Riverside County Fire Department to ensure continued excellent fire and
emergency services.
Implementation Actions
Action 2.17. Regularly review and, as needed, update the impact fees to keep
pace with changing economic conditions and community needs. Adopt and
update the City’s authority for collection of development fees within the full
extent allowed under state law.
Action 2.38. Update the City’s public GIS database with information on the
extent and potential impact of seismic, geotechnical, fire, and flood hazards
occurring in the city and the SOI. All future developments will be required to
submit their data for incorporation into this database.
Action 2.39. Consult Riverside County and other jurisdictions to monitor and
update the City’s LHMP.
Action 2.40. Update the City’s Critical Infrastructure/Facilities inventory
included in the Emergency Operations Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-5
Action 2.42. Identify and analyze vulnerabilities of key privately owned
critical facilities, such as hospitals and businesses, in the city that should
remain in operation after an emergency event.
Action 2.43. Encourage participation of representatives from local schools,
universities, hospital facilities, and other local organizations in regional
emergency planning efforts.
Action 3.19. Consult with the RCFD Office of Emergency Services, the CVWD,
Southern California Edison, the Southern California Gas Company, the
Imperial Irrigation District, and other utilities and agencies, as appropriate, to
develop and disseminate public education materials advising visitors,
residents, and local businesses of appropriate responses in preparation for
and during an emergency.
Action 4.17. Incorporate new fire hazard severity zones and related state
standards from Cal Fire.
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, impacts on fire protection and emergency medical
services are considered significant if adoption and implementation of the General Plan
update would:
Threshold Determination
1. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of or need for new or physically
altered fire-related facilities or services, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, or other performance objectives for fire protection
and emergency services
Less Than Significant
2. Cumulative impacts on fire protection Less Than Cumulatively
Considerable
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.14.1-1
Impacts on Fire Protection. Implementation of the General Plan
update would result in an increase in population in the city, which
would increase demand for fire protection services and potentially
result in the need for additional and/or expanded fire protection
facilities. However, General Plan update policies and actions would
require the City to continue to review fire protection facility and
staffing needs and provide appropriate adequate funding to meet
those needs. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Fire protection and emergency medical services for Palm Desert will continue to be
provided by the RCFD. The potential population increase projected under the General
Plan would increase the demand for fire protection and emergency services. Proposed
General Plan Safety Element Policy 7.2 and Policy 7.8 direct the City to work with the
RCFD through the review of proposed development projects to ensure fire safety
issues are considered. These provisions will allow adequate levels of personnel and
equipment to respond to routine incidents and to larger events. As previously stated,
the RCFD’s average en-route-to-on-scene response time is 3.6 minutes, with 86.2
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
percent of call response under 5 minutes. The RCFD currently has an ISO Class 3 rating,
which is considered above average. In addition, RCFD standards hold that urban
development, such as that anticipated under the updated General Plan, should be
located no more than 3 miles from a county fire station.
There are currently three fire stations—Stations No. 33, No. 67, and No. 71—within
the Palm Desert city limits. Additional fire support is available, when necessary, from
Station No. 55 in Indian Wells and from Stations No. 50 and No. 69 in Rancho Mirage.
The RCFD operates under a Regional Fire Protection Program, which allows its fire
stations to actively support one another regardless of geographic or jurisdictional
boundaries.
In addition, the updated General Plan contains several policies that aid in fire
prevention and protection. For instance, Safety Element Policy 4.2 mandates that the
City adopt and implement fire mitigation standards for areas designated as High and
Very High Fire Hazards Severity Zones per Cal Fire. Policy 4.3 requires new
development and homeowners associations to maintain brush clearance criteria that
meets 120 percent of the current state requirement for fire hazard severity zones in
the city, and Policy 4.6 requires new developments and homeowners associations
along the wildland-urban interface to house the proper equipment and infrastructure
to respond to wildland fire incidents. Future development is also subject to
compliance with the 2013 California Building Code (or the most current version) and
the 2013 California Fire Code (Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations),
which would aid in reducing the demand on fire protection services by requiring fire
protection detection systems, proper fire flow, and use of appropriate construction
materials. Title 15 of the City Municipal Code establishes building and construction
standards to protect the public health, safety, and welfare through fire prevention.
All residential and nonresidential development projects in Palm Desert are subject to
development impact fees to mitigate the impacts of new development. Development
impact fees finance public facilities and service improvements, including fire
protection capital and facilities needs. Action 2.17 requires the City to regularly review
and, as needed, update impact fees to keep pace with changing economic conditions
and community needs.
The typical environmental effects from the construction and operation of a fire
protection facility may involve issues with noise (sirens), air quality (during the
construction of the facility), biological resources (depending on location), cultural
resources (depending on location), public utilities (demand for electric, water, and
wastewater service), and traffic on a local level due to the interruption of traffic light
timing by fire engines. The provision of additional facilities in the future would be
required to undergo project-specific environmental review at such time as an
application for a project is submitted.
Compliance with the California Fire Code and implementation of the above General
Plan policies and actions would ensure the provision of adequate fire protection
services. Project-level CEQA review of future fire protection facilities would identify
and mitigate significant environmental impacts associated with the provision of
additional fire protection personnel and facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with
fire protection services would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-7
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The cumulative context for fire protection and emergency medical services is generally
specific to the Planning Area rather than regional. The cumulative context for impacts
discussed below includes projected regional growth in surrounding cities and in
Riverside County, as fire protection and emergency medical services may travel
beyond the Planning Area.
IMPACT
4.14.1-2
Cumulative Impacts on Fire Protection. Implementation of the
General Plan update, in combination with other existing, planned,
proposed, approved, and reasonably foreseeable development in Palm
Desert, would increase the demand for fire protection and emergency
medical services and thus require additional staffing, equipment, and
related facilities under cumulative conditions. The provision of these
facilities could result in environmental impacts. The General Plan
update’s contribution to the need for expanded fire protection and
emergency medical services is considered less than cumulatively
considerable given requirements for project-level CEQA review of
future fire protection and emergency medical services facilities, along
with compliance with the California Fire Code.
Future regional growth would result in increased demand for fire protection and
emergency medical services throughout Riverside County. This cumulative regional
demand could result in increased requests for mutual aid from the RCFD, and growth
in Palm Desert could result in increased requests for mutual aid. The need for
additional fire protection facilities associated with the updated General Plan would be
limited to facilities needed to serve the city as required under the contract agreement.
It is not anticipated that increased mutual aid requests would result in the need for
additional fire protection facilities because mutual aid would be furnished via existing
facilities, equipment, and personnel at the time of the mutual aid request. In addition,
in the case that there is a need for future projects associated with fire protection and
emergency medical services facilities, the development of these facilities would be
subject to project-level CEQA review at such time as an application for a project is
submitted to the appropriate agency. Furthermore, all new development in the
county, including in Palm Desert, would be subject to the California Fire Code, which
would help to prevent and minimize the occurrence of fires, thus increasing the ability
of the RCFD and other fire service providers to provide adequate fire protection
services.
Subsequent project-level CEQA review of future facilities, along with compliance with
the California Fire Code, would ensure that cumulative environmental impacts
associated with the continued provision of fire protection and emergency medical
response services would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Law Enforcement Services
Environmental Setting
Police Protection
The Palm Desert Police Department (PDPD), served under contract by the Riverside
County Sheriff’s Department, provides police protection services to preserve the
peace and prevent crime and disorder by enforcing state laws and city ordinances in
the Palm Desert.
Units and Staffing
The PDPD consists of the Patrol Division, as well as a number of specialized divisions
and teams. According to the TBR, the department currently operates with 81 staff
members: 36 sworn patrol staff, approximately 29 personnel dedicated to special
teams, and 16 contract support staff. Based on the city’s current population (49,335 as
of May 2016, per the California Department of Finance), Palm Desert has an officer-to-
population ratio of 1.4 sworn officers per 1,000 residents.
Patrol Division
The Patrol Division responds to all calls for police placed through the 911 system or
nonemergency telephones. Patrol officers handle the initial investigation of thefts,
burglaries, robberies, assaults, and other service calls. The PDPD promotes the
concept of community-oriented policing by assigning officers to regular beats. The city
is divided into five service or “beat” areas: 30 Beat covers the business corridor along
Highway 111; 32 Beat covers the southern portion of the city; 34 Beat covers the
portion of the city east of Cook Street and south of Country Club Drive; 36 Beat covers
the western portion of the city west of Cook Street and south of Country Club Drive;
and 38 Beat covers the portion of the city north of Country Club Drive.
Investigations and Evidence Bureau
The PDPD Investigations and Evidence Bureau serves the three cities in the Cove
Communities Services Commission. The unit investigates robberies, assaults, sex
crimes, child abuse, and property crimes, as well as missing persons, runaways, and
domestic violence incidents.
Traffic Division
The PDPD Traffic Division is a contract law enforcement division responsible for
investigating traffic collisions and conducting traffic enforcement and education
programs throughout the city. The division supports the Patrol Division by handling
traffic issues and providing additional emergency response support for critical
accidents. The Traffic Division includes eight motorcycle enforcement program
officers, one commercial vehicle enforcement officer to investigate overweight,
unsafe, or improper loads on commercial vehicles, and one community services
officer.
Special Enforcement Team
The PDPD Special Enforcement Team (SET) serves to augment the department’s patrol
division and further its mission of proactive prevention. In conjunction with the
Business District Team and Crime Prevention Program officers, SET officers conduct
intensive follow-up investigations of burglaries, thefts, and other local crimes to keep
patrol officers in the field and available for emergency calls. Each beat is covered by a
SET member to devote time to incidents occurring in that area. SET officers often
provide security for special/community events and interact with Palm Desert residents
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-9
on a regular basis. In addition, SET targets specific crimes that affect all three Cove
Communities by collaborating with SET officers from Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage
to identify, investigate, and target criminals committing crimes
K-9 Officer
Palm Desert has a canine, or K-9, officer used to help with searching for missing or lost
persons, tracking criminals from crime scenes, assisting with fleeing or armed
suspects, and searching for evidence and narcotics.
Business District Team
The Business District Team (BDT) was added in 2006 to conduct high-visibility patrol
and handle service calls for Palm Desert’s business district (30 Beat). The business
district area includes the El Paseo corridor, the Westfield Mall, the Highway 111
corridor, and the Desert Crossing shopping center. The BDT patrols the area on foot
and bicycle. The BDT also conducts undercover operations and conducts the
Homelessness Outreach & Criminal Transient Enforcement program to reduce the
active criminal transient population in Palm Desert.
Burglary Suppression Unit
The Burglary Suppression Unit, established in July 2011, works to reduce thefts in Palm
Desert by investigating burglary-related crimes, apprehending suspects, recovering
stolen property, and educating the public on crime prevention.
School Resources Offices
The City of Palm Desert funds two school resources officer (SRO) positions, one for
Palm Desert Charter Middle School and one for Palm Desert High School. The SROs
work with school officials, teachers, students, and the Desert Sands Unified School
District campus security officers to create a safe learning environment, educate
students and staff on public safety issues, and combat juvenile delinquency.
Coachella Valley Violent Crime Gang Task Force
The Coachella Valley Violent Crime Gang Task Force, comprising members from
various federal and local law enforcement agencies, works to promote safe and secure
neighborhoods, free of violent crime and gang activity. Its duties include intervention
and education, gang suppression patrols, and criminal enterprise investigations.
Coachella Valley Narcotics Task Force
The Coachella Valley Narcotics Task Force, comprising members of various state,
county, and local law enforcement agencies, works to diminish the availability and use
of illegal drugs and apprehend offenders in Coachella Valley cities and adjacent
unincorporated areas of Riverside County.
Stations
There is one main sheriff’s station in the city, located at 73-705 Gerald Ford Drive,
serving the cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Rancho Mirage and the
unincorporated areas of Riverside County. The City also leases the former sheriff’s
station, connected to City Hall in the Civic Center Park, to Riverside County for its
Coachella Valley dispatch operation and investigation bureau. This is the only
operating substation in the city, but it is not open to the public.
Calls for Service and Response Times
For PDPD response, a priority code of 1 to 4 is assigned to each call by the dispatch
center, with 1 being the highest priority. For 2013, the department reported 25,020
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
calls with valid response times. The highest priority calls were responded to within
5.58 minutes. The average response time for all calls was 17 minutes.
Regulatory Setting
Local laws, regulations, and policies pertain to law enforcement services in the
Planning Area. The regulatory framework for public services is discussed in further
detail in the TBR (Appendix 4.0). The following summarizes key regulations used to
reduce the potential environmental impacts of implementing the General Plan update.
Local
Palm Desert Municipal Code: The City’s Municipal Code includes regulations and
standards related to development and operations. Title 2, Administration and
Personnel, contains bylaws and administration procedures for City advisory
committees (including Emergency Preparedness) and commissions (including Planning
Commission and Public Safety Commission). Title 15, Building and Construction,
establishes building and construction standards to protect the public health, safety,
and welfare through fire prevention, abatement of dangerous buildings, seismic
strengthening, and enforcement of mechanical, plumbing, and electrical codes. Title 9,
Public Peace, Morals and Welfare, identifies expectations for public conduct in the
Planning Area, enforced by the Police Department.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
Evaluation of potential law enforcement impacts was based on information supplied
by the Palm Desert Police Department. The impact analysis focuses on whether those
impacts would have a significant effect on the physical environment.
Draft General Plan Update Policies and Implementation Actions
The following General Plan update policies and implementation actions address law
enforcement services:
Policies
Public Utilities & Services Element
Policy 7.1: Quality of service. Provide courteous, responsive, and efficient
police and fire services.
Policy 7.2: Review of new development. Work with the Riverside County
Sheriff’s Department and the Riverside County Fire Department to review and
modify development proposals to incorporate defensible space, Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), and other public safety
design concepts into new development.
Policy 7.3: Serving new growth. Expand police and fire service coverage in
conjunction with new growth to ensure quality of service does not diminish.
Policy 7.7: Emergency preparedness. Work with Riverside County Fire
Department, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and the Palm Desert
Police Department, along with residents to ensure that sufficient emergency
plans and resources are established and known by all stakeholders.
Policy 7.9: Police services. Work with all available resources to ensure
continued excellent and cost effective police services in Palm Desert.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-11
Implementation Actions
Action 2.17. Regularly review and, as needed, update the impact fees to keep
pace with changing economic conditions and community needs. Adopt and
update the City’s authority for collection of development fees within the full
extent allowed under state law.
Action 2.35. Facilitate community policing and neighborhood watch
organizations aimed at increasing awareness and decreasing opportunities
for crime activity.
Action 3.18. Continue to fund School Resources Officer (SRO) positions for
the Palm Desert public schools by coordinating with school officials, and the
DSUSD to provide a safe learning environment for Palm Desert students.
Action 3.19. Consult with the RCFD Office of Emergency Services, the CVWD,
Southern California Edison, the Southern California Gas Company, the
Imperial Irrigation District, and other utilities and agencies, as appropriate, to
develop and disseminate public education materials advising visitors,
residents, and local businesses of appropriate responses in preparation for
and during an emergency.
Thresholds of Significance
The impact analysis below is based on the following State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G
standard of significance. A law enforcement services impact is considered significant if
adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would:
Threshold Determination
1. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of or need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for law enforcement
services
Less Than Significant
2. Cumulative demand for law enforcement services Less Than Cumulatively
Considerable
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.14.2-1
Increased Demand for Law Enforcement Services. Implementation of
the General Plan update would result in an increase in population in
the Planning Area, which would increase demand for police protection
services, resulting in the need for additional and/or expanded police
protection facilities. However, General Plan update policies and
implementation actions would require the City to continue to provide
funding and adequate staffing, facilities, equipment, and technology to
meet existing and projected service demands and response times.
Therefore, this impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
An increase in population resulting from implementation of the General Plan update
may place higher demands on police facilities to maintain acceptable response times
and service ratios. The PDPD currently operates with 81 staff members. As shown in
Chapter 3, Project Description, the city is anticipated to experience population growth,
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-12 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
with the potential to increase the current population to 61,691 by the year 2040 (from
49,335 in 2016).
As such, law enforcement service needs under the incremental population increase
would be met by the City and the PDPD if additional patrol hours are deemed
necessary. In addition, the incremental increase in the city’s population and in the
number of residential units in Palm Desert would be triggered by development that
would be subject to subsequent project-level environmental review. As part of
subsequent environmental review, future development would be required to comply
with General Plan Safety Element Policy 7.2 and Policy 7.8, which direct the City to
work with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department [contracted to the City via the
PDPD] through the review of proposed development projects to ensure that police
service–related issues are considered. These provisions will allow adequate levels of
personnel and equipment to respond to routine incidents and to larger events. If
additional or expanded facilities are required to support future development, the
environmental impacts associated with expanded law enforcement facilities would be
analyzed during subsequent environmental review. Typical environmental effects from
the construction and operation of law enforcement facilities can include issues with
noise (sirens), air quality (during the construction of the facility), biological resources
(depending on location), cultural resources (depending on location), and public
utilities (demand for electric, water, and wastewater service).
Additionally, all future residential and nonresidential development projects in Palm
Desert are subject to development impact fees to mitigate the impacts of new
development. Development impact fees finance public facilities and service
improvements, including police services capital and facilities needs. The fees are
necessary in order to finance capital and infrastructure improvements and to provide
new development’s fair share of the construction and/or acquisition costs of these
improvements. Imposition of development impact fees to finance public facilities and
service improvements, including police capital facilities needs, is necessary in order to
offset any potential increase in population, thereby protecting public safety and
welfare. Action 2.17 requires the City to regularly review and, as needed, update the
impact fees to keep pace with changing economic conditions and community needs.
Subsequent environmental review, compliance with General Plan update policies, and
compliance with the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that environmental impacts
associated with the continued provision of police services would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The cumulative context for law enforcement services is generally specific to the
Planning Area rather than regional. The cumulative context for impacts discussed
below includes projected regional growth in surrounding cities and in Riverside
County, as law enforcement may travel beyond the Planning Area.
IMPACT
4.14.2-2
Cumulative Demand for Law Enforcement Services. Implementation
of the General Plan update, in combination with other existing,
planned, proposed, approved, and reasonably foreseeable
development in the PDPD service area, would increase the demand for
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-13
law enforcement services and thus require additional staffing,
equipment, and facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts. However, the General Plan update’s
contribution to the need for expanded law enforcement services is
considered less than cumulatively considerable given requirements for
project-level CEQA review.
As discussed in Impact 4.14.2-1 above, the General Plan update could result in the
need for additional law enforcement staffing, equipment, and facilities. Growth
anticipated in association with the updated General Plan would occur in the Planning
Area, which is already being served by the PDPD under contract from the Riverside
County Sheriff’s Department. Therefore, the General Plan update would not
contribute to a cumulative demand for law enforcement services outside of the
Planning Area, and the PDPD would not be required to expand its service area to
accommodate growth projected or allowed under the updated General Plan.
Future law enforcement facilities projects would be subject to project-level CEQA
review at such time as an application for a project is submitted to the appropriate
agency. Project-specific environmental review would identify and mitigate cumulative
environmental impacts. Therefore, the updated General Plan’s contribution to the
continued provision of law enforcement services in the cumulative setting would be
considered less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Public Schools
Environmental Setting
Public education services and facilities are provided in Palm Desert by the Desert
Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) and the Palm Springs Unified School District
(PSUSD). The DSUSD operates four elementary schools, one middle school, and one
high school in the city. The PSUSD covers the areas in the far north and south of the
city and Sphere of Influence (SOI). Areas of the city north of Frank Sinatra Drive are
located within the PSUSD territory. In addition, the PSUSD owns property south and
east of Dick Kelly Drive and Gateway Drive, and it plans to construct an elementary or
K–8 school on the property. Table 4.14.3-1 shows grade and enrollment information
for each school. It should be noted that the public schools currently serving the
Planning Area (Table 4.14.3-1) are all in the Desert Sands Unified School District.
Public schools are supplemented by numerous private schools that provide early
education to children of residents. In addition, Palm Desert is home to four colleges
and universities that offer a variety of vocational and advanced education
opportunities.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-14 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 4.14.3-1 DSUSD Public Schools – Palm Desert School
Enrollment (2012–2013)
Palm Desert Public Schools
(Early Education) Grades Total Enrollment
Abraham Lincoln Elementary K–5 737
George Washington Charter Elementary K–5 835
Ronald Reagan Elementary K–5 877
Gerald Ford Elementary K–5 776
James Earl Carter Elementary K–5 668
Palm Desert Middle School 6–8 1,339
Palm Desert High School 9–12 1,979
Source: DSUSD 2014
Regulatory Setting
The following state and local plans, policies, regulations, and laws pertain to public
schools in the Planning Area.
State
California Education Code: The California Education Code contains various provisions
governing the siting, design, and construction of new public schools (e.g., Education
Code Sections 17211, 17212, and 17212.5). In addition, to help focus and manage the
site selection process, the California Department of Education School Facilities and
Planning Division has developed screening and ranking procedures based on criteria
commonly affecting school selection (Education Code Section 17251[b], Title 5 of the
California Code of Regulations, Section 14001[c]). The foremost consideration in the
selection of school sites is safety. Certain health and safety requirements are governed
by state statute and Education Code regulations. In selecting a school site, a school
district should consider factors such as proximity to airports and railroads, proximity to
high-voltage power transmission lines, presence of toxic and hazardous substances,
and hazardous air emissions within one-quarter mile.
School Facility Fees: Education Code Section 17620 authorizes school districts to levy a
fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any development project for the
construction or reconstruction of school facilities, provided that the district can show
justification for levying of fees. Government Code 65995 limits the fee to be collected
to the statutory fee (Level I) unless a school district conducts a Facility Needs
Assessment (Government Code Section 65995.6) and meets certain conditions. These
fees are adjusted every two years in accordance with the statewide cost index for
Class B construction, as determined by the State Allocation Board.
Senate Bill (SB) 50 (1998) instituted a new school facility program by which school
districts can apply for state construction and modernization funds. This legislation
imposed limitations on the power of cities and counties to require mitigation for
school facility impacts as a condition of approving new development. Proposition
1A/SB 50 prohibits local agencies from using the inadequacy of school facilities as a
basis for denying or conditioning approvals of any “legislative or adjudicative act, or
both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real
property…” (Government Code Section 65996[b]). Additionally, a local agency cannot
require participation in a Mello-Roos district for school facilities; however, the
statutory fee is reduced by the amount of any voluntary participation in a Mello-Roos
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-15
district. Satisfaction of the Proposition 1A/SB 50 statutory requirements by a
developer is deemed to be “full and complete mitigation.”
State Service Standards Affecting All Districts: The California Education Code Section
41402 states that unified school districts are required to have 8 administrative
employees per 100 teachers. State standards for the number of students per
classroom pursuant to Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998 (loading standards), require a
maximum of 25 students per classroom in elementary schools and 27 students per
classroom in middle and high schools.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
To determine the level of impact the General Plan update will have on the local public
school system, student generation rates from the DSUSD Fee Justification Study were
used to calculate future student populations in the Planning Area.
Draft General Plan Update Policies and Implementation Actions
The following proposed General Plan update policies address public schools:
Policies
Public Services & Utilities Element
Policy 6.1: Future demand. Cooperate and coordinate with the Desert Sands
and Palm Springs Unified School Districts and state agencies in identifying
potential school sites needed to meet future demand, as well as the planning,
site acquisition and development of educational facilities in the city.
Policy 6.2: Higher education. Support and encourage well planned, higher
educational facilities in Palm Desert including satellite university campuses
and vocational training schools in medical research and technology,
particularly in the Cook Street “education corridor”.
Policy 6.3: Library space. Ensure adequate library space, services, books and
other resources are available to residents and students.
Policy 6.4: Health services. Plan and encourage health care facilities and
clinics located in close proximity to schools and public facilities.
Policy 6.5: Quality early education. Collaborate with the Desert Sands and
Palm Springs Unified School Districts and local private schools to maximize
educational quality.
Policy 6.6: Prioritize higher education. Support new University endeavors
within Palm Desert including University of California Riverside and San
Bernardino, College of the Desert, and Brandman University.
Thresholds of Significance
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following State CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G standard of significance. A public schools impact is considered significant if
adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would:
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-16 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Threshold Determination
1. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of or need for new or physically
altered school facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance
objectives related to schools
Less Than Significant
2. Cumulative schools impacts Less Than Significant
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.14.3-1
Demand for Additional School Facilities. Implementation of the
General Plan update would result in an increase in population in the
Planning Area, resulting in the need for additional and/or expanded
school facilities. However, existing laws and regulations would require
funding for the provision or expansion of new school facilities to offset
impacts from new residential or commercial/industrial development.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
An increase in population resulting from implementation of the General Plan update
may place greater demands on education facilities due to the projected increase of
approximately 8,049 new households from 2015 to 2040. According to the DSUSD, as
illustrated in Table 4.14.3-2, the General Plan update is anticipated to generate 1,372
elementary, 732 middle school, and 1,015 high school students, for a total of 3,119
students.
Table 4.14.3-2 School Enrollment Generation Factors and
Student Generation of Proposed Project
School Generation Factor Student Generation
Elementary .1704 1,372
Middle .0909 732
High .1261 1,015
Total Student Generation 3,119
Source: DSUSD 2016
Because new residential and commercial/industrial uses are anticipated with
implementation of the General Plan update, each development project will be
required to pay developer impact fees in the amount required at the time of building
permit issuance. The DSUSD has established school impact mitigation fees to address
the facility impacts created by new residential and commercial/industrial development
(DSUSD 2016). The district uses these fees to pay for facility expansion and upgrades
needed to serve new students. Currently (school year 2015/2016), the DSUSD is under
capacity for elementary schools (grades K–5) by 459 students, for middle schools
(grades 6–8) by 166 students, and for high schools (grades 9–12) by 288 students
(DSUSD 2016). However, it appears as though the number of students generated as
the result of the General Plan update would exceed existing capacities. However, the
total number of students anticipated to be generated by the implementation of the
updated General Plan would not occur until 2040. The fees collected from developers
will go toward financing construction and/or acquisition of new public school facilities
necessary to serve students expected to be generated from new residential and
commercial/industrial development (DSUSD 2016).
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-17
In addition, Public Utilities & Services Element Policy 6.1, requires cooperation and
coordination with the Desert Sands and Palm Springs Unified Schools districts in
identifying future demand, site acquisition, and plans for facility needs. As such, if
project-level significant impacts are identified, applicable mitigation measures will be
placed on a project as conditions of approval. Therefore, existing laws and regulations
would require funding for the provision or expansion of new school facilities to offset
impacts from new residential or commercial/industrial development. This impact
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The cumulative context for public schools impacts is generally specific to the Planning
Area rather than regional. The cumulative context for impacts discussed below
includes projected regional growth in surrounding cities and in Riverside County.
IMPACT
4.14.3-2
Cumulative Schools Impacts. Population growth associated with
implementation of the General Plan update, in combination with other
existing, planned, proposed, approved, and reasonably foreseeable
development in the region, would result in a cumulative increase in
student enrollment. This is a less than cumulatively considerable
impact.
As discussed under Impact 4.14.3-1, implementation of the General Plan update is
expected to result in population growth that would increase student enrollment in the
Desert Sands Unified School District. Current state law indicates that the
environmental impact of new development on grade school facilities is considered
fully mitigated through the payment of required development impact fees. All new
development proposed and approved, including any future development allowed by
the General Plan update, would be required to pay applicable development impact
fees. Furthermore, any significant expansion of school facilities or development of
new school facilities would be subject to the appropriate CEQA environmental review,
which would identify any site-specific impacts and include mitigation to reduce those
impacts. Therefore, cumulative impacts on school facilities are considered less than
cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Parks and Recreation
Environmental Setting
The Technical Background Report (Appendix 4.0) describes the regional and local
conditions related to parks and recreation in Palm Desert in further detail. Key findings
are presented below.
Park Facilities
The City owns, operates, and maintains several developed park and recreation
facilities—green space, playgrounds, trails, picnic facilities, community gardens, dog
parks, and space for sporting events. The City partners with the Desert Recreation
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-18 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
District to offer recreational programs and activities year-round, and rents City park
facilities for private events. In addition to City parks, other recreational facilities in
Palm Desert include three municipally owned golf courses and the Family YMCA
located in Civic Center Park. In addition to these publicly owned facilities, numerous
privately owned golf courses throughout the Planning Area are open to the public.
The city and SOI include approximately 163 acres of parkland, 23,060 acres of open
space, and 6,834 acres of golf courses (see Table 4.14.4-1). The City of Palm Desert’s
established goals and standards for parkland identified in the 2004 General Plan are
0.25 acres per 1,000 residents for mini parks, 1 acre per 1,000 residents for
neighborhood parks, and 5 acres per 1,000 residents for community parks. Although
the City has not reached these standards for each park type, with 50,417 residents in
2014 and 163 acres of accessible parkland in Palm Desert, the city has an average of
3.23 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
Table 4.14.4-1 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space in Palm
Desert – Total Acreage
Type Total Acreage
Existing parks 163
Future parks 56
Open space 23,060
Private golf courses 6,287
Public golf courses 547
Source: City of Palm Desert GIS data, 2014; includes residential properties in country club
Open Space
Several large open space preserves surround Palm Desert to the north, south and
southwest. These include the Living Desert, Coachella Valley Preserve, Fox Canyon,
and the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Park. In addition, the City
owns an extensive amount of land along the hillsides, some of which have
conservation easements.
The Living Desert, a wildlife and botanical park located east of Portola Avenue and
south of Highway 111, was established as a wilderness preserve around 1970. The
Living Desert covers about 1,200 acres and includes a zoo, wildlife exhibits, and a
botanical garden.
The Coachella Valley Preserve abuts the northern boundary of the city and SOI. This
20,114-acre preserve was established in 1985 to protect critical habitat for the survival
of the federally threatened Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard. The preserve features a
visitor center, picnic areas, and hiking trails open to the public.
The City of Palm Desert, the Friends of the Desert Mountains Conservancy, and the
Bureau of Land Management purchased 98 acres of mostly mountainous land as an
open preserve known as Fox Canyon in 2005. Fox Canyon is located north of the
Cahuilla Hills Park tennis courts, forming the city boundary on the west. The recently
dedicated Herb Jeffries Trail runs on a ridge through the middle of the canyon.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-19
The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, established by
Congress in October 2000, encompasses 440 square miles from the San Gorgonio Pass
southeast into the Imperial Valley. This designation recognizes the land as a nationally
important scenic and resource area for its biological, cultural, and geological diversity.
The visitors center is located on Highway 74 just south of Palm Desert and provides
information, exhibits, and gardens. The monument features hiking and equestrian
trails, numerous palm oases, waterfalls, and an aerial tramway.
Conservation easements in the city include 9 acres located within the Bighorn
development and 57.2 acres in the Stone Eagle development. These mountainside
preserved areas contain hiking trails for recreation.
Trails
Palm Desert offers a variety of multipurpose trails, most of which are part of the open
space preserves described above. Trails on the urban edge are often used by city
dwellers for daily workouts and other exercise. Trails farther away are used for more
traditional hiking and by outdoor enthusiasts. Other uses include mountain biking and
equestrian recreation. Mountain biking has a strong presence in Palm Desert in
comparison to equestrian uses.
The four main hiking trails located within (or partially within) the city boundaries
include the Art Smith Trail, the Hopalong Cassidy Trail, the Randall Henderson Trial,
and the Herb Jeffries Trail. These four trails are all located in the Santa Rosa
Mountains.
The 8.4-mile Art Smith Trail is one of the signature trails in the Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto Mountains National Monument, offering scenic views across the Coachella
Valley to the Little San Bernardino Mountains and Joshua Tree National Park, and over
the cities of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage.
The Hopalong Cassidy Trail can be accessed from several of Palm Desert’s parks,
including Homme-Adams Park and Cahuilla Hills Park. This 8.3-mile hiking trail runs
north–south through the mountains, parallel to Highway 74. An easier trail, the
Randall Henderson Trail, is good for the novice hiker. Starting at the National
Monument Visitor Center on Highway 74, this loop trail rises about 400 feet over its
2.4-mile route. Lastly, the Herb Jeffries Trail is a steep and challenging hiking path
through Fox Canyon and is accessible from Cahuilla Hills Park.
Additional hiking trails exist north of the city in the Coachella Valley Preserve and
Joshua Tree National Park, and just east of Portola Avenue in the Living Desert
preserve.
Regulatory Setting
The following state law pertains to public services and recreation in the Planning Area.
State
Quimby Act: As part of approval of a final tract or parcel map, the Quimby Act allows a
city to require dedication of land, the payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination of
both to be used for the provision of parks and recreational services. Cities can require
land or in-lieu fees for a minimum of 3 acres per 1,000 residents, with the possibility of
increasing the requirement to a maximum of 5 acres per 1,000 residents if the city
already provides more than 3 acres per 1,000 residents.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-20 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
Evaluation of the General Plan update was based on review of the current facilities,
the City’s Municipal Code, and other relevant literature. This material was compared
to the General Plan’s specific parks and recreation service–related impacts. The impact
analysis below focuses on whether those impacts would have a significant effect on
the physical environment.
Draft General Plan Update Policies and Implementation Actions
The following General Plan update policies and implementation actions address parks
and recreation facilities and services:
Policies
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 3.1: Open space network. Require new development to contribute
land and/or funding to expand the community’s open space network, in
support of the CVMSHCP.
Policy 3.3: Preservation of natural land features. Preserve significant natural
features and incorporate into all developments. Such features may include
ridges, rock outcroppings, natural drainage courses, wetland and riparian
areas, steep topography, important or landmark trees and views.
Policy 4.1: Buffers from new development. Require new developments
adjacent to identified plant and wildlife habitat areas to maintain a protective
buffer.
Policy 4.2: Wildlife corridors. Support the creation of local and regional
conservation and preservation easements that protect habitat areas, serve as
wildlife corridors and help protect sensitive biological resources.
Land Use & Community Character Element
Policy 1.2: Open space preservation. Balance the development of the city
with the provision of open space so as to create both high quality urban areas
and high quality open space.
Policy 3.15: Access to parks and open spaces. Require the design of new
neighborhoods and, where feasible, retrofit existing neighborhoods, so that
60 percent of dwelling units are within a ¼ mile walking distance of a usable
open space such as a tot-lot, neighborhood park, community park or
plaza/green.
Policy 8.7: Natural environment. Maintain and enhance the natural
environment as critical to the attraction of tourists and ensure that new
development does not adversely affect the natural environment as a tourist
draw.
Policy 8.8: Recreational amenities. Strategically utilize City recreational
investments to create and enhance development opportunities.
Implementation Actions
Action 3.4. Create incentives to convert vacant lots into small parks or open
spaces throughout the City.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-21
Action 3.5. Create incentives for new development to include small parks, tot
lots, passive gardens, outdoor eating areas, plazas, paseos and other outdoor
open spaces.
Action 3.8. Develop a comprehensive community agriculture program that
includes schools and parks.
Action 4.15. Update the City’s landscape ordinance to require new public
facilities or park improvements to be designed using drought-tolerant tree
plantings, landscaping, fences, berms, or other methods to serve as
windbreaks.
Thresholds of Significance
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following State CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G standards of significance. A park and recreation impact is significant if
implementation of the General Plan update would:
Threshold Determination
1. Result in the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated
Less Than Significant
2. Result in the inclusion of recreational facilities or require
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment
Less Than Significant
3. Cumulative parks and recreation demands Less Than Significant
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.14.4-1
Demand for Additional Parks or Recreational Facilities.
Implementation of the General Plan update would result in an increase
in population in the Planning Area, which would increase demand for
parks and recreation services, resulting in the need for additional and/or
expanded parks and recreation facilities. However, General Plan update
policies and implementation actions would require the provision of new
parks and recreation facilities and ongoing parkland maintenance to
prevent deterioration. Therefore, this impact would be less than
significant.
An increase in population resulting from implementation of the General Plan update
may place greater demands on parks or recreational facilities in the Planning Area
such that deterioration of these facilities could occur or be accelerated. Development
associated with future land uses consistent with the updated General Plan would
result in new residents in the Planning Area. The city and SOI include approximately
163 acres of parkland, 23,060 acres of open space, and 6,834 acres of golf courses. The
City of Palm Desert’s established goals and standards for parkland identified in the
2004 General Plan are 0.25 acres per 1,000 residents for mini parks, 1 acre per 1,000
residents for neighborhood parks, and 5 acres per 1,000 residents for community
parks. Although the City has not reached these standards for each park type, the City
provides an average of 3.23 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The existing amount
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-22 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
of parkland in the city is adequate, as it currently exceeds the amount of parkland
required by the Quimby Act. Therefore, the additional new residents would not
significantly impact park facilities.
The General Plan update policies and implementation actions in the Environmental
Resources Element and the Land Use & Community Character Element would ensure
that adequate parks and recreational facilities are available to accommodate the
anticipated increase in new residents. Environmental Resources Element Policy 3.1
would require new development to contribute land and/or funding to expand the
community’s open space network, in support of the CVMSHCP. Policy 3.3 would
preserve significant natural features and incorporate them into all developments. Such
features may include ridges, rock outcroppings, natural drainage courses, wetland and
riparian areas, steep topography, important or landmark trees, and views. Policy 4.1
would require new developments adjacent to identified plant and wildlife habitat
areas to maintain a protective buffer. Policy 4.2 would support the creation of local
and regional conservation and preservation easements that protect habitat areas,
serve as wildlife corridors, and help protect sensitive biological resources. Land Use &
Community Character Element Policy 1.2 would balance the city’s development with
the provision of open space so as to create both high quality urban areas and high
quality open space. Policy 3.15 would require the design of new neighborhoods and,
where feasible, retrofit existing neighborhoods, so that 60 percent of dwelling units
are within a quarter-mile walking distance of a usable open space such as a tot-lot,
neighborhood park, community park, or plaza/green. Policy 8.7 would maintain and
enhance the natural environment as critical to the attraction of tourists and ensure
that new development does not adversely affect the natural environment as a tourist
draw. Policy 8.8 would strategically utilize City recreational investments to create and
enhance development opportunities.
Action 3.4 would create incentives to convert vacant lots into small parks or open
spaces throughout the city. Action 3.5 would create incentives for new development
to include small parks, tot lots, passive gardens, outdoor eating areas, plazas, paseos
and other outdoor open spaces. Action 3.8 would develop a comprehensive
community agriculture program that includes schools and parks. Action 4.15 would
update the City’s landscape ordinance to require new public facilities or park
improvements to be designed using drought-tolerant tree plantings, landscaping,
fences, berms, or other methods to serve as windbreaks.
The General Plan update policies and implementation actions would maintain existing
levels of service for parks and recreation facilities for both current and new residents,
including maintenance to prevent deterioration of existing parks. Therefore, impacts
to parks and recreation facilities and services would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-23
IMPACT
4.14.4-1a
Demand for Expansion Causing an Adverse Physical Effect on the
Environment. Implementation of the General Plan update would result
in an increase in population in the Planning Area, which would increase
demand for parks and recreation services, resulting in the need for
additional and/or expanded parks and recreation facilities. However,
General Plan update policies and implementation actions would
require the provision of new parks and recreation facilities and ongoing
parkland maintenance to prevent an adverse physical effect on the
environment. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
See Impact 4.14.4-1.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Although there is no defined boundary for cumulative impacts to parkland and
recreational facilities, residents of a city lacking in parkland or recreation facilities may
travel to an adjacent city to use such facilities, thereby increasing the use and
furthering deterioration of those facilities. The Palm Desert General Plan update and
other general plan updates for nearby cities in Riverside County would increase the
population of the area, thereby increasing the need for additional or expanded
parkland and recreational facilities.
IMPACT
4.14.4-2
Cumulative Parks and Recreation Demands. Implementation of the
General Plan update, along with other existing, planned, proposed,
approved, and reasonably foreseeable development, would increase
the use of existing parks and would require additional park and
recreation facilities in the cumulative setting, the provision of which
could have an adverse physical effect on the environment. This would
be a less than cumulatively considerable impact.
The city and SOI include approximately 163 acres of parkland, 23,060 acres of open
space, and 6,834 acres of golf courses. The City of Palm Desert’s established goals and
standards for parkland identified in the 2004 General Plan are 0.25 acres per 1,000
residents for mini parks, 1 acre per 1,000 residents for neighborhood parks, and 5
acres per 1,000 residents for community parks. Although the City has not reached
these standards for each park type, the City provides an average of 3.23 acres of
parkland per 1,000 residents. The existing amount of parkland in the city is adequate,
as it currently exceeds the amount of parkland required by the Quimby Act. Therefore,
the additional new residents would not significantly impact park facilities. The General
Plan update contains several policies that stimulate the development of new parks
and recreational facilities. Therefore, the General Plan update would have a less than
cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation facilities and services.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-24 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Library Facilities
Environmental Setting
Many other services are needed and used by Palm Desert residents, but not all are
within the City’s jurisdiction. Examples of non-City services with increased demands as
a result of increased population include medical services, such as hospitals and
emergency care centers, child-care services, library services, and senior services.
Regulatory Setting
No federal, state, or local plans, policies, regulations, and laws pertain to library
services in the Planning Area.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
To determine the General Plan update’s level of impact on the local public library
system, the projected population growth from the General Plan update was analyzed.
General Plan Update Policies and Implementation Actions
The following proposed General Plan update policy address libraries:
Policy
Public Utilities & Services Element
Policy 6.3: Library space. Ensure adequate library space, services, books and
other resources are available to residents and students.
Thresholds of Significance
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following State CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G standard of significance. A library impact is considered significant if
adoption and implementation of the updated General Plan would:
Threshold Determination
1. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of or need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other
performance objectives relating to libraries
Less Than Significant
2. Cumulative library impacts Less Than Significant
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.14.5-1
Demand for Additional Library Facilities. Implementation of the
General Plan update would result in an increase in population in the
Planning Area, which would increase the demand for library services.
However, the City would not need to expand or construct library
facilities to meet recommended standards. Therefore, this impact
would be less than significant.
With the slight increase in population and new development anticipated with
implementation of the General Plan update, minimal additional demands would be
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-25
placed on library services. Development pursuant to the General Plan update would
likely not require the provision of additional library space.
However, if a new library should be constructed, typical environmental effects
regarding the construction and operation of a library facility may involve issues with
air quality (during the construction of the facility), biological resources (depending on
location), cultural resources (depending on location), and public utilities (demand for
electric, water, and wastewater service). The provision of additional facilities in the
future would be required to undergo project-specific environmental review at such
time as an application for a project is submitted.
Implementation of General Plan update policies would direct the provision of
adequate facilities, staffing, equipment, technology, and funding to meet existing and
projected library service needs as demands grow with the increase in population.
Therefore, with implementation of the General Plan update policies, this impact would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Although there is no defined boundary for cumulative impacts to library facilities,
residents of a city lacking in library facilities may travel to an adjacent city to use such
facilities, thereby increasing the use and furthering deterioration of those facilities.
The General Plan update and other general plan updates for nearby cities in Riverside
County would increase the population of the area, thereby increasing the need for
additional or expanded library facilities.
IMPACT
4.14.5-2
Cumulative Library Impacts. Population growth associated with
implementation of the General Plan update, in combination with other
existing, planned, proposed, approved, and reasonably foreseeable
development in the region, would not result in a cumulative increase in
demand for library services. This is a less than cumulatively
considerable impact.
With the slight increase in population and new development and redevelopment
anticipated with implementation of the General Plan update, minimal additional
demands would be placed on library services. The implementation of the General Plan
update would facilitate future development associated with its implementation.
However, each individual project is required project-level CEQA analysis. Any potential
impacts associated with each individual project would require the implementation of
appropriate mitigation measures and/or the payment of appropriate fees to reduce
impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, cumulative impacts on library
facilities are considered less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-26 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Water Supply and Service; Wastewater Service
Environmental Setting
The Technical Background Report (Appendix 4.0) describes the regional and local
conditions related to water supply and service in Palm Desert in further detail. Key
findings of the environmental setting are presented below.
Water Supply and Use
Potable and non-potable water is provided to the city by the Coachella Valley Water
District (CVWD). Water demand in Palm Desert and the surrounding communities is
supplied by several sources: groundwater, surface water from local streams, imported
water either from the State Water Project (SWP) or from the Colorado River via the
Coachella Canal, and recycled water. All drinking, or domestic water, comes from
groundwater, while water for irrigation comes primarily from recycled wastewater and
the Colorado River.
In 1964, it was estimated that the five subbasins that make up the Coachella Valley
Groundwater Basin contained a total of approximately 39.2 million acre-feet of water
in the first 1,000 feet below the ground surface; much of this water originated as
runoff from the adjacent mountains. Of this amount, approximately 28.8 million acre-
feet of water was stored in the Whitewater River subbasin. The Whitewater River
subbasin, which encompasses approximately 400 square miles and underlies much of
the Coachella Valley, serves as the groundwater repository for the Palm Desert area.
The city is located within the boundaries of the upper Thermal subarea. The entire
Thermal subarea (including the upper and lower Thermal subareas) contains an
estimated 19.4 million acre-feet of groundwater in storage in the first 1,000 feet
below the surface.
The amount of water in the Whitewater River subbasin has decreased over the years
due to pumping to serve urban, rural, and agricultural development in the Coachella
Valley. Overdraft is a condition in which water is withdrawn at a faster rate than its
rate of recharge. Total groundwater production in 2011 for the upper Whitewater
River subbasin totaled 182,823 acre-feet. In 2011, the annual water balance (total
inflow minus total outflow) for the upper Whitewater River subbasin was a gain of
142,379 acre-feet of water, due to replenishment of the groundwater from imported
water sources. While inflow was greater than outflow for 2011, the cumulative
overdraft for the Whitewater River subbasin through 2011 was 735,974 acre-feet
(overdraft conditions have increased since 1936).
Since 1949, the Coachella Canal (a branch of the All-American Canal) has been
providing water for irrigation use by farms and golf courses. In addition, CVWD and
the Desert Water Agency (DWA) have an agreement with the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (MWD) to obtain water from the MWD Colorado River
Aqueduct, which crosses the upper portion of the valley near Whitewater, in exchange
for CVWD and DWA State Water Project water. Since 1973, CVWD and DWA have
been releasing Colorado River water near Whitewater to replenish groundwater in the
upper portion of the Whitewater River subbasin of the valley.
CVWD’s domestic water system, which serves the city, includes a total of 102 wells
with an average depth of 1,000 to 1,300 feet. In Palm Desert, CVWD maintains 32
active domestic wells, 13 domestic water reservoirs, and 19 domestic water booster
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-27
stations. From June 2013 to May 2014, Palm Desert customers used 28,899 acre-feet
of water, with a daily average consumption of 25.8 million gallons per day (mgd).
The Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company provides domestic water service to the
Bermuda Dunes community, except for development along Washington Street, which
is served by CVWD. Its five active wells, drilled to depths of 750 to 800 feet, can
produce 1,700 to 3,200 gallons of potable water per minute. Three of the production
wells discharge water directly into the water distribution system, which conveys water
through distribution water mains ranging in size from 4 to 12 inches in diameter. The
two other wells deliver water directly into a water reservoir near the intersection of
41st Avenue and Hermitage Drive. The reservoir has a capacity of one million gallons.
Myoma Dunes operates a sixth well, which is used solely by Bermuda Dunes Airport
and is not connected to the water delivery system.
Future Water Demand
Factoring potential variations in future land use and growth forecasts into demand
projections for the Coachella Valley, CVWD (2011) estimates that total water demand
in 2045 could range from 793,600 acre-feet per year (AFY) to 971,500 AFY with a mid-
range planning value of 885,400 AFY. It is projected that Palm Desert will have a
population of 78,787 in 2045. Using the city’s current annual water demand of 0.57
acre-feet per person (current annual demand divided by current population), this
would result in a total demand of approximately 44,908 AFY for Palm Desert in 2045.
Wastewater and Sewers
CVWD also provides wastewater and sewage collection and treatment services in the
city and SOI. The only outlets for groundwater in the Coachella Valley are through
subsurface outflow under the Salton Sea or through collection in drains and transport
to the Salton Sea via the Coachella Valley Storm Channel. There are five stormwater
channels in the city: Whitewater River Stormwater Channel, and its tributaries, Dead
Indian Creek, the Deep Canyon Channel, the Palm Valley System, and the East
Magnesia Channel.
Wastewater is conveyed through sewer trunk lines generally ranging in size from 4 to
24 inches, relying primarily on gravity flow. CVWD maintains five sewer lift stations
within the city boundaries. Effluent from the city is conveyed to CVWD’s Cook Street
treatment plant (WRP 10), which treats an average of 10 mgd and had a capacity of 18
mgd in 2014. Effluent from Bermuda Dunes, Del Webb’s Sun City, and other
development north of Miles Avenue is conveyed to the treatment plant located at
Madison Street and Avenue 38 (WRP 7). This plant treats approximately 2.5 mgd of
wastewater and has a capacity of 5 mgd.
Wastewater Reclamation
CVWD, recognizing the need for other sources of water to reduce demand on
groundwater, entered the water reclamation field in 1967 and currently operates six
water reclamation plants (WRPs) in the valley. Recycled water from two of these
facilities (WRP 9 and WRP 10) has been used for golf course and greenbelt irrigation in
the Palm Desert area for many years, thereby reducing demand on the groundwater
basin. A third facility (WRP 7), located north of Indio, began providing recycled water
for golf course and greenbelt irrigation in 1997.
Wastewater is typically treated to secondary levels and reintroduced into the
groundwater table through percolation ponds, with passage through sands and soils
providing a final stage of filtration. Tertiary treated water undergoes an additional
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-28 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
stage of treatment, making it immediately suitable for irrigation purposes. The Cook
Street WRP currently has a tertiary water capacity of 15 mgd. The Cook Street plant
generates approximately 8.5 to 9.5 mgd of tertiary treated water during summer
months and 5 to 6 mgd during winter months, averaging approximately 7.25 mgd. The
water reclamation plant at Madison Street and Avenue 38 has a maximum current
capacity of 2.5 mgd.
In the West Coachella Valley, the demand for non-potable water typically exceeds the
available recycled water supply, especially in the summer months. Golf courses using
recycled water currently must supplement that supply with local groundwater to meet
their demands. The Mid-Valley Pipeline (MVP) delivers Colorado River water to the
Mid-Valley area for use with CVWD’s recycled water for golf course and open space
irrigation, in lieu of pumping groundwater. Construction of the first phase of the MVP
from the Coachella Canal in Indio to CVWD’s Water Reclamation Plant 10 (6.6 miles in
length) was completed in 2009. At WRP 10, canal water supplements recycled water
for delivery to large irrigators. There are eight golf courses and five other users in the
West Coachella Valley currently connected to the WRP 10 recycled water system that
can receive both recycled water and canal water via the MVP. If these courses meet at
least 90 percent of their irrigation needs with non-potable water, 2,700 AFY of
additional groundwater pumping will be eliminated. Four golf courses adjacent to the
MVP can be connected to the system with minimal construction, thus making them
ideal candidates to receive canal water through the MVP. Construction of Phase 1 of
the MVP included outlets along the pipeline to serve these courses. However, pipeline
connections to deliver canal water from the MVP to each course have yet to be
constructed. At least 10 additional golf courses can be connected to the MVP
downstream of WRP 10 with relatively simple pipeline connections. When fully
implemented, the MVP system will be capable of eliminating about 50,000 AFY of
groundwater pumping.
Table 4.14.6-1 Palm Desert Golf Course Irrigation, Water Usage
(2013–2014)
Recycled Canal Non-Potable Non-Potable Ground Total
(acre-
feet)
(acre-
feet)
(recycled +
canal)
(recycled +
canal)
(acre-
feet)
(acre-
feet)
5,631.019 665.184 6,296.203 6,296.203 2,931.9 9,228.103
Recycled Canal Non-Potable Non-Potable Ground Total
% of Total % of Total (recycled +
canal) % of
Total
(recycled +
canal) % of
Total
% of Total
61.00% 7.20% 68.20% 68.20% 31.80% 100.00%
Source: Meza 2014
Regulatory Setting
The following federal, state, and local plans, policies, regulations, and laws pertain to
water and wastewater services in the Planning Area.
Federal
Clean Water Act and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES):
Authorized by the Clean Water Act in 1972, the NPDES permit program controls water
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-29
pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the
United States. Any industrial, municipal, or other facility which discharges directly to
surface waters must obtain permits through the authorized states. In California, the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) serves as the authorized agency to
issue NPDES permits.
State
Senate Bill 610: Senate Bill (SB) 610 (Section 21151.9 of the Public Resources Code and
Section 10910 et seq. of the Water Code) requires the preparation of water supply
assessments (WSA) for large developments (e.g., for projects of 500 or more
residential units; 500,000 square feet of retail commercial space; or 250,000 square
feet of office commercial space). These assessments, prepared by public water
systems responsible for service, address whether adequate existing or projected water
supplies are available to serve proposed projects, in addition to urban and agricultural
demands and other anticipated development in the service area in which the project is
located.
Where a WSA concludes that insufficient supplies are available, the WSA must
describe steps that would be required to obtain the necessary supply. The content
requirements for the assessment include identification of the existing and future
water suppliers and quantification of water demand and supply by source in 5-year
increments over a 20-year time frame. This information must be provided for average
normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. The absence of an adequate current water
supply does not preclude project approval, but does require a lead agency to address
a water supply shortfall in its project approval findings.
Urban Water Management Act: The California Urban Water Management Planning
Act of 1983 requires that each urban water supplier providing water for municipal
purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more
than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually prepare, update, and adopt its urban water
management plan (UWMP) at least once every five years on or before December 31 in
years ending in 5 and 0. The plan describes and evaluates sources of water supply,
projected water needs, conservation, implementation strategy, and schedule.
Groundwater Management Act: The Groundwater Management Act, Assembly Bill
(AB) 3030, signed into law in 1992, provides a systematic procedure for, but does not
require, an existing local agency to develop a groundwater management plan. This
section of the code provides such an agency with the powers of a water replenishment
district to raise revenue to pay for facilities to manage the basin (extraction, recharge,
conveyance, and quality). In some basins, groundwater is managed under other
statutory or juridical authority (such as adjudicated groundwater basins) and is not
subject to the provisions of this act for groundwater management plans.
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (20x2020 Water Conservation Plan): The Water
Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7) affects urban water and agricultural water. The
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan sets forth a statewide road map to maximize the
state’s urban water efficiency and conservation opportunities between 2009 and 2020
and beyond for urban water. It aims to set in motion a range of activities designed to
achieve the 20 percent per capita reduction in urban water demand by 2020. These
activities include improving an understanding of the variation in water use across
California, promoting legislative initiatives that incentivize water agencies to promote
water conservation, and creating evaluation and enforcement mechanisms to ensure
regional and statewide goals are met. The City is required to establish water
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-30 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
conservation targets for the year 2020. Alternative approaches are also specified in
the law (Division 6, Part 2.55 of Water Code Sections 10608–10631.5).
Local
County Water District Act: The California Water District was formed in the Coachella
Valley in 1918. Special legislation (Water Code Sections 33100–33106) in 1937 allowed
the California Water District to merge with the Coachella Valley Storm Water District,
and the successor CVWD assumed the powers and duties of both former districts. A
governing board of five members is elected from five general divisions for terms of
4 years each. CVWD boundaries encompass an area of nearly 1,000 square miles in the
Coachella Valley. Most of this land is in Riverside County, but CVWD also extends into
Imperial and San Diego counties. Communities served include Cathedral City, Indian
Wells, La Quinta, Mecca, North Shore, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Thermal, and
Thousand Palms in Riverside County, as well as the communities of Bombay Beach,
Desert Shores, Hot Mineral Spa, Salton Sea Beach, and Salton City in Imperial County.
Coachella Valley Water District Valley-Wide Model Water Efficient Landscaping
Ordinance No. 1302: The CVWD Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 1302 in
March 2003 and amended it in November 2009. The purpose of the Valley-Wide
Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance is to establish effective water-efficient
landscape requirements for newly installed and rehabilitated landscapes and to
implement the requirements of the California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act,
Statutes of 1990, Chapter 1145 (AB 325). Through this ordinance, CVWD intends to
promote water conservation through climate-appropriate plant material and efficient
irrigation design and implementation.
Palm Desert Municipal Code: The Palm Desert Municipal Code establishes regulations
and standards related to development and operations in the Planning Area.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
Evaluation of the General Plan update was based on review of the current facilities,
the City’s Municipal Code, and other relevant literature. This material was compared
to the General Plan’s water supply and use–related impacts, as well as impacts related
to wastewater. The impact analysis below focuses on whether those impacts would
have a significant effect on the physical environment.
Draft General Plan Update Policies and Implementation Actions
The following General Plan update policies and implementation actions address water
supply and use and wastewater:
Policies
Public Utilities & Services Element
Policy 1.1: Stormwater infrastructure for new development. Require
development projects pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or
improvements necessitated by that development (regional shallow ground
water).
Policy 1.2: On-site stormwater retention and infiltration. Whenever
possible, stormwater shall be infiltrated, evapotranspirated, reused or
treated on-site in other ways that improve stormwater quality and reduce
flows into the storm drain system.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-31
Policy 1.3: Groundwater infiltration. Encourage the use of above-ground and
natural stormwater facilities in new development and redevelopment, such
as vegetated swales and permeable paving.
Policy 1.4: Stormwater re-use and recycling. Encourage innovative ways of
capturing and reusing stormwater for non-drinking purposes to reduce the
use of potable drinking water.
Policy 1.5: Recycled water. Work with the CVWD to encourage existing golf
courses to connect to its recycled water system.
Policy 1.6: Collaborative stormwater management. Encourage collaborative,
integrated stormwater management between multiple property owners and
sites.
Policy 1.7: Low impact development. Require the use of low-impact
development strategies to minimize urban run-off, increase site infiltration,
manage stormwater and recharge groundwater supplies.
Policy 1.8: Green infrastructure in public rights-of-way. Encourage green
streets with in-street bio-retention and other forms of stormwater retention
and infiltration in streets and public rights-of-way.
Policy 1.9: Regional and local collaboration. Collaborate with Thousand
Palms, Rancho Mirage, Cahuilla Hills, Bermuda Dunes, and agencies in the
watershed to reduce and remove contaminants from stormwater runoff.
Policy 1.10: Stormwater in urban context. Development projects shall
incorporate stormwater management into landscaping, except in downtown
designations where catch basins shall be prohibited.
Policy 1.11: Water quality detention basins. Require water detention basins
to be aesthetically pleasing and to serve recreational purposes, such as in the
form of a mini park. Detention basins designed for active uses are intended to
supplement park and open space and should not be counted towards a
developer’s minimum park requirements, unless otherwise determined by
the Planning Commission or City Council.
Policy 1.12: Retention basins. Encourage storm water retention basins,
especially in the City Center Area, to be underground in future development
so as to achieve the most efficient use of land and compact development and
promote the urban character goals of the General Plan.
Policy 1.13: Soil erosion. Require the prevention of water-born soil erosion
from sites, especially those undergoing grading and mining activities.
Policy 2.1: Sewer system maintenance. Work with the Coachella Valley
Water District to ensure sewers are operational and in good working order.
Policy 2.2: Sewer infrastructure for new development. Require development
projects to pay for their share of new sewer infrastructure or improvements
necessitated by that development.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-32 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Policy 2.3: Sewer connections. In the event that a sewer line exists in the
right-of-way where a lateral line connection is required to serve a lot, require
a sewer connection at the time the lot is developed.
Policy 3.1: Agency coordination. Coordinate on an ongoing basis with the
Coachella Valley Water District, and other agencies responsible for supplying
water to the region.
Policy 3.2: Water supply. Provide a clean, reliable citywide water supply
sufficient to serve existing and planned development.
Policy 3.3: Water infrastructure. Maintain existing water infrastructure to
protect the supply, quality, and delivery of potable water.
Policy 3.4: Water infrastructure for new development. Require development
projects to pay for their share of new water infrastructure or improvements
necessitated by that project.
Policy 3.5: Recycled water. Expanded use of recycled water in existing and
new development.
Policy 3.6: Citywide water conservation and efficiency. Encourage and
promote community water conservation and efficiency efforts, including
indoor and outdoor efforts that exceed CalGreen requirements.
Policy 3.7: Priority infrastructure improvements. Prioritize water
infrastructure improvements in areas with failing, insufficient or end of useful
life infrastructure.
Environmental Resources Element
Policy 1.1: Water conservation technologies. Promote indoor and outdoor
water conservation and reuse practices including water recycling, grey water
reuse and rainwater harvesting.
Policy 1.2: Landscape design. Encourage the reduction of landscaping water
consumption through plant selection and irrigation technology.
Policy 1.3: Conservation performance targeted to new construction.
Incentivize new construction to exceed the state’s Green Building Code for
water conservation by an additional 10 percent.
Policy 1.4: Greywater. Allow the use of greywater and establish criteria and
standards to permit its safe and effective use (also known as on-site water
recycling).
Policy 1.5: Waterways as amenities. When considering development
applications and infrastructure improvements, treat waterways as amenities,
not hazards, and encourage designs that embrace the waterways.
Safety Element
Policy 3.1: Flood Risk in New Development. Require all new development to
minimize flood risk with siting and design measures, such as grading that
prevents adverse drainage impacts to adjacent properties, on-site retention of
runoff, and minimization of structures located in floodplains.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-33
Policy 3.2: Flood Infrastructure. Require new development to contribute to
funding regional flood control infrastructure improvements.
Policy 3.3: Stormwater Management. Monitor, update, and enforce
stormwater management plans in coordination with regional agencies,
utilities, and other jurisdictions
Implementation Actions
Action 2.49. Continue to maintain and enforce regulations and guidelines for
the development and maintenance of project-specific on-site
retention/detention basins to control stormwater and implement the NPDES
program, including measures to enhance groundwater recharge, complement
regional flood control facilities, and address applicable community design
policies.
Action 2.50. Identify opportunities for creative public projects that provide
“proof of concept” for innovative dual-use and stormwater management
while also addressing risks to floods.
Thresholds of Significance
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following State CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G standards of significance. A utilities impact is considered significant if
implementation of the updated General Plan would:
Threshold Determination
1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Less Than Significant
2. Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects
Less Than Significant
3. Cause the CVWD to determine it has inadequate capacity
to serve projected demand for wastewater treatment, in
addition to its existing commitments
Less Than Significant
4. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
Less Than Significant
5. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
would require new or expanded entitlements.
Less Than Significant
6. Cumulative water and wastewater impacts Less Than Significant
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.14.6-1
Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements. Implementation of the
General Plan update would result in an increase in population in the
Planning Area, which would increase the amount of wastewater
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-34 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
treated by the Coachella Valley Water District. However, General Plan
update policies would require development projects to pay for their
share of new sewer infrastructure or improvements necessitated by
that development. Therefore, this impact would be less than
significant.
The increased population resulting from implementation of the General Plan update
would generate additional wastewater flows that would be treated by the Coachella
Valley Water District. Effluent from the city is conveyed to CVWD’s Cook Street plant
(WRP 10), which treats an average of 10 million gallons per day and had a capacity of
18 mgd in 2014. Effluent from Bermuda Dunes, Del Webb’s Sun City, and other
development north of Miles Avenue is conveyed to the treatment plant located at
Madison Street and Avenue 38 (WRP 7). This plant treats approximately 2.5 million
gallons per day of wastewater and has a capacity of 5 mgd.
Because the implementation of the General Plan update facilitates future
development, an increase wastewater flow is expected to occur to accommodate the
increase in population. However, because no specific development is proposed as part
of the updated General Plan, wastewater generation rates are based on the
estimation of probable future land uses as a result of the General Plan update.
General Plan Public Utilities & Services Element Policy 2.1 states that the City of Palm
Desert will work with the Coachella Valley Water District to ensure sewers are
operational and in good working order. Policy 2.2 requires development projects to
pay for their share of new sewer infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that
development. This policy would ensure that increased demand associated with an
increase in population would not significantly increase wastewater service demands.
Therefore, implementation of the General Plan update would result in a less than
significant impact with regard to compliance with wastewater treatment
requirements.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.14.6-2
Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities; cause the CVWD to determine it has inadequate
capacity to serve projected demand for wastewater treatment.
Implementation of the General Plan update would result in an increase
in population in the Planning Areas, which would increase the demand
for water and wastewater treatment. However, the anticipated
increase in wastewater generated would not exceed the capacity of
the existing treatment plants or result in the need for the construction
or expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities that would
result in significant environmental effects. Therefore, this impact would
be less than significant.
The increased population resulting from implementation of the General Plan update
would generate additional wastewater flows that would be treated by the Coachella
Valley Water District. Effluent from the city is conveyed to CVWD’s Cook Street plant
(WRP 10), which treats an average of 10 million gallons per day and had a capacity of
18 mgd in 2014. Effluent from Bermuda Dunes, Del Webb’s Sun City, and other
development north of Miles Avenue is conveyed to the treatment plant located at
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-35
Madison Street and Avenue 38 (WRP 7). This plant treats approximately 2.5 million
gallons per day of wastewater and has a capacity of 5 mgd.
Because the implementation of the General Plan update facilitates future
development, an increase wastewater flow is expected to occur to accommodate the
increase in population. However, because no specific development is proposed as part
of the updated General Plan, wastewater generation rates are based on the
estimation of probable future land uses as a result of the General Plan update. At
buildout, the population is projected to increase to 61,690 residents in 31,401 units.
This is an increase of 11,905 residents and 8,049 units over current population
estimates.1 Using a wastewater generation rate of 230 gallons per day per capita
(County of Riverside 2015), future growth anticipated under the proposed General
Plan update would result in an increased demand for wastewater treatment by
approximately 2,738,150 million gallons per day,2 which would represent an
approximately 12 percent increase in use for both WRP 7 and WRP 10, which have a
combined capacity of 23.0 mgd. This increase is not considered a substantial increase
over existing capacity. Additionally, future development would be required to pay
development impact fees and connection fees, which would fund any potential future
expansion of the water reclamation plants in CVWD’s jurisdiction. Actual expansion of
any facilities would be subject to subsequent project-level environmental review. The
site-specific environmental impacts associated with the wastewater infrastructure
improvements needed to serve new development would be determined through
project-level CEQA analysis at such time as they are proposed for development and
their design and alignment are known. Table 4.14.6-2 identifies the types of potential
project-specific environmental impacts from further expansion of the water
reclamation plants and the improvement and/or extension of wastewater conveyance
infrastructure. However, the potential programmatic environmental impacts that
could be associated with expansion of these facilities have been identified and
disclosed in this Draft EIR as part of overall development of the Palm Desert Planning
Area.
Table 4.14.6-2 Types of Potential Environmental Impacts
Associated with New Wastewater Treatment and Supply
Infrastructure
Types of Potentially
Affected Resources Related and Potential Impacts
Geology and Soils Increase in erosion and sedimentation from construction
activities; geologic hazards could cause problems for new
facilities and their operators if they are not sited carefully.
Wetlands Changes in the amount or functions and values of various
types of wetlands from the construction of new facilities.
Biological Resources
Including Special-Status
Species
Disturbance to rare plants and their habitat and other types
of vegetation from construction activities.
1 Current population estimates based on 2012 data..
2 11,905 additional persons x 100 = 2,738,150 gallons daily.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Table 4.14.6-2, continued
4.14-36 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Types of Potentially
Affected Resources Related and Potential Impacts
Wildlife Resources
Including Special-Status
Species
Changes in the amount and quality of affected wildlife
habitat from construction activities.
Visual Resources Short-term direct visual impacts associated with
construction activities (trunk sewers). Addition of new
project facilities could affect the visual environment. New
pipelines and pumping stations near or in residential areas
or highly visited areas would cause negative impacts.
Adverse visual impacts during the construction and
operation of new or expanded wastewater infrastructure.
Agriculture Permanent direct loss of agricultural productivity (trunk
sewer construction, operation, and percolation ponds) and
potential indirect conversion of agricultural land by
expansion of urban services through agricultural lands in the
Palm Desert Planning Area (sewer mains). Some irrigated
land or grazing land could be taken out of production where
project conveyance facilities need to be located to
accommodate growth.
Cultural Resources Historic, prehistoric, and ethnographic resources could be
affected by the construction and maintenance of new
facilities.
Public Utilities The routing and sitting of new project facilities could
interfere with the operation or maintenance of existing or
planned public utilities, including communication and
energy infrastructure.
Air Quality and Noise Air quality emissions (direct) of oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
during construction (trunk and sewer mains, wastewater
treatment capacity expansion). Traffic and loud noises could
occur during the construction phase of new projects. Short-
term increases in noise during construction (trunk and
sewer mains) as well as operational noise from new or
expanded lift stations would likely impact nearby residents
and recreationists. Adverse odor impacts during the
construction and operation of new or expanded wastewater
infrastructure.
Transportation Local roads would experience traffic increases during
construction. Property access would be temporarily
disrupted during trunk sewer construction.
Public Health and Safety Construction activities could create some safety hazards.
Temporary direct disruption or property access (trunk sewer
construction).
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Table 4.14.6-2, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-37
Types of Potentially
Affected Resources Related and Potential Impacts
Water Quality Degradation of water quality (surface water and
groundwater). Any expansion of the wastewater treatment
plan would require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR)
permit from the Colorado River Basin Regional Water
Quality Control Board. This would substantially reduce the
possibility of significant water quality impacts.
Growth-Inducing Effects New wastewater infrastructure would likely cause growth-
inducing impacts.
Based on existing capacities and the incremental increase in wastewater flows, both
WRP 7 and WRP 10 have enough capacity to accommodate the increase in wastewater
flows generated by future development arising from the General Plan update.
Additionally, General Plan policies would help to further reduce associated impacts.
Public Utilities & Services Element Policy 2.1 states that the City will work with the
Coachella Valley Water District to ensure sewers are operational and in good working
order. Policy 2.2 requires development projects to pay for their share of new sewer
infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that development. This policy would
ensure that increased demand associated with an increase in population would not
significantly increase wastewater service demands. Therefore, implementation of the
General Plan update would result in a less than significant impact with regard to
compliance with wastewater treatment requirements.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.14.6-3
Demand for Stormwater Drainage Facilities. Implementation of the
General Plan update would result in development in the Planning Area
but would generally not increase the amount of impervious surface.
General Plan update policies and implementation actions would direct
construction of development projects to include on-site drainage
improvements, which would reduce the impact on existing stormwater
drainage facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than
significant.
Palm Desert is within the service area of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD),
which provides regional stormwater/flood protection, irrigation water importation
and distribution, and irrigation drainage collection for the City of Palm Desert. Given
the programmatic nature of the project, the exact quantity of stormwater runoff from
future development cannot be determined. The City of Palm Desert is a co-permittee
on a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit in the Planning Area. The
City is responsible for the development, implementation, and enforcement of
stormwater runoff and drainage requirements to protect local and coastal water
quality. Please refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional
information on water quality in the Planning Area.
Implementation of the General Plan update would not substantially increase the
amount of impervious surfaces in the city. New residential and nonresidential
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-38 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
development and redevelopment activities may provide opportunities to create new
pervious surfaces to facilitate groundwater infiltration through new greenspace,
landscaping, or use of porous pavements. Incorporation of stormwater management
facilities, such as retention basins, swales, or vegetation planted for
evapotranspiration, would reduce drainage loads through the stormwater system.
Environmental Resources Element Policy 1.1 would promote indoor and outdoor
water conservation and reuse practices including water recycling, greywater, reuse,
and rainwater harvesting. Policy 1.2 would encourage the reduction of landscaping
water consumption through plant selection and irrigation technology. Policy 1.3 would
incentivize new construction to exceed the state’s Green Building Code for water
conservation by an additional 10 percent. Policy 1.4 would allow the use of greywater
and establish criteria and standards to permit its safe and effective use (also known as
on-site water recycling). Policy 1.5 considers development applications and
infrastructure improvements, treats waterways as amenities, not hazards, and
encourages designs that embrace the waterways.
Public Utilities & Services Element Policy 1.2 states that, whenever possible,
stormwater shall be infiltrated, evapotranspirated, reused, or treated on-site in other
ways that improve stormwater quality and reduce flows into the storm drain system.
Policy 1.3 encourages the use of aboveground and natural stormwater facilities in new
development and redevelopment, such as vegetated swales and permeable paving.
Policy 1.4 encourages innovative ways of capturing and reusing stormwater for non-
drinking purposes to reduce the use of potable drinking water. Policy 1.6 encourages
collaborative, integrated stormwater management between multiple property owners
and sites. Policy 1.7 requires the use of low-impact development strategies to
minimize urban run-off, increase site infiltration, manage stormwater and recharge
groundwater supplies. Policy 1.8 encourages green streets with in-street bioretention
and other forms of stormwater retention and infiltration in streets and public rights-
of-way. Policy 1.9 states that the City will collaborate with Thousand Palms, Rancho
Mirage, Cahuilla Hills, Bermuda Dunes, and agencies in the watershed to reduce and
remove contaminants from stormwater runoff. Policy 1.10 requires development
projects to incorporate stormwater management into landscaping, except in
downtown designations where catch basins will be prohibited. Policy 1.12 requires
water detention basins to be aesthetically pleasing and to serve recreational purposes,
such as in the form of a mini park. Detention basins designed for active uses are
intended to supplement park and open space and should not be counted toward a
developer’s minimum park requirements, unless otherwise determined by the
Planning Commission or City Council. Policy 1.12 encourages stormwater retention
basins, especially in the City Center area, to be underground in future development so
as to achieve the most efficient use of land and compact development and promote
the urban character goals of the General Plan.
Safety Element Policy 3.1 would require all new development to minimize flood risk
with siting and design measures, such as grading that prevents adverse drainage
impacts to adjacent properties, on-site retention of runoff, and minimization of
structures located in floodplains. Policy 3.2 would require new development to
contribute to funding regional flood control infrastructure improvements. Policy 3.3
would monitor, update, and enforce stormwater management plans in coordination
with regional agencies, utilities, and other jurisdictions.
Action 2.49 would continue to maintain and enforce regulations and guidelines for the
development and maintenance of project-specific on-site retention/detention basins
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-39
to control stormwater and implement the NPDES program, including measures to
enhance groundwater recharge, complement regional flood control facilities, and
address applicable community design policies. Action 2.50 would identify
opportunities for creative public projects that provide “proof of concept” for
innovative dual-use and stormwater management while also addressing risks to
floods.
If new development were likely to increase stormwater runoff beyond existing
capacity, such impacts would be offset by developer fees collected during the
development review and CEQA process. Therefore, with implementation of the
proposed General Plan policies and implementation actions, impacts to stormwater
drainage facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.14.6-4
Demand for Water Supplies. Implementation of the General Plan
update would result in the need for additional water supply. The
increased population growth projected from implementation of the
General Plan update would be less than that anticipated by the urban
water management plans of water suppliers, and no new entitlements
would be needed. This impact is less than significant.
CVWD is responsible for the water supply and wastewater treatment in Palm Desert.
The district’s principal water supplies are local groundwater, imported Colorado River
water, and imported SWP water. The Coachella Canal brings in Colorado River water
from the All-American Canal near the Mexico-United States border. CVWD and the
Desert Water Agency obtain imported water from the SWP; however, since they do
not have a direct connection to the SWP, this water is exchanged with the
Metropolitan Water District for water from its Colorado River Aqueduct north of Palm
Springs. This water is referred to as SWP Exchange water (CVWD 2012a). Colorado
River and SWP Exchange water are currently used only to replenish the groundwater
basin; the potable water distribution system does not receive water directly from
either imported water source. Similarly, recycled water is used extensively by non-
potable water customers for irrigation purposes to offset groundwater pumping, but it
is not used to offset the demand of urban potable water customers (CVWD 2012a).
The General Plan update includes land use designations that would allow new
residential uses and nonresidential development, generally focused on revitalizing the
Highway 111 corridor into a downtown-type City Center and developing the area
around the Cal State/UC campus with a mix of housing types and new commercial
opportunities.
Water demand can be estimated based on current and future projected population
and CVWD current and future service area population. As shown in Table 4.14.6-3, the
proposed General Plan’s projected increase in population by 2035 would result in a 7
percent decrease of the forecast population for the entire CVWD service area.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-40 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 4.14.6-3 Water Service Area and Proposed General Plan
Population Forecasts
Growth Criteria
Palm Desert
Population
Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD)
Service Area1
Planning Area
Percentage of
Service Area
Baseline* 49,786 202,660 25%
Future (2035) 60,226 512,200 18%
Difference in Percentage of Service Area -7%
Source: 1 CVWD 2011, p. 2-8
Note: * Baseline for Planning Area is year 2012; baseline for CVWD is year 2010.
According to the CVWD’s Urban Water Management Plan (2011), the district has a
current baseline water demand rate of 482 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Based on
this baseline water demand rate, future growth anticipated in 2035 under the
proposed General Plan would result in an increased demand of 5.0 million gallons per
day (mgd), or 5,600 AFY.3 However, according to the CVWD’s Urban Water
Management Plan, the district has a target water use demand of 473 gpcd (CVWD
2011, p. 3-6). The City’s Municipal Code has several ordinances in place to ensure
water supply and efficiency measures are in place. For example, in the MHDO
(Medium/High Density Housing Overlay) District, projects must include water
conservation measures such as “blended” water systems, on-site recycling, the use of
gray water, and water efficient fixtures (Section 25.28.030 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code). Additionally, Section 24.04.010 of Palm Desert’s Municipal Code
codifies CVWD’s water-efficient landscape ordinance (in compliance with the
Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance). This
ordinance requires landscape design that incorporates climate appropriate plant
material and efficient irrigation for all new and rehabilitated landscaping projects.
Compliance with these ordinances will ensure that future development reduces water
demand to meet target demands. Based on the target water use demand, the
projected population growth assumed under the proposed General Plan would result
in an increased demand of 4.9 mgd by 2035, or 5,531 AFY.4
Additionally, the City’s pre-application review procedure and development review
process include a determination regarding the availability of water and sewer service.
Therefore, the availability of adequate water service, including water supplies, would
need to be confirmed by the Coachella Valley Water District prior to the approval of
any future development.
Furthermore, the updated General Plan would reduce the demand for water supply
with the following policies and implementation actions. Public Utilities & Services
Element Policy 1.5 requires the City to work with CVWD to encourage existing golf
3 10,440 additional persons x 482 = 5,032,080 gallons daily. 5,032,080 gallons daily x 365 = 1,836,709,200
gallons yearly, or 5,600 AFY
4 10,440 additional persons x 473 = 4,938,120 gallons daily. 4,938,120 gallons daily x 365 = 1,802,413,800
gallons yearly, or 5,531 AFY
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-41
courses to connect to its recycled water system. Policy 1.7 would require the use of
low-impact development strategies to minimize urban runoff, increase site infiltration,
manage stormwater, and recharge groundwater supplies. As demonstrated,
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Water supply and service are not confined by jurisdictional boundaries; rather, they
are dependent on the regional watershed and hydrologic conditions in surrounding
areas. The planning area is located in the Salton Sea watershed and the Whitewater
River subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. When analyzing cumulative
impacts to water supply and service, it is necessary to consider upstream and
downstream areas and water bodies that could influence or be influenced by actions
within the planning area. Thus, the watershed is the general area of influence used in
analysis of cumulative impacts for this topic.
IMPACT
4.14.6-5
Cumulative Water and Wastewater Impacts. Implementation of the
proposed General Plan update, in combination with other existing,
planned, proposed, approved, and reasonably foreseeable
development in the region, would increase the demand for water
supply and wastewater treatment. The provision of associated facilities
could result in environmental impacts. The proposed project’s
contribution to the need for expanded water services is considered less
than cumulatively considerable given requirements for project-level
CEQA review and the proposed General Plan update’s policies and
implementation actions.
Subsequent project-level CEQA review of future facilities and policies and
implementation actions in the updated General Plan would ensure that cumulative
environmental impacts associated with wastewater and water services would be less
than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Solid Waste
Environmental Setting
Solid waste disposal services in Palm Desert are provided by the commercial vendor
Burrtec. Solid waste collected from Palm Desert residents and businesses is hauled to
the Edom Hill Transfer Station in Cathedral City and is then transported to Lambs
Canyon in Beaumont. Commingled recyclable materials (e.g., paper, plastic, glass,
cardboard, aluminum) are transported to Burrtec’s material recovery facility in
Escondido. Table 4.14.7-1 lists 2013 disposal numbers from Burrtec.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-42 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 4.14.7-1 Palm Desert Solid Waste Disposal (2013)
Description 2013 Totals (tons)
Refuse (net of residual)
Residential Trash 12,982.55
Commercial Trash 39,945.15
Roll-Off Trash 0.00
Refuse (net of residual) Totals 52,927.70
Refuse (residual)
Residential (residual) 1,599.85
Commercial (residual) 1,218.10
Refuse (residual) Totals 2,817.95
School Trash 942.38
Refuse Totals 56,688.03
Recycling (net of residual)
Residential Curbside 4,149.09
Buy-Back 222.78
Commercial 2,637.41
Ride-Off 774.52
Recycling (net of residual) Totals 7,783.80
School 521.08
Recycling (net of residual) Totals 8,304.88
Greenwaste
Residential Curbside 3,602.76
Residential Self Haul 200.20
Roll-Off 11,216.01
Food Waste Composting 235.82
Greenwaste Totals 15,254.79
School 38.13
Greenwaste Totals 15,292.92
Special Waste (Roll-Off)
Ash 0.00
Sludge 0.00
Tires 0.00
White Goods 0.00
Scrap Metal 0.00
Wood Waste 0.00
Concrete/Asphalt/Rubble 2,456.35
Disaster Debris 0.00
Shingles 0.00
Rendering 0.00
Other Special Waster 0.00
Special Waste (Roll-Off) Totals 2,456.35
Household Hazardous Waste
Permanent Facility 0.00
Mobile/Periodic Facility 0.00
Curbside Collection 0.00
Waste Exchange 0.00
Education Programs 0.00
Other HHW 30.59
Special Waste (Roll-Off) Totals 30.59
COMBINED RECYCLING TOTALS 20,084.74
Source: Ream 2014
The City offers an At-Home Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection program to
Palm Desert residents. Residents are allowed four pickups per year at no charge
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-43
through Burrtec. The waste is processed through the City’s Permanent Household
Hazardous Waste Facility (PHHWF) by Clean Harbors. The facility also accepts
hazardous waste from conditional exempt small quantity generators at no charge for
up to $300 in disposal costs per year. During 2013, the PHHWF collected 5.26 tons and
the At-Home HHW Collection program collected 22.1 tons of hazardous waste.
Regulatory Setting
The following state plans, policies, regulations, and laws pertain to solid waste in the
Planning Area.
State
California Integrated Waste Management Act: To minimize the amount of solid waste
that must be disposed of by transformation and land disposal, the California
Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939,
Statutes of 1989), effective January 1990. Per this act, all cities and counties were
required to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill facilities by January 1,
1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000. To help in the increase of diversion rates,
each jurisdiction is required to create an integrated waste management plan. Each city
plan must demonstrate integration with the relevant county plan. The plans must
promote source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe
transformation and land disposal. Elements of the plans must be updated every five
years.
AB 939 established the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB; now
the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery [CalRecycle]) to
oversee integrated waste management planning and compliance. The bill’s passage
led to the refinement of a statewide system of permitting, inspections, maintenance,
and enforcement for waste facilities in California, and also required the CIWMB to
adopt minimum standards for waste handling and disposal to protect public health
and safety and the environment. CalRecycle is responsible for approving permits for
waste facilities, approving local agencies’ diversion rates, and enforcing the planning
requirements of the law through local enforcement agencies (LEA). LEAs are
responsible for enforcing laws and regulations related to solid waste management,
issuing permits to solid waste facilities, ensuring compliance with state-mandated
requirements, coordinating with other government agencies on solid waste–related
issues, and overseeing corrective actions at solid waste facilities. LEAs inspect facilities,
respond to complaints, and conduct investigations into various aspects of solid waste
management.
Sewer System Management Plan: The SWRCB adopted new policies in December
2004 requiring wastewater collection providers to report sanitary sewer overflows and
to prepare and implement Sewer System Management Plans (SSMP). SSMP
requirements are modeled on proposed federal capacity, management, operations,
and maintenance plans. The SSMP policy requires dischargers to provide adequate
capacity in the sewer collection system, take feasible steps to stop sewer overflows,
identify and prioritize system deficiencies, and develop a plan for disposal of grease,
among other requirements. CVWD last prepared a Sewer System Management Plan in
2014.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-44 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
The analysis of impacts is based on the likely consequences of adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update compared to existing conditions. The
following analysis is both quantitative and qualitative and is based on available
information for services in the Planning Area. The analysis assumes that all future and
existing development in the Planning Area complies with applicable laws, regulations,
standards, and plans. An analysis of cumulative impacts uses quantitative and
qualitative information for the Planning Area and applicable broader service areas.
Draft General Plan Update Policies and Implementation Actions
Policies
Public Utilities & Services Element
Policy 4.1: Provide waste and recycling services. Provide solid waste,
recycling, and green waste services to the community at a reasonable rate.
Policy 4.2: Zero waste government operations. Strive for zero waste
government operations, modeling best practices in solid waste management
and recycling for the rest of the community.
Policy 4.3: Waste reduction. Seek to continually reduce Palm Desert’s rate of
waste disposal per capita, and to increase the diversion rate of recycling and
green waste.
Policy 4.4: Recycled building material. Encourage the use of recycled building
and infrastructure materials in new public and private development.
Policy 4.5: Paper waste reduction. Reduce paper waste and encourage the
use of recycled paper in City operations.
Policy 4.6: Community coordination. Confer and coordinate with utility and
civic services providers in planning, designing and siting of distribution and
supporting facilities to assure the timely expansion of facilities in a manner
that minimizes environmental impacts and disturbance of existing
improvements.
Implementation Actions
Action 2.36. Continue to confer and coordinate with the solid waste
franchisee to fully meet and if possible exceed the provisions from AB 939 by
expanding recycling programs that divert valuable resources from the waste
stream and returning these materials to productive use.
Thresholds of Significance
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following State CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G standard of significance. A solid waste impact is considered significant if
implementation of the General Plan update would:
Threshold Determination
1. Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs; not comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste
Less Than Significant
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-45
Threshold Determination
2. Cumulative solid waste impacts Less Than Significant
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.14.7-1
Demand for Solid Waste Disposal and Compliance with Federal,
State, and Local Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste.
Implementation of the General Plan update would result in additional
solid waste disposal needs. Adequate capacity exists in the landfills
receiving waste generated in Palm Desert to accommodate these
additional needs. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Future development would generate solid waste that would be disposed of in the
Mecca II and Oasis landfills, potentially hastening the end of their usable lives and
contributing to the eventual need for new or expanded landfill facilities. Riverside
County EIR No. 521 uses a residential solid waste generation factor of 0.41 tons per
dwelling unit. Using that factor, the project would generate an additional 12,874.41
tons of waste (31,401 du x 0.41 tons per du = 12,874.41 tons).
Each of the serving landfills has remaining capacity (60,267 tons, collectively) to serve
future development resulting from the proposed project (Merlan 2015). Furthermore,
as waste originating anywhere in Riverside County may be accepted for disposal at any
of the landfill sites in the county, other landfills in the county could accept generated
waste. As part of its long-range planning and management activities, the Riverside
County Waste Management Department (RCWMD) ensures that Riverside County has
a minimum of 15 years of capacity, at any time, for future landfill disposal. The 15-year
projection of disposal capacity is prepared each year by as part of the annual reporting
requirements for the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. The most
recent 15-year projection by the RCWMD indicates that no additional capacity is
needed to dispose of countywide waste through 2024, with a remaining disposal
capacity of 28,561,626 tons in the year 2024 (County of Riverside 2015b).
In addition, all future development would be required to comply with the mandatory
commercial and multi-family recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341.
Furthermore, Public Utilities and Services Element Policies 4.1 through 4.6 and Action
2.36 would reduce the demand for solid waste disposal.
The California Integrated Waste Management Act requires each city and county to
prepare, adopt, and submit to CalRecycle a source reduction and recycling element
that demonstrates how the jurisdiction will meet the Integrated Waste Management
Act’s mandated diversion goals. Each jurisdiction’s SRRE must include specific
components, as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 41003 and 41303. No
aspect of the proposed General Plan would be expected to conflict with this
requirement, The City of Palm Desert has implemented many programs within the
community as well as within its own organization to serve this purpose. Through such
efforts, as of 2008, the City has achieved a 72-percent diversion rate. Because there is
adequate capacity at existing landfills to serve future development, and future
development would be required to meet County and state recycling requirements to
further reduce demands on area landfills, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-46 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The cumulative impact area for solid waste is primarily the service area of the Mecca II
and Oasis landfills.
IMPACT
4.14.7-2
Cumulative Solid Waste Impacts. Implementation of the General Plan
update, in combination with other existing, planned, proposed,
approved, and reasonably foreseeable development in the region,
would increase the demand for solid waste facilities. The provision of
these facilities could result in environmental impacts. The General Plan
update’s contribution to the need for expanded solid waste services is
considered less than cumulatively considerable given requirements for
project-level CEQA review and the policies and implementation actions
of the General Plan update.
Subsequent project-level CEQA review of future facilities, along with the General Plan
update policies and implementation actions, would ensure that cumulative
environmental impacts associated with the continued provision of solid waste facilities
would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.14-47
References
Aryan, Stephen. 2014. Risk Manager, City of Palm Desert. E-mail to Alessandra Lundin,
Michael Baker International Associate Planner. July 9.
County of Riverside. 2015a. County of Riverside General Plan Amendment No. 960.
Public Review Draft. Western Coachella Valley Area Plan.
———. 2015b. County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521. Public
Review Draft.
CVWD (Coachella Valley Water District). 2003. Ordinance No. 1302 – An Ordinance of
the Coachella Valley Water District Establishing Valley-Wide Water Efficient
Landscaping Model Ordinance.
———. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
———. 2012a. Coachella Valley Water District Water Management Plan 2010 Update
– Final Report.
———. 2012b. Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment –
Upper Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit (2012–2013).
———. 2014. Coachella Valley Water District 2011–2012 Annual Review.
DSUSD (Desert Sands Unified School District). 2014. 2012–2013 School Quality
Snapshots. Accessed July 14.
http://web1.dsusd.k12.ca.us/EducationalServices/Pages/Snapshots.aspx.
———. 2016. School Facility Fee Handbook.
FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation). 2014a. FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
Program. Accessed July 10. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-
u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/aboutucrmain.
———. 2014b. FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Online Data Tool. Accessed July 10.
http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/.
Merlan, Jose. 2015. Urban/Regional Planner II, Riverside County Department of Waste
Resources. E-mail to Michael Baker International planners. July 27.
Meza, Jorge. 2014. Project Engineer, Coachella Valley Water District. E-mail to
Alessandra Lundin, Michael Baker International Associate Planner. July 16.
Palm Desert, City of. 2004. City of Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan.
———. 2014a. Parks and Recreation. Accessed July 16.
http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/Index.aspx?page=174.
———. 2014b. Our Parks. Accessed July 16.
http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/Index.aspx?page=175.
———. 2014c. Hiking Trails. Accessed July 17.
http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/index.aspx?page=179.
———. 2014d. Palm Desert Schools and Colleges.
http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/Index.aspx?page=450.
CHAPTER 4.14: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
4.14-48 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
———. 2014e. Medical Services.
http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/Index.aspx?page=451.
Palm Desert Police Department. 2013. Palm Desert Police Department 2013 Annual
Report.
Palm Desert Visitor Center. 2014. Palm Desert Dedicates Fox Canyon. Accessed July 17.
http://www.palm-desert.org/about-palm-desert/press-room/press-
releases/press-release?id=142.
Palm Springs Life. 2014. Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument.
Accessed July 17. http://www.palmspringslife.com/santarosa/.
Palm Springs Regional Association of Realtors. 2014. Private Schools. Accessed July 14.
http://palmspringsregionalmls.com/private-schools/.
Ream, Lisa. 2014. Recycling Technician, City of Palm Desert. E-mail to Alessandra
Lundin, Michael Baker International Associate Planner. July 22.
Riverside County Fire Department. 2013. Annual Report 2013.
Riverside County Sheriff's Department, Central Crime & Intelligence Analysis Unit.
2014. Crime Analysis Data Reports. June 2013–May 2014.
San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission. 2010. Coachella Valley (County) Water
District Profile. Accessed July 17, 2014.
http://www.sdlafco.org/images/Profiles/Profile_WD_CoachellaValley.pdf.
Southern California Edison. 2014. SCE Interconnection Map.
https://www.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/3025afc6-0483-4979-87b4-
2be56b759e5a/SCEGenerationInterconnectionMaps2014-07-
15.kmz?MOD=AJPERES.
US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2014. Trails and
Trailhead Locations at the Santa Rosa & San Jacinto Mountains National
Monument. Accessed July 17.
http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/palmsprings/santarosa/trailheadsb.html.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Coachella Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Accessed
July 17, 2014.
http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Coachella_Valley/what_we_do/partnerships.html.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-1
4.15. Transportation
Introduction
This chapter evaluates the potential environmental effects related to transportation
associated with implementation of the Palm Desert General Plan update. The analysis
includes a review of the vehicular, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian components of the
circulation system. General Plan policies and implementation actions presented in the
Mobility Element provide a framework to evaluate, manage, and improve
transportation infrastructure and practices to address increased congestion and serve
all modes of transportation.
Environmental Setting
The existing transportation system in Palm Desert is summarized below.
Multi-modal Transportation System
The transportation system includes diverse elements such as roadway systems, bicycle
systems, golf cart facilities, and a public transit system providing both local and
regional bus service. Elements of the transportation system in Palm Desert are
discussed in greater detail below.
Roadway Network
The General Plan Mobility Element designates nine different roadway types in the city.
Table 4.15-1 summarizes street classification and characteristics, and Table 4.15-2
outlines examples of the classified facilities in Palm Desert. Primary roadways include
Highway 111, Portola Avenue, Monterey Avenue, Fred Waring Drive, and Cook Street,
as illustrated in Figure 4.15-1. Regional access is provided by Interstate 10 (I-10),
which forms the city’s northern boundary.
Table 4.15-1 Palm Desert Roadway Functional Classifications
Roadway
Type Description of Typical Street Cross-Section Characteristics
Enhanced
Arterial
Enhanced arterials serve vehicular traffic but also have augmented
bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Emphasis is placed on enhanced
pedestrian crossings, street trees, and other similar amenities. Speeds
are managed through mechanisms such as narrower lanes, shorter
blocks, and enhanced landscaping.
The general cross section consists of a six-lane divided roadway,
including a wide median with trees and landscaping. This facility may
provide dedicated left turn lanes as well as a right turn lane where
warranted.
Vehicular-
Oriented
Arterial
Vehicular-oriented arterials prioritize the movement of automobiles.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are provided wherever possible but
are not emphasized. Driveway spacing is limited to reduce conflicts
with through traffic.
The general cross section consists of a six-lane divided roadway,
including a median with trees and landscaping. This facility may consist
of dedicated left turn lanes as well as a right turn lane where
warranted.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
Table 4.15-1, continued
4.15-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Roadway
Type Description of Typical Street Cross-Section Characteristics
Balanced
Arterial
Balanced arterials strive for a balance between all travel modes
including vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Bicycle and pedestrian
facilities are provided, though not at the level of the enhanced arterial.
The general cross section consists of a four-lane divided roadway,
including either a median or a two-way left turn lane. This facility may
consist of dedicated left turn lanes as well as right turn lanes where
warranted.
Enhanced
Secondary
Roadway
Enhanced secondary roadways provide high levels of bicycle and
pedestrian amenities, similar to enhanced arterials. Vehicular
circulation is accommodated but not emphasized.
The general cross section consists of a four-lane divided roadway with
a median. This facility may provide dedicated left turn lanes.
Secondary
Street
Secondary streets provide a balance between vehicular circulation,
property access, and non-automotive modes. Bicycle and pedestrian
facilities are provided, but not at the level of the enhanced secondary
roadway
The general cross section consists of a four-lane divided roadway with
a median. This facility may provide dedicated left turn lanes
Downtown
Collectors
Downtown collector streets funnel pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular
traffic to from neighborhoods to downtown Palm Desert.
The general cross section consists of a two-lane undivided roadway.
Collector
Streets
Collector streets funnel pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic to
enhanced arterials, vehicular-oriented arterials, balanced arterials,
enhanced secondary roadways, and secondary streets.
The general cross-section consists of a two-lane undivided roadway.
El Paseo El Paseo is a key commercial roadway for the city. This roadway
prioritizes property access and includes a very high level of pedestrian
amenities.
The cross section consists of four vehicular travel lanes, two parking
lanes, and a wide median with trees and landscaping. Dedicated left
turn lanes are provided as well as a right turn lane where warranted.
Source: Palm Desert General Plan Mobility Element, 2016
Table 4.15-2 Palm Desert Roadways
Classification Streets
Enhanced Arterials Highway 111 (Monterey Avenue to Deep Canyon Road)
Vehicular-Oriented
Arterials
Monterey Avenue
Cook Street
Washington Street
Fred Waring Drive
Highway 11 (western city boundary to Monterey Avenue and
Deep Canyon Road to eastern city boundary)
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
Table 4.15-2, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-3
Classification Streets
Balanced Arterials Portola Avenue (Dinah Shore Drive to Haystack Road)
Frank Sinatra Drive (Monterey Avenue to Interstate 10)
Hovley Lane (Portola Avenue to Washington Street)
Eldorado Drive (Frank Sinatra Drive to Hovley Lane)
Gerald Ford Drive (Monterey Avenue to Cook Street)
Enhanced
Secondary
Roadways
Gerald Ford Drive (Cook Street to Frank Sinatra Drive)
Magnesia Falls Drive
Parkview Drive
San Pablo Avenue
Secondary Streets Deep Canyon Road (Highway 111 to Fred Waring Drive)
Mesa View Drive
Portola Avenue (Mesa View Drive to Haystack Road)
Gateway Drive
Downtown
Collectors
San Gorgonio Way
De Anza Way
Shadow Mountain Drive
Deep Canyon Road (Magnesia Falls Drive to Fred Waring Drive
and Highway 111 to Fairway Drive)
Collector Streets Grapevine Street
California Drive
Hovley Lane West (Monterey Avenue to Portola Avenue)
College Drive
Haystack Road
Source: Palm Desert General Plan Mobility Element, 2016
Transit
The SunLine Transit Agency provides transit service in Palm Desert, including a
demand-responsive paratransit service. Six SunLine bus routes serve the city: 32, 53,
54, 70, 111, and Commuter Link 220. Routes operated by the agency are summarized
in Table 4.15-3.
Table 4.15-3 SunLine Transit Agency Routes
Line From To
Weekday
Headway
Weekend
Headway
32 Palm Desert Palm Springs 50 min 60 min
53 Xavier High School Palm Desert Mall 40–60 min 80 min
54 Palm Desert Indio 40–50 min (no service)
70 Bermuda Dunes La Quinta 45 min 90 min
111 Palm Springs Coachella 20–40 min 20–40 min
220 Palm Desert Riverside N/A1 (no service)
Source: SunLine Transit Agency 2014
1. Commuter Link 220 provides two westbound buses and one eastbound bus in the morning and
one westbound bus and two eastbound buses in the evening.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Figure 4.15-1 Palm Desert Roadways and Classifications
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-5
Unlike fixed-route transit service, paratransit service does not follow fixed routes or
schedules. Paratransit can consist of vans or mini-buses that provide on-demand curb-
to-curb service from any origin to destination within the service’s specified service
area. Qualifying residents can utilize the SunLine Transit Agency’s SunDial service.
SunDial is a curb-to-curb paratransit service serving Coachella Valley residents unable
to use regular bus service.
SunDial provides next day transportation service within three-quarters of a mile on
either side of any local SunLine bus route (excluding Commuter Link 220 and North
Shore Line 95). Service within the same city is $1.50 and between cities is $2.00.
Eligible residents may also purchase a 10-ride same-city pass for $15.00 or a city-to-
city pass for $20.00.
Bicycle and Golf Cart Facilities
Bicycles and golf carts share an extensive system of shared and separated facilities
along Palm Desert’s roadways. These facilities consist of Class I separated paths, Class
II striped lanes, Class III shared roadways, and shared sidewalks. Class II striped lanes,
which are dedicated lane of one-way travel within the paved section of the street,
exist on many of Palm Desert’s roadways including Highway 74, Country Club Drive,
Cook Street, and portions of Portola Avenue and Monterey Avenue. Class III shared
roadways having a right-of-way with shared use with other motorists are on El Paseo,
Shadow Mountain Drive, Town Center Way, San Gorgonio Way, De Anza Way, and
other roads (see Figure 4.15-2).
Pedestrian Environment
The suburban, tract housing layout in a significant portion of the city has resulted in a
somewhat automobile dominant community. The existing General Plan’s Circulation
Element concedes that while sidewalks have been constructed in various parts of the
city, in some areas their design and construction has been inconsistent, disjointed, and
unconnected. However, the commercial shopping centers near the Westfield Mall, El
Paseo Shopping District, and Desert Crossing Mall do offer a pleasant pedestrian
experience.
Six factors that might affect walkability and the pedestrian experience in the city at
large have been analyzed:
Sidewalk Continuity. Communities are more walkable if sidewalks do not end
abruptly and are present on the entire segment and both sides of a roadway.
This is especially important for the mobility-impaired or those pushing small
children in strollers.
Sidewalk Conditions. This refers to the physical condition of sidewalk
surfaces. Sidewalks that are broken or cracked can deter walkability and pose
a safety hazard, particularly for the mobility impaired, such as those in
wheelchairs and persons using walkers or strollers.
Shading. Persons are more inclined to walk in areas where there is shade
present, particularly in Southern California and the Coachella Valley with its
relatively warm weather and limited rainfall as compared to other locations.
Additionally, shade trees create an aesthetic value that is pleasing to the
pedestrian.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Grade. Persons are more inclined to walk in areas that are relatively flat or
have limited grade changes.
Amenities. All items being equal, persons are more inclined to walk in areas
that are interesting environments with shopping, retail, restaurants, and
other similar uses. Pedestrian-friendly amenities include street furniture,
attractive paving, wayfinding signage, enhanced landscaping, and improved
lighting.
Buffers. A more walkable environment is one in which there is some degree
of separation between the pedestrian and the motorist. This typically
includes wider sidewalks, street parking, and sidewalk bulb-outs at
intersections where feasible. Crosswalks with appropriate signage serve as an
important buffer.
A general evaluation of the pedestrian environment in Palm Desert is included in Table
4.15-4. Existing sidewalk coverage is shown on Figure 4.15-3.
Table 4.15-4 Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Criteria Evaluation
Sidewalk Continuity Some major roadways in Palm Desert either have
discontinuous sidewalks or only provide sidewalks on one
side of the roadway. Many residential streets also either
suffer from discontinuous sidewalks or do not have any
sidewalks at all.
Sidewalk Conditions Throughout Palm Desert, sidewalks are generally in good
condition, free of cracks, fissures, or uplift.
Shading Palm Desert has abundant trees and landscaping along many
of its roadways and pedestrian walkways that provide an
attractive streetscape. However, trees along most pedestrian
walkways offer little to no shade because of their small
canopies.
Grade Streets are generally flat with no grade. However sidewalks
along some roadways have slight slopes.
Amenities Offered El Paseo and the surrounding area offer amenities such as
places to sit, shopping, dining, attractive median landscaping,
and public art. Throughout the city, attractive landscaping
lines roadway medians and pedestrian walkways and buffers.
Buffers Buffered space is common throughout the city via
landscaping, curbside parking, and bicycle and golf cart lanes.
However, many locations lack buffered space and could also
benefit from wider sidewalks.
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-7
Figure 4.15-2 Existing Bicycle and Golf Cart Network
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Figure 4.15-3 Existing Sidewalk Coverage
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-9
Level of Service
The performance of a roadway system is measured in terms of level of service (LOS), a
standardized methodology describing the efficiency of a roadway circulation system in
relation to the quality of traffic operations and flow. Level of service is ranked by letter
grade that represents the overall condition of the roadway. These grades range from
LOS A (minimal delay) to LOS F (excessive congestion). LOS E represents at-capacity
operations. Level of service definitions for intersections are shown in Table 4.15-5.
Table 4.15-5 Level of Service Definitions
LOS Definition
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression
and/or short cycle length.
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or
short cycle lengths.
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression
and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.
D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable
progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles
stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long
cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are
frequent occurrences.
F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to
over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.
Source: Transportation Research Board 2010
As part of the traffic study prepared for the General Plan update, 39 intersections, 40
street segments, and four freeway mainline segments were selected for study in
consultation with City staff. The intersection study locations are shown in Figure
4.15-4. Studied intersections, intersection control type, and responsible agencies for
each study location are shown in Table 4.15-6. Studied street segments and their
number of lanes and Mobility Element functional classification are shown in Table
4.15-7.
Table 4.15-6 Study Intersections
Intersection
Intersection
Control Jurisdiction
3. Cook St. & Hovley Ln. East Signal Palm Desert
7. Portola Ave. & Hovley Ln. East Signal Palm Desert
10. Cook St. & Country Club Dr. Signal Palm Desert
15. Washington St. & Country Club Dr. Signal Palm Desert
21. Portola Ave. & Country Club Dr. Signal Palm Desert
24. Eldorado Dr. & Country Club Dr. Signal Palm Desert
31. Oasis Club Dr./Tamarisk Row Dr. &
Country Club Dr.
Signal Palm Desert
36. Monterey Ave. & Dinah Shore Dr. Signal Palm Desert/CMP
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
Table 4.15-6, continued
4.15-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Intersection
Intersection
Control Jurisdiction
48. Washington St. & Hovley Ln. East/42nd
Ave.
Signal Palm Desert
58. Monterey Ave. & Gerald Ford Dr. Signal Palm Desert/CMP
60. Portola Ave. & Magnesia Falls Dr. Signal Palm Desert
69. Portola Ave. & Gerald Ford Dr. Signal Palm Desert
71. Portola Ave. & Frank Sinatra Dr. Signal Palm Desert
75. Monterey Ave.& Frank Sinatra Dr. Signal Palm Desert/CMP
79. Cook St. & Gerald Ford Dr. Signal Palm Desert
104. San Pablo Ave. & Fred Waring Dr. Signal Palm Desert
106. Portola Ave. & Fred Waring Dr. Signal Palm Desert
107. Deep Canyon Rd. & Fred Waring Dr. Signal Palm Desert
108. Fred Waring Dr. & Phyllis Jackson Ln. Signal Palm Desert
109. Cook St. & Fred Waring Dr. Signal Palm Desert
122. Washington St. & Fred Waring Dr. Signal Palm Desert
128. Hwy. 74 & El Paseo Signal Palm Desert/CMP
169. Monterey Ave. & Country Club Dr. Signal Palm Desert/CMP
173. Cook St. & Frank Sinatra Dr. Signal Palm Desert
201. Painters Path/Park View Dr. & Hwy. 111 Signal Palm Desert/CMP
202. Hwy. 111 & Fred Waring Dr. Signal Palm Desert/CMP
203. Hwy. 111 & Desert Crossing Signal Palm Desert/CMP
204. El Paseo/Town Center Way & Hwy. 111 Signal Palm Desert/CMP
205. Plaza Way & Hwy. 111 Signal Palm Desert/CMP
206. Hwy. 74/Monterey Ave. & Hwy. 111 Signal Palm Desert/CMP
207. San Pablo Ave. & Hwy. 111 Signal Palm Desert/CMP
208. San Luis Rey Ave. & Hwy. 111 Signal Palm Desert/CMP
209. Portola Ave. & Hwy. 111 Signal Palm Desert/CMP
210. El Paseo/Cabrillo Rd. & Hwy. 111 Signal Palm Desert/CMP
211. Deep Canyon Rd. & Hwy. 111 Signal Palm Desert/CMP
213. Portola Ave. & El Paseo Signal Palm Desert
215. Hovley Ln. East & Oasis Club Dr. Signal Palm Desert
282. Monterey Ave. & I-10 EB Off-Ramp Signal Palm Desert/CMP
/Caltrans
1220. Monterey Ave. & Fred Waring Dr. Signal Palm Desert/CMP
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
Note: Intersection numbers are designated by the City of Palm Desert.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-11
Table 4.15-7 Study Roadway Segments
Segment Location
HCM 2010
Functional
Classification Lanes
Hwy. 111 East of Bob Hope Dr. Major Arterial 6
Hwy. 111 East of Fred Waring Dr. Major Arterial 6
Hwy. 111 West of Monterey Ave. Major Arterial 6
Hwy. 111 East of San Pablo Ave. Major Arterial 6
Hwy. 111 West of Cook St. Major Arterial 6
Hwy. 111 West of Washington St. Major Arterial 6
Monterey Ave. North of Dinah Shore Dr. Major Arterial 6
Monterey Ave. North of Gerald Ford Dr. Major Arterial 6
Monterey Ave. North of Country Club Dr. Major Arterial 6
Monterey Ave. North of Fred Waring Dr. Major Arterial 6
Portola Ave. South of Hwy. 111 Major Arterial 4
Portola Ave. North of Fred Waring Dr. Major Arterial 4
Portola Ave. North of Country Club Dr. Major Arterial 4
Portola Ave. North of Frank Sinatra Dr. Major Arterial 5
Cook St. North of Fred Waring Dr. Major Arterial 4
Cook St. North of Country Club Dr. Major Arterial 4
Cook St. North of Frank Sinatra Dr. Major Arterial 6
Cook St. North of Gerald Ford Dr. Major Arterial 6
Washington St. North of Hwy. 111 Major Arterial 6
Washington St. North of Fred Waring Dr. Major Arterial 6
Washington St. North of Hovley Ln. Major Arterial 6
Washington St. North of Country Club Dr. Major Arterial 6
Fred Waring Dr. East of Hwy. 111 Major Arterial 4
Fred Waring Dr. East of Monterey Ave. Major Arterial 6
Fred Waring Dr. West of Cook St. Major Arterial 6
Fred Waring Dr. West of Washington St. Major Arterial 6
Country Club Dr. West of Monterey Ave. Major Arterial 5
Country Club Dr. West of Portola Ave. Major Arterial 4
Country Club Dr. West of Washington St. Major Arterial 4
Frank Sinatra Dr. West of Monterey Ave. Major Arterial 4
Frank Sinatra Dr. West of Portola Ave. Major Arterial 4
Frank Sinatra Dr. West of Cook St. Major Arterial 4
Gerald Ford Dr. West of Monterey Ave. Major Arterial 4
Gerald Ford Dr. East of Cook St. Major Arterial 3
Dinah Shore Dr. West of Monterey Ave. Major Arterial 4
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
Table 4.15-7, continued
4.15-12 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Segment Location
HCM 2010
Functional
Classification Lanes
Varner Rd. East of Monterey Ave. Major Arterial 4
Varner Rd. East of Cook St. Major Arterial 3
Varner Rd. East of Washington St. Major Arterial 5
El Paseo East of Hwy. 74 Minor Arterial 4
Hwy. 74 West of Mesa View Dr. Major Arterial 4
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-13
Figure 4.15-4 Study Intersections
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-14 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Transportation facilities in Palm Desert are analyzed below. Additionally, guidelines
published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Riverside
County’s Congestion Management Program, and adjacent jurisdictions (City of Rancho
Mirage, City of Indian Wells, City of La Quinta, and County of Riverside) were also used
to analyze the operation of transportation facilities under existing (2014) traffic
conditions as detailed below.1
City of Palm Desert
The existing City of Palm Desert General Plan Circulation Element (2004) states that
the desired and optimal level of service for intersections and roadway segments is
LOS C; however, LOS D is considered the generally acceptable service level. In the
current Mobility Element, Policy 1.3 states that the City of Palm Desert 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.” Mobility
Element Policy 1.3 directs the City to develop appropriate service levels for all modes
of transportation and develop guidelines to evaluate impacts to these modes for all
projects. This move away from a formal level of service is consistent with a region and
statewide emphasis on complete streets, alternative transportation and an
encouragement to reduce vehicle miles travelled. The guidelines will be developed
over the next several years and will reflect SB 743 that is currently undergoing rule
development by the state, as well as regional transportation strategies consistent with
SCAG. As shown in Table 4.4-15, many of the existing roadways are currently
operating at Level of Service D. As the new guidelines envisioned by Mobility Policy 1.3
are not yet developed, this EIR will consider LOS D as the minimum acceptable level of
service for intersections and roadway segments in Palm Desert. LOS is calculated using
the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology. The HCM 2010 method
determines the average control delay (in seconds per vehicle) and determines
intersection level of service based on the average intersection delay for all vehicles.
Table 4.15-8 shows the intersection level of service thresholds for the HCM
methodology.
Table 4.15-8 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Thresholds
Level of Service
Control Delay in Seconds
(HCM Signalized)
A 0.0 to 10.0
B 10.1 to 20.0
C 20.1 to 35.0
D 35.1 to 55.0
E 55.1 to 80.0
F 80.1 or greater
Source: Transportation Research Board 2010
1CEQA specifies that existing condition are those physical condition that exist in the area
affected by the project at the time the EIR process begins. (See State CEQA Guidelines Section
15125(a).) Here, the Notice of Preparation for the General Plan was issued in August 2015;
however, there is no anticipated difference in baseline traffic conditions between 2014 and
August 2015, given that no major developments or infrastructure projects were constructed
during this time, and no other major change in circumstances occurred to substantially alter
traffic conditions.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-15
For the analysis of roadway segments, level of service is determined based on a
volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio calculated using each roadway segment’s HCM 2010
daily capacity (Table 4.15-9 and Table 4.15-10) and applies LOS thresholds that are
consistent with the criteria for signalized intersections in Palm Desert.
Table 4.15-9 Roadway Segment Level of Service Thresholds
Level of Service V/C Ratio
A 0.00–0.60
B 0.61–0.70
C 0.71–0.80
D 0.81–0.90
E 0.91–1.00
F Greater than 1.00
Table 4.15-10 HCM 2010 Roadway Segment Functional Class
and Daily LOS Thresholds
Functional Class LOS C LOS D LOS E
Minor Arterial (4 lanes) 10,100 28,200 34,100
Major Arterial (2 lanes) 9,300 16,800 17,900
Major Arterial (3 lanes) 14,300 25,150 26,000
Major Arterial (4 lanes) 19,300 33,500 34,100
Major Arterial (5 lanes) 24,000 41,050 41,500
Major Arterial (6 lanes) 28,700 48,600 48,900
Major Arterial (7 lanes) 33,400 56,150 56,300
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) developed the Guide for the
Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002) to provide standards and
guidelines for the analysis of traffic impacts generated by local development and land
use change proposals that affect traffic along state highway facilities. Level of service
standards for intersections under the jurisdiction of Caltrans require State-controlled
intersections to be under the target threshold between LOS C and LOS D (or, LOS C is
considered acceptable) as measured using the HCM 2010 intersection methodology.
The following intersection is under Caltrans jurisdiction:
Monterey Avenue & I-10 Eastbound (EB) Off-Ramp
Additionally, the following freeway segments along the northern city boundary were
analyzed:
I-10 eastbound between Monterey Avenue and Cook Street
I-10 eastbound between Cook Street and Washington Street
I-10 westbound between Washington Street and Cook Street
I-10 westbound between Cook Street and Monterey Avenue
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-16 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
The level of service for freeway segments is based on V/C ratios, density (passenger
cars per mile per lane), speeds, and service flow rate (passenger cars per hour per
lane) based on the HCM 2010 methodology, as shown in Table 4.15-11. The minimum
acceptable level of service is LOS C.
Table 4.15-11 Basic Freeway Segment Level of Service
Thresholds
Level of
Service
Maximum
V/C
Maximum
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
Minimum
Speed
(mph)
Maximum Service Flow
Rate
(pc/hr/ln)
A 0.30 11 65.0 710
B 0.50 18 65.0 1,170
C 0.71 26 64.0 1,630
D 0.89 35 58.8 2,030
E 1.00 45 52.2 2,350
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010
Congestion Management Program
The Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP) is a State-mandated
program administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) that
provides a mechanism for coordinating regional land use and development decisions
in conjunction with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CMP facilities in
Palm Desert consist of Highway 111, Highway 74, and Monterey Avenue. However,
Highway 111 is exempt from CMP analysis because of its existing level of service at the
time of the 2011 CMP analysis which was below the target LOS E threshold.
Intersections are analyzed using the HCM 2010 methodology and require a minimum
level of service of LOS E. Additionally, a saturation flow rate of 1,850 vehicles per hour
is used for CMP intersection analysis. The following study intersections were included
in the CMP analysis:
Highway 74 & El Paseo
Monterey Avenue & Country Club Drive
Monterey Avenue & Dinah Shore Drive
Monterey Avenue & Fred Waring Drive
Monterey Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Monterey Avenue & Gerald Ford Drive
Monterey Avenue & I-10 Eastbound Off-Ramp
CMP roadway segments are analyzed using HCM 2010 V/C thresholds and require a
minimum level of service of LOS E. HCM 2010 daily capacities for select roadway
classes are shown in Table 4.15-10.
City of Rancho Mirage
The following study roadway segments are located in Rancho Mirage:
Gerald Ford Drive (west of Monterey Avenue)
Frank Sinatra Drive (west of Monterey Avenue)
Country Club Drive (west of Monterey Avenue)
Highway 111 (east of Bob Hope Drive)
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-17
The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element (2005) states that the
minimum acceptable level of service for Rancho Mirage facilities is LOS D using HCM
2010 roadway capacities.
City of Indian Wells
The following study roadway segment is located in Indian Wells:
Washington Street (north of Highway 111)
The City of Indian Wells General Plan Circulation Element (2013) states that the
minimum acceptable level of service for Indian Wells facilities is LOS E. Table 4.15-12
lists select capacities for roadways in Indian Wells.
Table 4.15-12 Indian Wells Daily Roadway Capacity Values
Facility Type Number of Lanes Median Treatment Capacity
Major Arterial 6 Divided or Turn Pockets 59,000
Primary Arterial 4 Divided or Turn Pockets 38,000
Secondary Arterial 4 Undivided 30,000
Collector (Divided) 2 Divided or Turn Pockets 18,000
Collector (Undivided) 2 Undivided 13,000
Source: Indian Wells 2013
City of La Quinta
The following study roadway segments are located in La Quinta:
Washington Street (north of Highway 111)
Highway 111 (west of Washington Street)
The City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis
(2012) states that the minimum acceptable level of service for La Quinta facilities is
LOS D. Table 4.15-13 lists capacities for roadways in La Quinta.
Table 4.15-13 La Quinta Daily Roadway Capacity Values
Classification Lane Configuration Capacity (ADT)
Local 2U 9,000
Collector 2U 14,000
Modified Secondary 2D 19,000
Secondary 4U 28,000
Primary 4D 41,400
Major 6D 59,300
Augmented Major 8D 76,000
Source: La Quinta 2012
Note: “U” denotes an undivided roadway and “D” denotes a divided roadway.
County of Riverside
The following study roadway segments are located in unincorporated Riverside
County:
Varner Road (east of Monterey Avenue)
Varner Road (east of Cook Street)
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-18 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Varner Road (east of Washington Street)
The Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element (2015) states that the
minimum acceptable level of service for roadway segments located in the Western
Coachella Valley Area Plan is LOS D using HCM 2010 roadway capacities.
Existing (2014) Level of Service Results
The existing peak-hour traffic volumes shown in Appendix 4.15-1 were analyzed using
the analysis methodologies described above to determine the existing operating
conditions at the selected intersections for analysis under existing conditions. Level of
service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix 4.15-2. Of the 39
intersections, 38 operate acceptably at LOS D or better under existing (2014) peak-
hour traffic conditions (shown in Table 4.15-14 and Figure 4.15-5). Only one
intersection currently operates unacceptably at LOS E: Portola Avenue & Magnesia
Falls Drive (AM peak hour). Additionally, the single study intersection under Caltrans
jurisdiction (Monterey Avenue & I-10 EB Off-Ramp) operates unacceptably at LOS D in
the PM peak hour, below the Caltrans acceptable threshold of LOS C.
Table 4.15-14 Existing (2014) Intersection Level of Service: Palm
Desert
Intersection
Intersection
Control
Peak
Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
3. Cook St. & Hovley Ln. East Signal AM
PM
27.8
26.9
C
C
7. Portola Ave. & Hovley Ln. East Signal AM
PM
19.5
18.0
B
B
10. Cook St. & Country Club Dr. Signal AM
PM
36.6
35.7
D
D
15. Washington St. & Country Club Dr. Signal AM
PM
43.8
40.0
D
D
21. Portola Ave. & Country Club Dr. Signal AM
PM
41.5
37.3
D
D
24. Eldorado Dr. & Country Club Dr. Signal AM
PM
13.1
27.5
B
C
31. Oasis Club Dr./Tamarisk Row Dr. &
Country Club Dr.
Signal AM
PM
19.8
24.6
B
C
36. Monterey Ave. & Dinah Shore Dr. Signal AM
PM
35.4
44.7
D
D
48. Washington St. & Hovley Ln. East/42nd
Ave.
Signal AM
PM
40.7
44.4
D
D
58. Monterey Ave. & Gerald Ford Dr. Signal AM
PM
28.8
27.9
C
C
60. Portola Ave. & Magnesia Falls Dr. Signal AM
PM
64.9
45.5
E
D
69. Portola Ave. & Gerald Ford Dr. Signal AM
PM
18.0
18.3
B
B
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
Table 4.15-14, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-19
Intersection
Intersection
Control
Peak
Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
71. Portola Ave. & Frank Sinatra Dr. Signal AM
PM
35.2
27.9
D
C
75. Monterey Ave.& Frank Sinatra Dr. Signal AM
PM
25.9
22.6
C
C
79. Cook St. & Gerald Ford Dr. Signal AM
PM
28.9
31.9
C
C
104. San Pablo Ave. & Fred Waring Dr. Signal AM
PM
15.9
26.7
B
C
106. Portola Ave. & Fred Waring Dr. Signal AM
PM
25.8
32.3
C
C
107. Deep Canyon Rd. & Fred Waring Dr. Signal AM
PM
33.0
28.6
C
C
108. Fred Waring Dr. & Phyllis Jackson Ln.* Signal AM
PM
12.6
2.3
B
A
109. Cook St. & Fred Waring Dr. Signal AM
PM
36.3
39.4
D
D
122. Washington St. & Fred Waring Dr. Signal AM
PM
40.9
38.9
D
D
128. Hwy. 74 & El Paseo Signal AM
PM
6.3
16.2
A
B
169. Monterey Ave. & Country Club Dr. Signal AM
PM
42.2
39.0
D
D
173. Cook St. & Frank Sinatra Dr. Signal AM
PM
22.9
22.8
C
C
201. Painters Path/Park View Dr. & Hwy.
111
Signal AM
PM
7.4
8.4
A
A
202. Hwy. 111 & Fred Waring Dr. Signal AM
PM
27.5
28.3
C
D
203. Hwy. 111 & Desert Crossing Signal AM
PM
16.8
11.6
B
B
204. El Paseo/Town Center Way & Hwy. 111 Signal AM
PM
46.5
17.7
D
B
205. Plaza Way & Hwy. 111 Signal AM
PM
11.6
13.1
B
B
206. Hwy. 74/Monterey Ave. & Hwy. 111 Signal AM
PM
28.4
35.6
C
D
207. San Pablo Ave. & Hwy. 111 Signal AM
PM
12.3
26.7
B
C
208. San Luis Rey Ave. & Hwy. 111 Signal AM
PM
14.2
6.8
B
A
209. Portola Ave. & Hwy. 111 Signal AM
PM
36.4
20.0
D
B
210. El Paseo/Cabrillo Rd. & Hwy. 111 Signal AM
PM
7.7
6.1
A
A
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
Table 4.15-14, continued
4.15-20 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Intersection
Intersection
Control
Peak
Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
211. Deep Canyon Rd. & Hwy. 111 Signal AM
PM
19.6
19.5
B
B
213. Portola Ave. & El Paseo Signal AM
PM
15.8
19.1
B
B
215. Hovley Ln. East & Oasis Club Dr. Signal AM
PM
49.2
27.8
D
C
282. Monterey Ave. & I-10 EB Off-Ramp Signal AM
PM
37.5
18.6
D
B
1220. Monterey Ave. & Fred Waring Dr. Signal AM
PM
36.4
36.7
D
D
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
* This intersection was analyzed using HCM 2000 methodologies due to its unique signal phasing.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 21
Figure 4.15-5 Existing (2014) Intersection Geometries and Peak-Hour Volumes
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
22 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Figure 4.15-5 Existing (2014) Intersection Geometries and Peak-Hour Volumes (continued)
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-23
Level of service results for CMP intersections (using the saturation flow rate
designated by the CMP) are shown in Table 4.15-15. Level of service calculation
worksheets are included in Appendix 4.15-3. Of the 7 intersections, all operate
acceptably at LOS E or better under existing (2014) peak-hour traffic conditions.
Table 4.15-15 Existing (2014) Intersection Level of Service: CMP
Intersections
Intersection
Intersection
Control
Peak
Hour Delay (sec) LOS
36. Monterey Ave. & Dinah Shore Dr. Signal AM
PM
35.8
45.6
D
D
58. Monterey Ave. & Gerald Ford Dr. Signal AM
PM
29.1
28.2
C
C
75. Monterey Ave.& Frank Sinatra Dr. Signal AM
PM
26.1
22.9
C
C
128. Hwy. 74 & El Paseo Signal AM
PM
6.3
16.3
A
B
169. Monterey Ave. & Country Club Dr. Signal AM
PM
42.9
39.5
D
D
282. Monterey Ave. & I-10 EB Off-Ramp Signal AM
PM
40.1
18.9
D
B
1220. Monterey Ave. & Fred Waring Dr. Signal AM
PM
36.6
37.4
D
D
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
Palm Desert level of service results for roadways are shown in Table 4.15-16. Of the 40
selected roadway segments, none currently operate below the acceptable LOS D.
Table 4.15-16 Existing (2014) Roadway Segment Level of Service:
Palm Desert
Street Segment Location
HCM 2010
Facility Type Volume LOS
Hwy. 111 East of Bob Hope Dr. Major Arterial (6) 36,603 D
Hwy. 111 East of Fred Waring
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 47,145 D
Hwy. 111 West of Monterey
Ave.
Major Arterial (6) 33,728 D
Hwy. 111 East of San Pablo Ave. Major Arterial (6) 38,682 D
Hwy. 111 West of Cook St. Major Arterial (6) 38,829 D
Hwy. 111 West of Washington
St.
Major Arterial (6) 29,525 D
Monterey Ave. North of Dinah Shore
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 44,703 D
Monterey Ave. North of Gerald Ford
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 34,536 D
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
Table 4.15-16, continued
4.15-24 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Street Segment Location
HCM 2010
Facility Type Volume LOS
Monterey Ave. North of Country Club
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 36,557 D
Monterey Ave. North of Fred Waring
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 36,169 D
Portola Ave. South of Hwy. 111 Major Arterial (4) 14,767 C or Better
Portola Ave. North of Fred Waring
Dr.
Major Arterial (4) 17,673 C or Better
Portola Ave. North of Country Club
Dr.
Major Arterial (4) 12,180 C or Better
Portola Ave. North of Frank Sinatra
Dr.
Major Arterial (5) 9,583 C or Better
Cook St. North of Fred Waring
Dr.
Major Arterial (4) 24,310 D
Cook St. North of Country Club
Dr.
Major Arterial (4) 21,530 D
Cook St. North of Frank Sinatra
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 22,978 C or Better
Cook St. North of Gerald Ford
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 27,945 C or Better
Washington St. North of Hwy. 111 Major Arterial (6) 31,310 D
Washington St. North of Fred Waring
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 40,131 D
Washington St. North of Hovley Ln. Major Arterial (6) 36,817 D
Washington St. North of Country Club
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 47,225 D
Fred Waring Dr. East of Hwy. 111 Major Arterial (4) 19,166 C or Better
Fred Waring Dr. East of Monterey Ave. Major Arterial (6) 32,066 D
Fred Waring Dr. West of Cook St. Major Arterial (6) 36,069 D
Fred Waring Dr. West of Washington
St.
Major Arterial (6) 29,890 D
Country Club
Dr.
West of Monterey
Ave.
Major Arterial (5) 22,908 C or Better
Country Club
Dr.
West of Portola Ave. Major Arterial (4) 21,140 D
Country Club
Dr.
West of Washington
St.
Major Arterial (4) 26,562 D
Frank Sinatra
Dr.
West of Monterey
Ave.
Major Arterial (4) 10,412 C or Better
Frank Sinatra
Dr.
West of Portola Ave. Major Arterial (4) 9,662 C or Better
Frank Sinatra
Dr.
West of Cook St. Major Arterial (4) 9,825 C or Better
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
Table 4.15-16, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-25
Street Segment Location
HCM 2010
Facility Type Volume LOS
Gerald Ford Dr. West of Monterey
Ave.
Major Arterial (4) 13,794 C or Better
Gerald Ford Dr. East of Cook St. Major Arterial (3) 8,042 C or Better
Dinah Shore Dr. West of Monterey
Ave.
Major Arterial (4) 28,471 D
Varner Rd. East of Monterey Ave. Major Arterial (4) 7,607 C or Better
Varner Rd. East of Cook St. Major Arterial (3) 4,498 C or Better
Varner Rd. East of Washington St. Major Arterial (5) 30,200 D
El Paseo. East of Hwy. 74 Minor Arterial (4) 12,848 D
Hwy. 74 North of Mesa View
Dr.
Major Arterial (4) 12,563 C or Better
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
Level of service results for CMP roadway segments (using HCM 2010 capacity) are
shown in Table 4.15-17. Of the five segments, all operate acceptably at LOS E or better
under existing (2014) conditions.
Table 4.15-17 Existing (2014) Roadway Segment Level of Service:
CMP
Street Segment Location
HCM 2010 Facility
Type Volume LOS
Monterey Ave. North of Dinah Shore
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 44,703 D
Monterey Ave. North of Gerald Ford
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 34,536 D
Monterey Ave. North of Country Club
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 36,557 D
Monterey Ave. North of Fred Waring
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 36,169 D
Hwy. 74 North of Mesa View
Dr.
Major Arterial (4) 12,563 C or
Better
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
Level of service results for study roadway segments in Rancho Mirage are shown in
Table 4.15-18. Of all four segments, all operate at or above the acceptable LOS D
under existing (2014) conditions.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-26 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 4.15-18 Existing (2014) Roadway Segment Level of Service:
Rancho Mirage
Street Segment Location
HCM 2010
Facility Type Volume LOS
Gerald Ford Dr. West of Monterey
Ave.
Major Arterial (4) 13,794 D
Frank Sinatra Dr. West of Monterey
Ave.
Major Arterial (4) 10,412 C or
Better
Country Club Dr. West of Monterey
Ave.
Major Arterial (5) 22,908 C or
Better
Hwy. 111 East of Bob Hope Dr. Major Arterial (6) 36,603 C or
Better
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
The level of service for the study roadway segment in Indian Wells is shown in Table
4.15-19. The segment operates at or above the acceptable LOS E under existing (2014)
conditions.
Table 4.15-19 Existing (2014) Roadway Segment Level of Service:
Indian Wells
Street
Segment Location
Facility
Type Volume Capacity V/C LOS
Washington St. North of
Hwy. 111
Major
Arterial (6)
31,310 59,000 0.53 A
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
Level of service results for study roadway segments in La Quinta are shown in Table
4.15-20. Of the two segments, both operate at or above the acceptable LOS D under
existing (2014) conditions.
Table 4.15-20 Existing (2014) Roadway Segment Level of Service:
La Quinta
Street
Segment Location
Facility
Type Volume Capacity V/C LOS
Washington
St.
North of Hwy.
111
Major (6D) 31,310 59,300 0.53 A
Hwy. 111 West of
Washington St.
Major (6D) 29,525 59,300 0.50 A
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
Note: “U” denotes an undivided roadway and “D” denotes a divided roadway.
Level of service results for County study roadway segments are shown in Table
4.15-21. Of the three segments, all operate at or above the acceptable LOS D under
existing (2014) conditions.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-27
Table 4.15-21 Existing (2014) Roadway Segment Level of Service:
County of Riverside
Street Segment Location
HCM 2010
Facility Type Volume LOS
Varner Rd. East of Monterey
Ave.
Major Arterial (4) 7,607 C or
Better
Varner Rd. East of Cook St. Major Arterial (3) 4,498 C or
Better
Varner Rd. East of
Washington St.
Major Arterial (5) 30,200 D
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
Level of service results for Caltrans freeway segments are shown in Table 4.15-22.
Level of service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix 4.15-4. Of the four
segments, one operates below the acceptable LOS C under existing (2014) conditions:
I-10 Westbound (Cook Street to Monterey Avenue) (AM peak hour and pm
peak hour)
Table 4.15-22 Existing (2014) Freeway Level of Service
Segment
AM PM
V/C Density LOS V/C Density LOS
I-10 EB
(Monterey Ave.
to Cook St.)
0.61 21.0 C 0.47 16.0 B
I-10 EB (Cook
St. to
Washington St.)
0.35 12.0 B 0.41 13.9 B
I-10 WB
(Washington St.
to Cook St.)
0.39 13.4 B 0.39 13.4 B
I-10 WB (Cook
St. to Monterey
Ave.)
0.77 28.6 D 0.90 36.6 E
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
Regulatory Setting
The regulatory framework is used to inform decision-makers about the regulatory
agencies/policies that affect transportation in the city. This information enables them
to make informed decisions about planning improvements to transportation systems
in Palm Desert. This section includes a discussion of funding as well as regulation.
Major policy documents impacting the transportation system in Palm Desert include
laws at the state level and planning documents at the regional and local levels.
State
AB 1358 (Complete Streets Act)
The California Complete Streets Act of 2008 was signed into law on September 30,
2008. Beginning January 1, 2011, Assembly Bill (AB) 1358 required circulation
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-28 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
elements to address the transportation system from a multi-modal perspective. The
bill states that streets, roads, and highways must “meet the needs of all users…in a
manner suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.”
Essentially, this bill requires a circulation element to plan for all modes of
transportation where appropriate—including walking, biking, car travel, and transit.
The Complete Streets Act also requires circulation elements to consider the multiple
users of the transportation system, including children, adults, seniors, and the
disabled. For further clarity, AB 1358 tasks the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research to release guidelines for compliance, which were released in December
2010.
AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act)
With the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the State of California
committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
The California Air Resource Board (CARB), which is coordinating the response to
comply with AB 32, is currently on schedule to meet this deadline.
In 2007, CARB adopted a list of early action programs that could be put in place by
January 1, 2010. In 2008, CARB defined its 1990 baseline level of emissions, and by
2011 it completed its major rule-making for reducing GHG emissions. Rules on
emissions, as well as market-based mechanisms like the proposed cap and trade
program, came into effect January 1, 2012. The cap and trade program controls
pollution by a governing agency selling permits on the amount of pollutants a firm can
emit. A firm’s pollutants cannot exceed the limit. Firms requiring the need to increase
their emissions must purchase permits from other firms requiring fewer permits.
SB 375 (Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act)
On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Proposed Scoping Plan for AB 32. This
scoping plan included the approval of Senate Bill (SB) 375 as the means for achieving
regional transportation-related GHG targets. SB 375 provides guidance on how curbing
emissions from cars and light trucks can help the state comply with AB 32.
There are five major components to SB 375. First, SB 375 will address regional GHG
emission targets. CARB’s Regional Targets Advisory Committee will guide the adoption
of targets to be met by 2020 and 2035 for each metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) in the state. These targets, which MPOs may propose themselves, will be
updated every 8 years in conjunction with the revision schedule of housing and
transportation elements.
Second, MPOs will be required to create a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)
that provides a plan for meeting regional targets. The SCS and the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) must be consistent with each other, including action items
and financing decisions. If the SCS does not meet the regional target, the MPO must
produce an Alternative Planning Strategy that details an alternative plan to meet the
target.
Third, SB 375 requires that regional housing elements and transportation plans be
synchronized on 8-year schedules. In addition, Regional Housing Needs Assessment
numbers must conform to the SCS. If local jurisdictions are required to rezone land as
a result of changes in the housing element, rezoning must take place within 3 years.
Fourth, SB 375 provides CEQA streamlining incentives for preferred development
types. Residential or mixed-use projects qualify if they conform to the SCS. Transit-
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-29
oriented developments also qualify if they are at least 50 percent residential, meet
density requirements, and are within one-half mile of a transit stop. The degree of
CEQA streamlining is based on the degree of compliance with these development
preferences.
Finally, MPOs must use transportation and air emission modeling techniques
consistent with guidelines prepared by the California Transportation Commission
(CTC). Regional transportation planning agencies, cities, and counties are encouraged,
but not required, to use travel demand models consistent with the CTC guidelines.
SB 743 (General CEQA Reform)
On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law. A key element
of this law is the potential elimination or deemphasizing of auto delay, level of service,
and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for
determining significant impacts in many parts of the state. According to the legislative
intent contained in SB 743, these changes to current practice were necessary to “more
appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals
related to infill development, promotion of public health through active
transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.”
SB 743 requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to update the
CEQA Guidelines and establish “criteria for determining the significance of
transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas.” The new criteria “shall
promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multi-modal
transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” Once the Secretary of the
Natural Resources Agency certifies the new guidelines, then “automobile delay, as
described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic
congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment…, except
in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” OPR is in the process of
investigating alternative metrics, but a preliminary metrics evaluation suggested that
auto delay and level of service may work against goals such as greenhouse gas
reduction and accommodation of all modes. OPR released a preliminary discussion
draft of changes to CEQA guidelines in August 2014. After a public engagement and
outreach process, OPR released a summary of the feedback on the draft guidelines in
May 2015. In January 2016, OPR released a second set of draft guidelines based on
feedback from the public, public agencies, and various organizations and individuals.
This second set of draft guidelines continues to recommend vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) as the most appropriate measure of project transportation impacts, and
currently includes a two year “opt-in” period (starting from adoption of the guidelines)
during which local agencies can choose to utilize either level of service or VMT, and
during which reliance on VMT is not year mandatory.
As noted, SB 743 requires impacts to transportation network performance to be
viewed through a filter that promotes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the
development of multi-modal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.
Some alternative metrics were identified in the law including VMT or automobile trip
generation rates. SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from continuing to analyze
delay or level of service as part of other plans (i.e., the general plan), studies, or
ongoing network monitoring.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-30 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
AB 417 (CEQA and Bicycle Transportation Plans)
Prior to AB 417, California cities and counties that prepared a bicycle transportation
plan were required to conduct a CEQA review of the plan before approval. The
requirement imposed high and sometimes prohibitive costs and delays, resulting in
fewer improvements to bicycle safety in California.
AB 417 creates a statutory exemption from CEQA for bicycle transportation plans for
an urbanized area; specifically, the bill exempts the following types of bicycle
transportation plans or projects prepared pursuant to Streets and Highways Code
Section 891.2 for an urbanized area if those projects have been described at a
reasonably high level of detail: restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and
storage, signal timing to improve street and highway intersection operations, and
related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles. It does not exempt all potential
impacts of a bike plan, such as a new path through a natural area, for example. Prior
to determining that a bicycle plan is exempt, the lead agency is required do both of
the following: (1) hold properly noticed public hearings in areas affected by the bicycle
transportation plan to hear and respond to public comments, and (2) include
measures in the bicycle transportation plan to mitigate potential bicycle and
pedestrian safety and traffic impacts.
Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies
The Caltrans Traffic Impact Study Guide provides a starting point and a consistent
basis in which Caltrans evaluates traffic impacts to state highway facilities. The guide
provides information on when a traffic impact study is needed, the scope of a traffic
impact study (i.e., the boundaries of the traffic study and the analysis scenarios), the
required data for a traffic impact study, analysis methodologies for various types of
state facilities, and guidelines for mitigating impacts.
OPR General Plan Guidelines Update
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research prepared its General Plan Guidelines
as guidance to local governments as they develop their general plans. OPR is currently
in the process of developing its update of the guidelines. This update will include
guidance on fiscally constrained circulation elements. Namely, a general plan’s
circulation element must take into consideration costs such as capital, maintenance,
and labor. The update will also include guidance on how the general plan can address
issues such as greenhouse gas emissions reductions and climate adaptation,
renewable energy, infill development, public health, and regional planning.
Regional and Local
Riverside County Congestion Management Program
The passage of Proposition 111 in June 1990 established a process for each
metropolitan county in California, including Riverside County, to prepare a Congestion
Management Plan (CMP). The CMP, which was prepared by the RCTC in consultation
with the County and the cities in Riverside County, is an effort to align land use,
transportation, and air quality management efforts to promote reasonable growth
management programs that effectively use statewide transportation funds, while
ensuring that new development pays its fair share of needed transportation
improvements.
The focus of the CMP is the development of an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring System in
which real-time traffic count data can be accessed by RCTC to evaluate the condition
of the Congestion Management System (CMS) as well as meet other monitoring
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-31
requirements at the state and federal levels. Per the adopted level of service target of
LOS E, when a CMS segment falls to LOS F, a deficiency plan is required. Preparation of
a deficiency plan will be the responsibility of the local agency where the deficiency is
located. Other agencies identified as contributors to the deficiency will also be
required to coordinate with the development of the plan. The plan must contain
mitigation measures, including Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies
and transit alternatives, and a schedule for mitigating the deficiency. To ensure that
the CMS is appropriately monitored to reduce the occurrence of CMP deficiencies, it is
the responsibility of local agencies, when reviewing and approving development
proposals, to consider the traffic impacts on the Congestion Management System.
Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (CVAG TUMF)
In November 1988, Riverside County voters approved Measure A, a one-half-cent
increase in sales tax over a 20-year period to be used for transportation purposes. A
major factor contributing to the support of Measure A was the “return to source”
concept, which requires the additional sales tax revenue generated in a specific
geographic area be used to finance projects within that same area and that
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) be adopted valley-wide on all new
development. The program has been so successful that in November 2002, Riverside
County voters approved a 30-year extension of Measure A (2009–2039). Despite the
measure’s success, Measure A funds will only contribute a portion of the
transportation improvements necessary to prevent a potential breakdown of the
regional transportation system.
The TUMF program was developed to generate additional funds required for
necessary improvements to the regional transportation system. TUMF is a
development impact assessment that provides funding for transportation
improvements required to support new development. The assessment is based on the
number of vehicle trips the new development or site improvement will generate. Local
jurisdictions may choose not to collect TUMF; however, jurisdictions not collecting
TUMF forfeit their share of local Measure A funds to the regional arterial program. The
TUMF is currently being updated.
CV Link
CV Link is a transformative multi-modal transportation facility that will provide
significant environmental, health, and economic benefits to many generations of
Coachella Valley residents and visitors.
CV Link will initially connect eight of the nine cities in the Coachella Valley and three
Indian tribes. Bicycles, pedestrians, and low-speed electric vehicles (LSEVs) will use the
corridor to access employment, shopping, schools, friends, and recreational
opportunities. LSEVs include golf carts and neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) that
can travel up to 25 miles per hour. CV Link is the largest, most ambitious project of its
kind in the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional
Transportation Plan, California, and the nation.
CV Link will serve to facilitate a safer, more attractive, and economically thriving
corridor to serve the needs of residents throughout the Coachella Valley. In addition
to the safety, emissions, and health benefits, private investments along the route will
facilitate the development and redevelopment of properties and drive economic
prosperity.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-32 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
By 2035, CV Link will facilitate over 3 million bicycle and pedestrian trips per year. CV
Link will provide a safer route to school and facilitate sports for many of the over
40,000 students attending public schools located within 1 mile of the corridor—54
percent of all public school students in the valley. For every dollar invested in CV Link,
the valley will realize $11 in benefits over the next 25 years.
SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
In April 2016, SCAG adopted the 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The plan involves stakeholders from six counties in
Southern California with a shared vision for the region’s sustainable future. The
RTP/SCS is a regional transportation plan that is driven by a strong commitment
toward reducing emissions from transportation sources set forth by SB 375 and
meeting the national ambient air quality standards for compliance with the federal
Clean Air Act. The plan focuses on the interconnected components of economic,
social, and transportation investments required to improve public health and achieve
a sustainable regional multi-modal transportation system.
Coachella Valley Plug-In Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan
The deployment of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) has the potential to reduce
petroleum consumption and greenhouse gas emissions dramatically, and increase
energy independence through the use of locally produced energy. However, the
success of long-term transportation electrification will depend in part on the near-
term deployment of charging infrastructure. As a result, CVAG has developed the
Coachella Valley Plug-in Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan to help support and accelerate
the mass deployment of PEVs in the region.
The plan is the result of a community outreach process and collaboration among local
and regional agencies, state and federal funding agencies, members of the California
Plug-in Electric Vehicle Coordinating Council, staff from the electric vehicle industry,
and other stakeholder groups that are pursuing numerous avenues to support PEV
deployment in the Coachella Valley. The plan highlights strategies and actions from
research, analysis, and public input to help the Coachella Valley achieve the goal of
being “PEV Ready”; that is, well positioned to handle large-scale adoption of PEVs over
the next 10 years.
The plan includes an introduction to PEVs—with a focus on plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles (PHEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs)—and the associated charging
infrastructure, referred to as electric vehicle supply equipment. Although there are
only a modest number of PEVs on the road in the Coachella Valley today, forecasts for
this plan indicate that as many as 8,000–10,000 PEVs will be on the road in 2022. This
level of deployment will require as many as 2,000 electric vehicle supply equipment
locations to be deployed in the Coachella Valley to support PEV owners.
The plan includes the following key recommendations, among others:
Adopt a climate action plan, general plan update, or stand-alone plan that
encourages deployment of PEVs and electric vehicle supply equipment.
Create minimum requirements for PEV parking.
Allow PEV parking spaces to count toward minimum parking requirements.
Adopt regulations and enforcement policies for PEV parking spaces.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-33
Specify design guidelines for PEV parking spaces.
Accelerate PEV adoption.
Increase charging opportunities to increase electric VMT.
CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization Study
The Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) serves as an unbiased,
methodological way to provide CVAG direction in determining funding for regional
arterials by prioritizing the eligible study segments. The Coachella Valley Association of
Governments is responsible for the distribution of sales tax (Measure A)
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) and other funds to be used for
transportation related projects in the Coachella Valley area. In order to better
determine the prioritized need for arterial road improvement projects, CVAG has
developed the TPPS. The study area includes the incorporated areas of the Coachella
Valley as well as a portion of Riverside County. The cities include Cathedral City,
Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm
Springs, and Rancho Mirage. The newest TPPS was released in May 2016.
The TPPS compares significant roadway segments for these nine municipalities and
the county in the Coachella Valley area using distinct evaluation criteria and scores to
form a ranking list used in deciding where funding should be directed. The criteria
used to analyze the improvement needs are determined by the CVAG Transportation
Technical Advisory Subcommittee. The TPPS prioritization is based on four main
criteria and five bonus point criteria of roadway characteristics.
After all segments have been analyzed using criteria set forth by CVAG and the
Transportation Technical Advisory Subcommittee, they can then be merged or divided
into logical and feasibly constructible buildable projects. CVAG will use the results of
the study as an evaluation tool to help define budgeting priority for the improving
segments in this study. The higher ranked projects should be considered first for
funding opportunities.
CVAG Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Update
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments recognizes the value of providing
opportunities for local residents and visitors to bicycle for work and recreation, as well
as to use off-road trails for hiking, equestrians, and jogging. Such opportunities help to
reduce auto trips, improve the environment, promote healthy lifestyles, and create
livable communities.
The Non-Motorized Transportation Plan updates a plan for bikeways and trails that
was completed in 2001. It includes updates of a bicycle plan for each jurisdiction as
well as revisions to plans for hiking and equestrian trails. The bicycle plans will make
each city and the County of Riverside eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account funds
and enhance their chances to compete for other funds. Cities and the County will also
improve their chances of receiving funds for the trails on this plan.
The Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Update reiterates the goals and objectives
from the 2001 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, presents the bikeway and trails
plan in both the Coachella and Palo Verde valleys, presents all of the individual bicycle
master plans for each jurisdiction along with project priorities and phasing, describes
eligible funding sources, lays out an implementation strategy, and includes a
discussion on design issues.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-34 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Envision Palm Desert 2013–2033 Strategic Plan
The Palm Desert Strategic Plan is a vision that recognizes the critical role that Palm
Desert plays in the Coachella Valley, its exceptional quality of life, commitment to
sustainability, and importance as a generator of jobs and economic activity. It
envisions a new energy and excitement in a year-round destination with world-class
institutions and events, a vibrant city that is attractive to innovative employers
because of its educational excellence, cultural richness, civic engagement, and
community passion.
The plan’s transportation vision is of a community with safe, convenient, and efficient
transportation options for residents and visitors. Priorities are to create walkable
neighborhoods in residential, retail, and open space areas to reduce the use of low-
occupancy vehicles, revitalize the Highway 111 corridor through land use and other
improvements, and emphasize multiple modes of travel including carpooling, bus
riding, cycling, and walking.
Palm Desert Draft General Plan Update
The Palm Desert General Plan Mobility Element describes the City’s goals and policies
related to transportation. The transportation system, which includes the city’s
roadways, bus stops, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and trails, is a key element of daily life.
These transportation facilities allow daily travel for work, shopping, school, and
recreational purposes. Businesses depend on the deliveries of goods to serve their
customers. The ability of Palm Desert to grow depends on a robust transportation
network.
The City envisions an interconnected multi-modal transportation system, offering
diverse options such as automobiles, public transit, golf carts, bicycling, and walking.
This interconnected transportation system is also provided within a larger framework
of statutory requirements, state and regional agencies, and adjacent cities whose
roadways, bike trails, and sidewalks connect to Palm Desert. The Mobility Element
describes policies and approaches to provide the city with the flexibility to interact
with these constraints in a way that addresses the needs of residents, employees, and
visitors.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Scenarios
The General Plan buildout scenario assumes the following increases in the city by the
year 2040:
+7,365 households
+11,927 residents
+13,131 employees
+1,060 kindergarten through grade 12 enrollment
+12,000 college enrollment
The General Plan also proposes improvements to the vehicular, bicycle, and golf cart
networks in Palm Desert, as shown on Figure 4.15-1 and Figure 4.15-6. Roadway
expansions include lane additions on Country Club Drive and Cook Street (south of
Frank Sinatra Drive).
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-35
Draft Palm Desert General Plan Update Policies
Updated General Plan policies that reduce potential transportation impacts include:
Mobility Element
Policy 1.1: Complete Streets. Consider all modes of travel in planning, design,
and construction of all transportation projects to create safe, livable, and
inviting environments for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transit
users of all ages and capabilities.
Policy 1.2: Transportation System Impacts. Evaluate transportation and
development projects in a manner that addresses the impacts of all travel
modes on all other travel modes through the best available practices.
Policy 1.3: Facility Service Levels. Determine appropriate service levels for all
modes of transportation and develop guidelines to evaluate impacts to these
modes for all related public and private projects.
Policy 1.4: Transportation Improvements. Consider improvements that add
roadway or intersection capacity for vehicles only after considering
improvements to other modes of travel.
Policy 1.5: Transportation Network Consistency. Perform a formal evaluation
of any transportation projects to verify consistency with the goals and policies
in the General Plan prior to approving funding for those projects.
Policy 1.6: Emergency Vehicle Access. Evaluate the impacts of transportation
network changes on emergency vehicle access and response times.
Policy 1.7: System Efficiency. Prioritize transportation systems management
(TSM) strategies such as signal coordination, signal retiming, and other
applicable techniques to limit unnecessary delay and congestion for vehicles.
Policy 2.1: Public Parking Facilities. Provide new public parking facilities only
after applying appropriate techniques to manage parking demand and ensure
efficient use of all public and private parking facilities.
Policy 2.2: Parking Management. Actively manage public parking facilities to
ensure that all potential users are benefitting from this civic resource.
Policy 2.3: Parking Cost Effectiveness. Continue to evaluate supply and
demand and implement appropriate strategies to maximize use and cost
effectiveness of public parking facilities.
Policy 2.4: Public/Private Partnerships. Promote the use of joint public and
private approaches to parking which might include leasing of private parking
lots for short-term or long-term use, using public parking for temporary
private functions, or the construction of joint-use facilities.
Policy 2.5: Innovative Parking Approaches. Allow the use of innovative
parking supply and demand strategies such as shared parking, unbundling
parking, and other related items within privately owned parking facilities to
allow an appropriate level of flexibility for these private land owners.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-36 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Policy 2.6: Formal Parking Evaluations. Perform formal evaluations of parking
capacity on a biannual basis to identify areas where parking is under- or over-
utilized.
Policy 3.1: Pedestrian Network. Provide a safe and convenient circulation
system for pedestrians that include sidewalks, crosswalks, place to sit and
gather, appropriate street lighting, buffers from moving vehicles, shading, and
amenities for people of all ages.
Policy 3.2: Prioritized Improvements. Prioritize pedestrian improvements in
areas of the city with community and/or education facilities, supportive land
use patterns, and non-automotive connections such as multi-use trails and
transit stops.
Policy 3.3: Roadway Sidewalks. Where feasible, provide adequate sidewalks
along all public roadways.
Policy 3.4: Access to Development. Require that all new development projects
or redevelopment projects provide connections from the site to the external
pedestrian network.
Policy 3.5: Pedestrian Education and Awareness. Support regional efforts to
encourage walking and also to reduce vehicular/pedestrian collisions.
Policy 3.6: Safe Pedestrian Routes to School. Consider school access as a
priority over vehicular movements when any such conflicts occur.
Policy 4.1: Bicycle Networks. Provide bicycle facilities where shown on Figure
4.2 along all roadways to implement the proposed network of facilities
outlined in the General Plan.
Policy 4.2: Prioritized Improvements. Prioritize and capitalize on opportunities
to provide bicycle facilities that connect community facilities, supportive land
use patterns, pedestrian routes, and transit stations.
Policy 4.3: Bicycle Parking. Require public and private development to provide
sufficient bicycle parking.
Policy 4.4: Bicycle Education. Develop educational programs that educate
bicyclists on lawful/responsible riding.
Policy 4.5: Regional Bicycle Safety. Support regional efforts to educate all
travelers on measures to improve safety for bicyclists.
Policy 5.1: Transit Service. Promote public transit service in areas of the City
with appropriate levels of density, mix of residential and employment uses,
and connections to bicycle and pedestrian networks.
Policy 5.2: Bus Stop Location. Regularly review bus stop locations in
conjunction with Sunline Transit to ensure that bus stops reflect current land
use and transportation networks.
Policy 5.3: Private Transit. Encourage the implementation of private transit
services in a manner which minimizes negative impacts on public
transportation facilities.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-37
Policy 5.4: Senior Transit. Encourage existing paratransit services in the City to
provide transit access for seniors and persons with disabilities.
Policy 5.5: Private Development Access to Transit. Review development
proposals to limit impacts on existing or proposed transit facilities.
Policy 5.6: Safe Routes to Transit. Regularly review transit stop locations to
maintain safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Policy 6.1: Fair Share Costs. Require that new development pay for its fair
share of construction costs related to new and/or upgraded infrastructure
needed to accommodate the development.
Policy 6.2: Multi-Modal Impacts. Develop and apply funding mechanisms that
require the fair share contributions for impacts to all modes of transportation
associated with development or redevelopment.
Policy 6.3: Operations and Maintenance Costs. Evaluate potential changes in
citywide operations and maintenance costs for transportation facilities prior to
the construction of any new facilities.
Policy 6.4: Development Contribution to Operations and Maintenance Costs.
Consider funding strategies that require private development to contribute to
the ongoing operations and maintenance of transportation infrastructure
within the City.
Policy 6.5: Cap-and-Trade Funds. Take advantage of funds from the State’s
cap-and-trade program to apply to projects and programs in the City, when
possible.
Policy 7.1: Ongoing Monitoring. Regularly monitor the performance of all
major transportation facilities within the City including major roadways,
pedestrian facilities, bicycle lanes, and transit stops.
Policy 7.2: Safety Review. Continue to coordinate with law enforcement
agencies to identify major accident locations including those affecting vehicles,
bicyclists, and pedestrians. Regularly publish reports regarding traffic safety
conditions in the city.
Policy 8.1: Alternative Fueled City Owned Vehicles. Encourage the purchase
of City vehicles which use fuel sources other than fossil fuels while considering
factors such as cost effectiveness, environmental impacts, and the availability
of local maintenance.
Policy 8.2: Innovative Vehicle Technologies. Regularly monitor and evaluate
new vehicle technologies such as autonomous and connected vehicles for use
by City Staff.
Policy 8.3: Emerging Mobility Strategies. Encourage the deployment of
emerging transportation approaches such as transportation network
companies, mobility hubs and comprehensive mobility providers by private
vendors.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-38 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Policy 8.4: Big Data. Regularly evaluate new data sources including but not
limited to real time traffic and parking information for use by City Staff and
residents.
Policy 8.5: Analysis Tools. Regularly evaluate state of the practice
transportation analysis tools and procedures to determine their utility in the
analysis of existing and future transportation conditions.
Policy 8.6: Electric Vehicles. Encourage the use of electric vehicles (EV),
including golf carts and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV) by supporting
the use of EVs and encouraging NEV charging stations to be powered with
renewable resources.
Policy 9.1: Regional Vehicular Traffic. Be mindful of local impacts from
regional “through” traffic. Consider but don’t prioritize the movement of
through vehicles through Palm Desert roadways.
Policy 9.2: Regional Roadways. Coordinate with Caltrans, RCTC, CVAG, and
other agencies on the planning, design, and construction of regional roadways
to provide an appropriate level of regional connectivity.
Policy 9.3: Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Coordinate with CVAG
and other agencies on the planning, design, and construction of regional non-
motorized routes such as CV Link.
Policy 9.4: Regional Transit. Collaborate with RCTC, CVAG, and Sunline Transit
in the planning, design, and construction of regional transportation facilities,
emphasizing the construction of a Metrolink station in Palm Desert.
Policy 9.5: Regional Priorities. Identify and prioritize desired regional roadway,
transit, and non-motorized improvements to focus the City’s outreach with
agencies such as Caltrans, CVAG, RCTC, and elected officials.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-39
Figure 4.15-6 General Plan Bicycle and Golf Cart Network
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-40 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Volume Forecasts
The analysis of potential transportation impacts at the study locations was based on
forecast demand volumes from the Palm Desert Traffic Analysis Model (PDTAM), a
trip-based four-step model. The model was developed by adding detail and refining
model assumptions in the Riverside County travel demand model (RIVTAM).
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, impacts on transportation are considered significant if
adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would:
Threshold Determination
1. Degrade peak hour operations at an intersection from
an acceptable LOS D, increase control delay by 2.0 or
more seconds at an intersection already operating
unacceptably, degrade daily level of service at a
roadway segment from an acceptable LOS D, or increase
volume by 2% or more on a segment already operating
unacceptably.
Less Than Significant
(After Mitigation)
2. Conflict with Caltrans traffic study guidelines, which
establish LOS C as the performance standard
Significant and
Unavoidable
3. Conflict with the Riverside County Congestion
Management Program, which establishes LOS E as the
performance standard
Less Than Significant
4. Conflict with the performance standards of jurisdictions
adjacent to Palm Desert
Less Than Significant
5. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks
Less Than Significant
6. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses
Less Than Significant
7. Result in inadequate emergency access Less Than Significant
8. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,
or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of
such facilities
Less Than Significant
Analysis Methodologies
City of Palm Desert
Intersections and roadway segments in Palm Desert were analyzed under the same
methodology as existing conditions, with a performance standard of LOS D. Existing
conditions incorporated the measured peak hour factor (PHF2) at local intersections;
however, a PHF of 0.95 was applied for future conditions.
2 PHF is defined by dividing the hourly traffic volume by four times the 15-minute peak period
measured within the peak hour and adjusts the analysis to account for these peaking
characteristics within the peak hour. Typically, locations with higher volumes experience a high
PHF (closer to 1.0) whereas rural locations with low volumes experience a low PHF. For future
conditions in urban and suburban locations, it is typical to assume a higher PHF (either 0.95 or
1.0).
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-41
Caltrans
Caltrans intersections and freeway segments were analyzed under the same
methodology as existing conditions with a performance standard of LOS C. A peak-
hour factor of 0.95 was applied for future conditions.
County of Riverside CMP
CMP intersections and roadway segments were analyzed under the same
methodology as existing conditions, with a performance standard of LOS E. However,
an intersection peak-hour factor of 0.925 was applied for future conditions.
City of Rancho Mirage
Roadway segments in Rancho Mirage were analyzed under the same methodology as
existing conditions, with a performance standard of LOS D.
City of Indian Wells
Roadway segments in Indian Wells were analyzed under the same methodology as
existing conditions, with a performance standard of LOS E.
City of La Quinta
Roadway segments in La Quinta were analyzed under the same methodology as
existing conditions, with a performance standard of LOS D.
County of Riverside (Unincorporated)
Roadway segments in Riverside County were analyzed under the same methodology
as existing conditions, with a performance standard of LOS D.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
IMPACT
4.15-1
LOS Performance Standard. Adoption and implementation of the
General Plan update would degrade peak hour operations from
acceptable performance at 2 of 39 intersections and degrade daily
level of service from acceptable performance at 1 of 40 roadway
segments to operate below the LOS D standard. This would result in a
potentially significant impact.
Table 4.15-23 shows the intersection level of service for the Buildout (2040) scenario.
Level of service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix 4.15-5. Figure 4.15-7
shows the peak-hour intersection volumes and geometries in this scenario. Two of the
39 study intersections are anticipated to operate below the LOS D standard during the
PM peak hour:
15. Washington Street & Country Club Drive (LOS E)
36. Monterey Avenue & Dinah Shore Drive (LOS E)
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-42 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 4.15-23 Buildout (2040) Intersection Level of Service: Palm
Desert
Intersection
Intersection
Control
Peak
Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
Change
(from
Existing)
3. Cook St. & Hovley Ln.
East
Signal AM
PM
25.4
26.9
C
C
-2.4
0.0
7. Portola Ave. & Hovley
Ln. East
Signal AM
PM
18.6
17.5
B
B
-0.9
-0.5
10. Cook St. & Country
Club Dr.
Signal AM
PM
34.5
37.3
C
D
-2.1
1.6
15. Washington St. &
Country Club Dr.
Signal AM
PM
43.7
57.7
D
E
-0.1
17.7
21. Portola Ave. &
Country Club Dr.
Signal AM
PM
44.1
54.9
D
D
2.6
17.6
24. Eldorado Dr. &
Country Club Dr.
Signal AM
PM
13.9
25.2
B
C
0.8
-2.3
31. Oasis Club
Dr./Tamarisk Row Dr. &
Country Club Dr.
Signal AM
PM
35.5
26.7
D
C
15.7
2.1
36. Monterey Ave. &
Dinah Shore Dr.
Signal AM
PM
35.5
63.2
D
E
0.1
18.5
48. Washington St. &
Hovley Ln. East/42nd
Ave.
Signal AM
PM
41.6
49.1
D
D
0.9
4.7
58. Monterey Ave. &
Gerald Ford Dr.
Signal AM
PM
30.7
33.0
C
C
1.9
5.1
60. Portola Ave. &
Magnesia Falls Dr.
Signal AM
PM
33.2
36.3
C
D
-31.7
-9.2
69. Portola Ave. & Gerald
Ford Dr.
Signal AM
PM
20.0
23.9
B
C
2.0
5.6
71. Portola Ave. & Frank
Sinatra Dr.
Signal AM
PM
29.4
30.7
C
C
-5.8
2.8
75. Monterey Ave.&
Frank Sinatra Dr.
Signal AM
PM
27.7
28.5
C
C
1.8
5.9
79. Cook St. & Gerald
Ford Dr.
Signal AM
PM
31.6
34.0
C
C
2.7
2.1
104. San Pablo Ave. &
Fred Waring Dr.
Signal AM
PM
16.8
27.0
B
C
0.9
0.3
106. Portola Ave. & Fred
Waring Dr.
Signal AM
PM
25.9
39.1
C
D
0.1
6.8
107. Deep Canyon Rd. &
Fred Waring Dr.
Signal AM
PM
36.9
29.5
D
C
3.9
0.9
108. Fred Waring Dr. &
Phyllis Jackson Ln.*
Signal AM
PM
21.1
2.3
C
A
8.5
0.0
109. Cook St. & Fred
Waring Dr.
Signal AM
PM
40.7
41.7
D
D
4.4
2.3
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-43
Intersection
Intersection
Control
Peak
Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
Change
(from
Existing)
122. Washington St. &
Fred Waring Dr.
Signal AM
PM
42.1
46.0
D
D
1.2
7.1
128. Hwy. 74 & El Paseo Signal AM
PM
6.5
16.9
A
B
0.2
0.7
169. Monterey Ave. &
Country Club Dr.
Signal AM
PM
39.0
43.6
D
D
-3.2
4.6
173. Cook St. & Frank
Sinatra Dr.
Signal AM
PM
35.3
29.4
D
C
12.4
6.6
201. Painters Path/Park
View Dr. & Hwy. 111
Signal AM
PM
8.5
17.8
A
B
1.1
9.4
202. Hwy. 111 & Fred
Waring Dr.
Signal AM
PM
24.1
23.9
C
C
-3.4
-4.4
203. Hwy. 111 & Desert
Crossing
Signal AM
PM
14.6
10.9
B
B
-2.2
-0.7
204. El Paseo/Town
Center Way & Hwy. 111
Signal AM
PM
50.8
16.2
D
B
4.3
-1.5
205. Plaza Way & Hwy.
111
Signal AM
PM
8.9
11.2
A
B
-2.7
-1.9
206. Hwy. 74/Monterey
Ave. & Hwy. 111
Signal AM
PM
27.5
31.4
C
C
-0.9
-4.2
207. San Pablo Ave. &
Hwy. 111
Signal AM
PM
13.1
32.1
B
C
0.8
5.4
208. San Luis Rey Ave. &
Hwy. 111
Signal AM
PM
10.4
25.8
B
C
-3.8
19.0
209. Portola Ave. & Hwy.
111
Signal AM
PM
33.5
33.8
C
C
-2.9
13.8
210. El Paseo/Cabrillo Rd.
& Hwy. 111
Signal AM
PM
13.1
8.2
B
A
5.4
2.1
211. Deep Canyon Rd. &
Hwy. 111
Signal AM
PM
19.6
22.1
B
C
0.0
2.6
213. Portola Ave. & El
Paseo
Signal AM
PM
27.4
21.6
C
C
11.6
2.5
215. Hovley Ln. East &
Oasis Club Dr.
Signal AM
PM
30.2
33.0
C
C
-19.0
5.2
282. Monterey Ave. & I-
10 EB Off-Ramp
Signal AM
PM
30.2
24.9
C
C
-7.3
6.3
1220. Monterey Ave. &
Fred Waring Dr.
Signal AM
PM
36.0
36.5
D
D
-0.4
-0.2
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
* This intersection was analyzed using HCM 2000 methodologies due to its unique signal phasing.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-44 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Figure 4.15-7 Buildout (2040) Intersection Geometries and Peak Hour Volumes
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-45
Figure 4.15-7 Buildout (2040) Intersection Geometries and Peak Hour Volumes (continued)
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-46 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 4.15-24 shows the roadway segment level of service for the Buildout (2040)
scenario. One of the 40 study roadway segments is anticipated to operate below the
LOS D standard:
Washington Street north of Country Club Drive (LOS F)
Table 4.15-24 Buildout (2040) Roadway Segment Level of
Service: Palm Desert
Street Segment Location
HCM 2010
Facility Type Volume LOS
Hwy. 111 East of Bob Hope Dr. Major Arterial (6) 36,700 D
Hwy. 111 East of Fred Waring
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 47,900 D
Hwy. 111 West of Monterey
Ave.
Major Arterial (6) 34,000 D
Hwy. 111 East of San Pablo Ave. Major Arterial (6) 42,400 D
Hwy. 111 West of Cook St. Major Arterial (6) 39,800 D
Hwy. 111 West of Washington
St.
Major Arterial (6) 29,600 D
Monterey Ave. North of Dinah Shore
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 44,800 D
Monterey Ave. North of Gerald Ford
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 35,600 D
Monterey Ave. North of Country Club
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 37,400 D
Monterey Ave. North of Fred Waring
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 38,800 D
Portola Ave. South of Hwy. 111 Major Arterial (4) 15,300 C or Better
Portola Ave. North of Fred Waring
Dr.
Major Arterial (4) 18,100 C or Better
Portola Ave. North of Country Club
Dr.
Major Arterial (4) 14,600 C or Better
Portola Ave. North of Frank Sinatra
Dr.
Major Arterial (4) 12,800 C or Better
Cook St. North of Fred Waring
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 26,000 C or Better
Cook St. North of Country Club
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 21,700 C or Better
Cook St. North of Frank Sinatra
Dr.
Major Arterial (4) 23,600 D
Cook St. North of Gerald Ford
Dr.
Major Arterial (4) 28,900 D
Washington St. North of Hwy. 111 Major Arterial (6) 33,700 D
Washington St. North of Fred Waring
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 40,900 D
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
Table 4.15-24, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-47
Street Segment Location
HCM 2010
Facility Type Volume LOS
Washington St. North of Hovley Ln. Major Arterial (6) 36,900 D
Washington St. North of Country Club
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 51,000 F
Fred Waring Dr. East of Hwy. 111 Major Arterial (6) 22,100 C or Better
Fred Waring Dr. East of Monterey Ave. Major Arterial (6) 41,000 D
Fred Waring Dr. West of Cook St. Major Arterial (6) 36,300 D
Fred Waring Dr. West of Washington
St.
Major Arterial (6) 32,900 D
Country Club
Dr.
West of Monterey
Ave.
Major Arterial (5) 25,900 D
Country Club
Dr.
West of Portola Ave. Major Arterial (6) 27,900 C or Better
Country Club
Dr.
West of Washington
St.
Major Arterial (6) 34,900 D
Frank Sinatra
Dr.
West of Monterey
Ave.
Major Arterial (4) 11,500 C or Better
Frank Sinatra
Dr.
West of Portola Ave. Major Arterial (4) 10,700 C or Better
Frank Sinatra
Dr.
West of Cook St. Major Arterial (4) 12,300 C or Better
Gerald Ford Dr. West of Monterey
Ave.
Major Arterial (4) 19,000 C or Better
Gerald Ford Dr. East of Cook St. Major Arterial (4) 13,300 C or Better
Dinah Shore Dr. West of Monterey
Ave.
Major Arterial (4) 30,900 D
Varner Rd. East of Monterey Ave. Major Arterial (4) 14,800 C or Better
Varner Rd. East of Cook St. Major Arterial (3) 9,800 C or Better
Varner Rd. East of Washington St. Major Arterial (5) 37,200 D
El Paseo. East of Hwy. 74 Major Arterial (4) 12,900 D
Hwy. 74 North of Mesa View
Dr.
Major Arterial (4) 12,600 C or Better
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.15-1a The City of Palm Desert shall implement Policy 1.7 (System
Efficiency) and optimize traffic signals at the intersections identified
in this report that are under City jurisdiction.
Two City intersections operate below the acceptable LOS D in the
PM peak hour (Washington Street & Country Club Drive and
Monterey Avenue & Dinah Shore Drive) in the Buildout (2040)
scenario. Optimization of the cycle length to 130 seconds at
Washington Street and Country Club Drive (and the coordinated
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-48 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
intersections along Washington Street) would result in acceptable
operations. Optimization of the cycle length to 130 seconds at
Monterey Avenue & Dinah Shore Drive (and the coordinated
intersections along Monterey Avenue) would result in acceptable
operations when implemented in combination with the identified
improvements in mitigation measure MM 4.15-1b. Mitigated level of
service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix 4.15-6.
Timing/Implementation:
The City of Palm Desert will monitor operations at these
facilities. Mitigation measures will be implemented
when operations at these intersections reach
unacceptable levels. Signal timing updates are
considered standard maintenance at traffic signals and
will be implemented by the Department of Public
Works.
Enforcement/Monitoring:
City of Palm Desert Public Works at time of
development application and as determined by General
Plan Policy 7.1
MM 4.15-1b The City of Palm Desert shall implement the following intersection
and roadway improvements:
Monterey Avenue & Dinah Shore Drive: Provide an additional (third)
eastbound left turn lane.
Washington Street (north of Country Club Drive): Provide an
additional (fourth) southbound lane between the I-10 eastbound
ramps and the Country Club Drive intersections. Suitable right-of-
way can be acquired from the existing 23-foot median lane. The
additional lane would transition directly to the outer southbound
left turn lane at the intersection of Washington Street and Country
Club Drive.
Timing/Implementation:
The City of Palm Desert will monitor operations at these
facilities. Mitigation measures will be implemented by
the Department of Public Works when operations at
these facilities reach unacceptable levels.
Enforcement/Monitoring:
City of Palm Desert Public Works at time of
development application and as determined by General
Plan Policy 7.1
Significance After Mitigation
Signal optimization and the 130-second cycle length resulting from implementation of
mitigation measure MM 4.15-1a would improve PM peak-hour operation at the
intersection of Washington Street and Country Club Drive to LOS D and reduce the
impact to less than significant. The coordinated traffic signals along Washington
Street will also perform acceptably with this optimized cycle length.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-49
Signal optimization and the 130-second cycle length resulting from implementation of
mitigation measure MM 4.15-1a and the additional intersection capacity resulting
from implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.15-1b would improve PM peak-
hour operation at the intersection of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive to
LOS D and reduce the impact to less than significant. The coordinated traffic signals
along Monterey Avenue will also perform acceptably with this optimized cycle length.
Additional capacity resulting from implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.15-1b
would improve daily operation on Washington Street (north of Country Club Drive) to
LOS D and reduce the impact to less than significant.
Impacts at the two intersections (Washington Street & Country Club Drive and
Monterey Avenue & Dinah Shore Drive) and the one roadway segment (Washington
Street north of Country Club Drive) would be reduced to less than significant with
implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.15-1a and MM 4.15-1b.
Table 4.15-25 shows post-mitigation level of service for locations in Palm Desert. Level
of service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix 4.15-6. Transportation
systems are reviewed when development applications are considered by the City, and
appropriate improvements integrated into the development project. In addition,
General Plan policy 7.1 requires regular monitoring of all major transportation
facilities. The combination of per-development review and regular monitoring by the
City will determine the appropriate time of construction of improvements included in
MM 4.15a and MM 4.15b.
Table 4.15-25 Buildout (2040) Level of Service (with
Improvements): Palm Desert
Facility Delay LOS
Washington St. & Country Club Dr. (PM Peak Hour) 54.8 D
Monterey Ave. & Dinah Shore Dr. (PM Peak Hour) 53.2 D
Washington St. (north of Country Club Dr.) — D
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
IMPACT
4.15-2
Conflict with Caltrans Performance Standards. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update would conflict with
Caltrans traffic study guidelines by resulting in acceptable performance
at the single Caltrans intersection in Palm Desert but contributing to
unacceptable performance along six freeway segments. This would
result in a potentially significant impact.
Table 4.15-26 shows the intersection level of service for the Buildout (2040) scenario
for the single Caltrans study intersection. The intersection is anticipated to meet the
LOS C performance standard.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-50 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 4.15-26 Buildout (2040) Intersection Level of Service:
Caltrans
Intersection
Intersection
Control
Peak
Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
282. Monterey Ave. & I-10 EB Off-Ramp Signal AM
PM
30.2
24.9
C
C
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
Table 4.15-27 shows the Caltrans freeway segment level of service for the Buildout
(2040) scenario. Level of service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix 4.15-
7. It should be noted that future assumptions included an additional travel lane in
each direction and a new interchange at Portola Ave because they are included in the
constrained regional transportation plan and are included in the mobility element. All
six segments are anticipated to perform below the LOS C performance standard:
I-10 eastbound (between Monterey Avenue and Portola Avenue)
‒ AM peak hour: LOS D
I-10 eastbound (between Portola Avenue and Cook Street)
‒ AM peak hour: LOS D
I-10 eastbound (between Cook Street and Washington Street)
‒ PM peak hour: LOS D
I-10 westbound (between Washington Street and Cook Street)
‒ PM peak hour: LOS D
I-10 westbound (between Cook Street and Portola Avenue)
‒ AM peak hour: LOS D
‒ PM peak hour: LOS F
I-10 westbound (between Portola Avenue and Monterey Avenue)
‒ AM peak hour: LOS D
‒ PM peak hour: LOS F
Table 4.15-27 Buildout (2040) Freeway Level of Service
Segment
AM PM
V/C Density LOS V/C Density LOS
I-10 EB
(Monterey Ave. to Portola Ave.) 0.80 30.0 D 0.50 17.0 B
I-10 EB (Portola Ave. to Cook St.) 0.82 31.4 D 0.50 17.3 B
I-10 EB
(Cook St. to Washington St.) 0.41 14.2 B 0.74 27.0 D
I-10 WB
(Washington St. to Cook St.) 0.44 15.2 B 0.73 26.5 D
I-10 WB
(Cook St. to Portola Ave.) 0.74 26.9 D 1.12 — F
I-10 WB
(Portola Ave. to Monterey Ave.) 0.73 26.3 D 1.14 — F
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-51
Mitigation Measures
The segments of Interstate 10 forming the northern city boundary will perform
unacceptably in the Buildout (2040) scenario. Mitigating the identified impacts to
these segments would require a complete reconstruction of the freeway and
additional freeway travel lanes. Specifically, acceptable peak hour operations would
require one additional general purpose lane in the eastbound direction and two
additional general purpose lanes in the westbound direction. Since freeways are an
interconnected system, it would not be possible, nor effective, to provide isolated spot
improvements of one segment of the freeway where deficient operations are
observed. Upgrading facilities at these specific segments would still result in
unacceptable operations on Interstate 10 beyond these segments. Additionally,
significant right of way acquisition would be necessary, which is partly constrained by
the railroad tracks parallel to Interstate 10. Furthermore, the facilities are not
controlled by the City of Palm Desert, and therefore the City of Palm Desert could not
require, fund, or construct these additional lanes. Therefore, this impact is deemed
significant and unavoidable.
In addition to the proposed facilities noted above, the following General Plan Mobility
Element policies support implementation of complete streets (which, by definition,
provide for all users of all ages and all abilities) or support the use of bicycles, golf
carts, transit, or walking:
Policy 1.1 – consideration of complete streets
Policy 1.2 – evaluation of transportation system impacts on all travel modes
Policy 1.3 – facility service levels for all travel modes
Policy 1.4 – consider addition of vehicle capacity only after considering
improvement to other travel modes
Policy 3.1 – provide a safe and convenient pedestrian network
Policy 3.2 – prioritization of pedestrian improvements near community and
education facilities, supportive land use patterns, and non-automotive
connections such as multi-use trails and transit stops
Policy 3.3 – provide sidewalks on all public roadways
Policy 3.6 – consider school access and safe pedestrian routes to school
Policy 4.1 – provide bicycle facilities as shown on Figure 4.2
Policy 4.2 – prioritize on opportunities to provide bicycle facilities that
connect communities
Policy 4.3 – require bicycle parking
Policy 5.1 – promote public transit service
Policy 5.2 – review bus stop locations with SunLine Transit and modify as
needed
Policy 5.3 – encourage the implementation of private transit services
Policy 5.4 – encourage existing paratransit services
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-52 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Policy 6.2 – evaluate multi-modal impacts and require fair share contributions
to mitigate impacts
Policy 7.1 – monitor the performance of all facilities, including roadways,
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
Policy 9.3 – coordinate with CVAG and other agencies on the planning and
design of non-motorized routes such as CV Link
Policy 9.4 – collaborate with RCTC, CVAG, and SunLine Transit on the planning
and design of regional transportation facilities, emphasizing the construction
of a Metrolink station in Palm Desert
Policy 9.5 – identify and prioritize regional roadway, transit, and non-
motorized improvements to focus outreach with agencies such as Caltrans,
CVAG, RCTC, and elected officials
These policies require the City to consider alternative modes of travel in the planning,
design and construction of future transportation projects, prioritize alternative
transportation mode improvements over improvements that increase automobile
capacity, and promote and protect transit service and transit facilities within the City.
Together, these policies aim to reduce automobile reliance, which may in turn reduce
future congestion along these freeway segments. However, such policies, and the
developments and improvements they encourage, will not result in a quantifiable
reduction and will not reduce the impacts to the above identified freeway segments to
less than significant levels. No other technologically, legally, or economically feasible
mitigation measures are available.
IMPACT
4.15-3
Conflict with Riverside County Congestion Management Program.
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would not
conflict with the Riverside County Congestion Management Program.
Adoption and implementation would maintain the level of service
standard (LOS E) for CMP intersections and roadways. This would result
in a less than significant impact.
Table 4.15-28 shows the CMP intersection level of service for the Buildout (2040)
scenario. Level of service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix 4.15-8.
None of the seven analyzed CMP intersections are anticipated to operate below the
LOS E standard.
Table 4.15-28 Buildout (2040) Intersection Level of Service: CMP
Intersections
Intersection
Intersection
Control
Peak
Hour Delay (sec) LOS
36. Monterey Ave. & Dinah Shore Dr. Signal AM
PM
39.5
68.9
D
E
58. Monterey Ave. & Gerald Ford Dr. Signal AM
PM
31.2
33.9
C
C
75. Monterey Ave.& Frank Sinatra Dr. Signal AM
PM
28.1
29.2
C
C
128. Hwy. 74 & El Paseo Signal AM
PM
6.7
17.0
A
B
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
Table 4.15-28, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-53
Intersection
Intersection
Control
Peak
Hour Delay (sec) LOS
169. Monterey Ave. & Country Club Dr. Signal AM
PM
39.6
44.7
D
D
282. Monterey Ave. & I-10 EB Off-Ramp Signal AM
PM
31.1
25.7
C
C
1220. Monterey Ave. & Fred Waring Dr. Signal AM
PM
36.3
36.5
D
D
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
Table 4.15-29 shows the CMP roadway segment level of service for the Buildout
(2040) scenarios. None of the analyzed CMP roadway segments are anticipated to
operate below the LOS E performance standard.
Table 4.15-29 Buildout (2040) Roadway Segment Level of
Service: CMP
Street Segment Location
HCM 2010
Facility Type Volume LOS
Monterey Ave. North of Dinah Shore Dr. Major Arterial (6) 44,800 D
Monterey Ave. North of Gerald Ford Dr. Major Arterial (6) 35,600 D
Monterey Ave. North of Country Club
Dr.
Major Arterial (6) 37,400 D
Monterey Ave. North of Fred Waring Dr. Major Arterial (6) 38,800 D
Hwy. 74 North of Mesa View Dr. Major Arterial (4) 12,600 C or
Better
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.15-4
Conflict with Performance Standards of Adjacent Jurisdictions.
Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would not
conflict with the performance standards of jurisdictions adjacent to
Palm Desert. Adoption and implementation would maintain the level of
service standards for facilities in adjacent jurisdictions (Rancho Mirage,
Indian Wells, La Quinta, and Riverside County). This would result in a
less than significant impact.
Table 4.15-30 shows the Rancho Mirage roadway segment levels of service for the
Buildout (2040) scenario. None of the four analyzed roadway segments perform below
the acceptable LOS D standard.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-54 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 4.15-30 Buildout (2040) Roadway Segment Level of
Service: Rancho Mirage
Street Segment Location
HCM 2010
Facility Type Volume LOS
Gerald Ford Dr. West of Monterey
Ave. Major Arterial (4) 19,000 C or
Better
Frank Sinatra Dr. West of Monterey
Ave. Major Arterial (4) 11,500 C or
Better
Country Club Dr. West of Monterey
Ave. Major Arterial (5) 25,900 D
Hwy. 111 East of Bob Hope
Dr. Major Arterial (6) 36,700 D
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
Table 4.15-31 shows the Indian Wells roadway segment level of service for the
Buildout (2040) scenario. The analyzed roadway segment does not perform below the
acceptable LOS E standard.
Table 4.15-31 Buildout (2040) Roadway Segment Level of
Service: Indian Wells
Street
Segment Location
HCM 2010
Facility
Type Volume Capacity V/C LOS
Washington St. North of
Hwy. 111
Major
Arterial (6) 33,700 59,000 0.57 A
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
Table 4.15-32 shows the La Quinta roadway segment levels of service for the Buildout
(2040) scenario. Neither of the two analyzed roadway segments perform below the
acceptable LOS D standard.
Table 4.15-32 Buildout (2040) Roadway Segment Level of
Service: La Quinta
Street
Segment Location
Facility
Type Volume Capacity V/C LOS
Washington
St. North of Hwy. 111 Major (6D) 33,700 59,300 0.57 A
Hwy. 111 West of Washington
St. Major (6D) 29,600 59,300 0.50 A
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
Note: “U” denotes an undivided roadway and “D” denotes a divided roadway.
Table 4.15-33 shows the unincorporated Riverside County roadway segment levels of
service for the Buildout (2040) scenario. None of the three analyzed roadway
segments perform below the acceptable LOS D standard.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-55
Table 4.15-33 Buildout (2040) Roadway Segment Level of
Service: Riverside County
Street Segment Location
HCM 2010
Facility Type Volume LOS
Varner Rd. East of Monterey Ave. Major Arterial (4) 14,800 C or
Better
Varner Rd. East of Cook St. Major Arterial (3) 9,800 C or
Better
Varner Rd. East of Washington
St. Major Arterial (5) 41,500 D
Source: Fehr & Peers 2016
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.15-5
Air Traffic Patterns. Adoption and implementation of the General Plan
update would not modify the planning or operations of Palm Springs
International Airport or Bermuda Dunes Airport or introduce land use
patterns that may cause substantial safety risks to or from air
operations. Thus, implementation would result in a less than
significant impact.
Palm Springs International Airport is located approximately 9 miles northwest of the
city and Bermuda Dunes Airport is located approximately 2 miles east of the city. The
Palm Desert General Plan policies and programs related to land use, mobility, and
structural heights would not influence air traffic patterns by creating either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
Further, the land uses in the proposed project were referred to the Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) during the Notice of Preparation for the EIR and no comments
were received. City policy also refers development projects to the ALUC for
consideration during preliminary consideration and environmental review. Therefore,
the impact is considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.15-6
Design Hazards. Adoption and implementation of the General Plan
update would not substantially increase hazards due to design features
or incompatible uses. Thus, implementation would result in a less than
significant impact.
The General Plan was developed to minimize conflicts between incompatible uses.
The City of Palm Desert has developed and maintains set standard drawings to ensure
that design features are consistent within the City and consistent with current design
practice. These standard drawings ensure that design features related to
transportation do not create any hazards on the transportation system. Given that the
City maintains these standards, and that all projects processed by the General Plan are
reviewed by staff for appropriate design features, this impact is considered less than
significant.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-56 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
In addition to the City process described above, several Mobility Element policies
address safety. This includes Policy 7.2 (requiring the City to review accident data and
address safety conditions in the city), Policy 1.1 (discussing complete streets and the
need to create safe, livable, and inviting environments), Policy 3.1 (discussing the need
for safe and convenient pedestrian system), Policy 3.6 (discussing the need for safe
pedestrian routes to school), Policy 4.5 (supporting regional education to improve
safety for bicyclists), and Policy 5.6 (discussion safe routes to transit). In addition, the
City requires site plan review and design review of all new developments prior to
issuance of any building permits. Such a review includes review for potential design
hazards. Thus, City processes, standard drawings, and the policies in the Mobility
Element are designed to reduce design hazards and conflicts between incompatible
land uses and between all transportation network users. The impact would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.15-7
Result in Inadequate Emergency Access. Adoption and
implementation of policies in the updated General Plan would not
result in inadequate emergency access. Adoption and implementation
would reduce emergency access program-level impacts to a less than
significant level.
Emergency vehicles take the fastest and most expedient routes to access an
emergency. In the event of an evacuation, the primary routes include, if available,
Highway 111, Monterey Avenue, Cook Street, Fred Waring Drive, Country Club Drive,
and Frank Sinatra Drive. Palm Desert General Plan policies include actions aimed at
ensuring emergency response readiness, such as Mobility Element Policy 1.1, which
requires the City to consider all modes of travel in planning, design, and construction
of transportation projects to create safe environments that would be accessible during
an emergency. Policy 1.3 requires the City to evaluate impacts related to adequate
service levels. Policy 1.6 requires the City to evaluate the impacts of transportation
network changes on emergency vehicle access and response times, which will ensure
that future network changes prioritize emergency access, routes, and evacuation
considerations. Policy 1.7 requires the City to employ TSM strategies where
appropriate, which would aid in emergency access and response times through the
coordination of signals. Finally, Policy 7.1 requires that the City regularly monitor the
performance of all major transportation facilities within the City, which would also
help to ensure that emergency access and evacuation routes are performing
adequately.
Implementation of current state and federal regulations (for example, those
regulations and standards applicable to roadway design, police protection, fire
department access, etc.), combined with Palm Desert General Plan policies, would
reduce the potential impacts on emergency preparedness and emergency access in
the City. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-57
IMPACT
4.15-8
Public Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities. Adoption and
implementation of the General Plan update would not conflict with
adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities. Adoption and implementation would support
the maintenance and expansion of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities consistent with adopted local and regional plans. Thus,
implementation would result in a less than significant impact.
The General Plan Mobility Element proposes a comprehensive system of bicycle lanes
and golf cart facilities. Additionally, the Mobility Element identifies a series of Goals
and Policies to ensure the integrity and service levels for bikes, pedestrians, golf carts,
and transit facilities are maintained. Figure 4.2 in the Mobility Element (Proposed
Bicycle and Golf Cart Network) was developed to be consistent with regional and local
plans. The proposed roadway cross sections provide pedestrian facilities.
In addition to the proposed facilities noted above, the following General Plan Mobility
Element Policies support implementation of complete streets (which, by definition,
provide for all users of all ages and all abilities) or support the use of bicycles, golf
carts, transit, or walking:
Policy 1.1 – consideration of complete streets
Policy 1.2 – evaluation of transportation system impacts on all travel modes
Policy 1.3 – facility service levels for all travel modes
Policy 1.4 – consider addition of vehicle capacity only after considering
improvement to other travel modes
Policy 3.1 – provide a safe and convenient pedestrian network
Policy 3.2 – prioritization of pedestrian improvements near community and
education facilities, supportive land use patterns, and non-automotive
connections such as multi-use trails and transit stops
Policy 3.3 – provide sidewalks on all public roadways
Policy 3.6 – consider school access and safe pedestrian routes to school
Policy 4.1 – provide bicycle facilities as shown on Figure 4.2
Policy 4.2 – prioritize on opportunities to provide bicycle facilities that
connect communities
Policy 4.3 – require bicycle parking
Policy 5.1 – promote public transit service
Policy 5.2 – review bus stop locations with SunLine Transit and modify as
needed
Policy 5.3 – encourage the implementation of private transit services
Policy 5.4 – encourage existing paratransit services
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-58 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Policy 6.2 – evaluate multi-modal impacts and require fair share contributions
to mitigate impacts
Policy 7.1 – monitor the performance of all facilities, including roadways,
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
Policy 9.3 – coordinate with CVAG and other agencies on the planning and
design of non-motorized routes such as CV Link
Policy 9.4 – collaborate with RCTC, CVAG, and SunLine Transit on the planning
and design of regional transportation facilities, emphasizing the construction
of a Metrolink station in Palm Desert
Policy 9.5 – identify and prioritize regional roadway, transit, and non-
motorized improvements to focus outreach with agencies such as Caltrans,
CVAG, RCTC, and elected officials
These policies all provide consistency with existing, planned, and regional
improvements supporting bicyclists, pedestrians, golf cart users, and transit users.
Therefore, with the General Plan Mobility Element’s proposed circulation network and
policies, impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
The traffic analysis included in this EIR addresses cumulative impacts to the regional
transportation system. A regional traffic model was used as the base for the Palm
Desert traffic model, which was used to analyze impacts of the updated General Plan
at buildout, along with projected regional growth. The regional traffic model already
assumes a level of growth for other nearby jurisdictions based on all reasonably
foreseeable and probable future projects in the region and population/employment
projections. In sum, all scenarios studied in this resource section of the EIR are
considered cumulative by nature because anticipated land use forecasts for other
areas are already included in the traffic model.
IMPACT
4.15-9
Cumulative LOS Performance Standard. Adoption and implementation
of the General Plan update would degrade peak-hour operations from
acceptable performance at 2 of 39 intersections and degrade daily
level of service from acceptable performance at 1 of 40 roadway
segments operating below the LOS D standard. This would result in a
cumulatively considerable impact.
Regional population and employment growth is anticipated to result in traffic volumes
that would exceed acceptable levels of service at two signalized intersections and one
roadway segment, as discussed in Impact 4.15-1. This represents a significant
cumulative impact. While the updated General Plan includes various policies to reduce
traffic demand and mitigation for roadway segments and intersections, traffic is
anticipated to exceed level of service standards at these intersections and roadway
segments. Therefore, the General Plan update would make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to this potentially cumulatively considerable impact.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-59
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measures MM 4.15-1a and MM 4.15-1b.
Significance after Mitigation
Signal optimization resulting from implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.15-1a
would improve PM peak-hour operation at the intersection of Washington Street and
Country Club Drive to LOS D. This would result in a less than cumulatively
considerable impact.
Signal optimization resulting from implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.15-1a
and the additional intersection capacity resulting from implementation of mitigation
measure MM 4.15-1b would improve PM peak-hour operation at the intersection of
Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive to LOS D. This would result in a less than
cumulatively considerable impact as shown in Table 4.15-25.
Additional capacity resulting from implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.15-1b
would improve daily operation on Washington Street (north of Country Club Drive) to
LOS D. This would result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact as shown in
Table 4.15-25.
Impacts at the two intersections (Washington Street & Country Club Drive and
Monterey Avenue & Dinah Shore Drive) and the one roadway segment (Washington
Street north of Country Club Drive) would be reduced to less than cumulatively
considerable with implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.15-1a and MM
4.15-1b as shown in Table 4.15-25.
IMPACT
4.15-10
Cumulative Conflict with Caltrans Performance Standards. Adoption
and implementation of the General Plan update would conflict with
Caltrans traffic study guidelines by resulting in acceptable performance
at the single Caltrans intersection in Palm Desert but contributing to
unacceptable performance along six freeway segments. This would
result in a cumulatively considerable impact.
Regional population and employment growth is anticipated to result in traffic volumes
that would exceed acceptable levels of service at six freeway segments, as discussed in
Impact 4.15-2. This represents a significant cumulative impact. The updated General
Plan would have a cumulatively considerable impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigating the identified impacts to the I-10 segments would require complete
reconstruction of the freeway and additional travel lanes. Since freeways are an
interconnected system, it would not be possible, nor effective, to provide isolated spot
improvements of one segment of the freeway where deficient operations are
observed. Furthermore, the facilities are not controlled by the City of Palm Desert.
Therefore, this impact is deemed significant and unavoidable.
However, it should be noted that the General Plan Mobility Element contains several
policies that can potentially reduce the magnitude of traffic impacts on Interstate 10
by reducing vehicle trips. These policies specifically address implementation of
complete streets (providing options for all modes of travel), implementing bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, and improvements to the transit system. These policies promote
non-automotive travel and could reduce the need for people to travel by automobile.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-60 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
In addition to the proposed facilities noted above, the following General Plan Mobility
Element Policies support implementation of complete streets (which, by definition,
provide for all users of all ages and all abilities) or support the use of bicycles, golf
carts, transit, or walking:
Policy 1.1 – consideration of complete streets
Policy 1.2 – evaluation of transportation system impacts on all travel modes
Policy 1.3 – facility service levels for all travel modes
Policy 1.4 – consider addition of vehicle capacity only after considering
improvement to other travel modes
Policy 3.1 – provide a safe and convenient pedestrian network,
Policy 3.2 – prioritization of pedestrian improvements near community and
education facilities, supportive land use patterns, and non-automotive
connections such as multi-use trails and transit stops
Policy 3.3 – provide sidewalks on all public roadways
Policy 3.6 – consider school access and safe pedestrian routes to school
Policy 4.1 – provide bicycle facilities as shown on Figure 4.2
Policy 4.2 – prioritize on opportunities to provide bicycle facilities that
connect communities
Policy 4.3 – require bicycle parking
Policy 5.1 – promote public transit service,
Policy 5.2 – review bus stop locations with SunLine Transit and modify as
needed
Policy 5.3 – encourage the implementation of private transit services
Policy 5.4 – encourage existing paratransit services
Policy 6.2 – evaluate multi-modal impacts and require fair share contributions
to mitigate impacts
Policy 7.1 – monitor the performance of all facilities, including roadways,
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
Policy 9.3 – coordinate with CVAG and other agencies on the planning and
design of non-motorized routes such as CV Link
Policy 9.4 – collaborate with RCTC, CVAG, and SunLine Transit on the planning
and design of regional transportation facilities, emphasizing the construction
of a Metrolink station in Palm Desert
Policy 9.5 – identify and prioritize regional roadway, transit, and non-
motorized improvements to focus outreach with agencies such as Caltrans,
CVAG, RCTC, and elected officials
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-61
As previously stated, although these policies could reduce the magnitude of the
impact, there is no guarantee that they will be successful enough to reduce the impact
enough and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. No other
technologically, legally, or economically feasible mitigation measures are available.
Mitigation Measures
None feasible.
IMPACT
4.15-11
Cumulative Conflict with Riverside County Congestion Management
Program. Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update in
addition to anticipated cumulative growth in the region would not
conflict with the Riverside County Congestion Management Program.
Adoption and implementation would maintain the level of service
standard for CMP intersections and roadways. This would result in a
less than cumulatively considerable impact.
Table 4.15-28 shows the CMP intersection level of service for the Buildout (2040)
scenario. Level of service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix 4.15-8.
None of the seven analyzed CMP intersections are anticipated to operate below the
LOS E standard.
Table 4.15-29 shows the CMP roadway segment level of service for the Buildout
(2040) scenarios. None of the analyzed CMP roadway segments are anticipated to
operate below the LOS E performance standard.
Since all of the CMP facilities are projected to operate at an acceptable level of
service, adoption and implementation of the updated General Plan would not conflict
with the Riverside County Congestion Management Program. Thus, cumulative
impacts to the CMP facilities would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.15-12
Cumulative Conflict with Performance Standards of Adjacent
Jurisdictions. Adoption and implementation of the General Plan
update in addition to anticipated cumulative growth in the region
would not conflict with the performance standards of jurisdictions
adjacent to Palm Desert. Adoption and implementation would
maintain the level of service standards for facilities in adjacent
jurisdictions (Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, La Quinta, and Riverside
County). This would result in a less than significant impact.
Table 4.15-30 shows the Rancho Mirage roadway segment levels of service for the
Buildout (2040) scenario. None of the four analyzed roadway segments perform below
the acceptable LOS D standard.
Table 4.15-31 shows the Indian Wells roadway segment level of service for the
Buildout (2040) scenario. The analyzed roadway segment does not perform below the
acceptable LOS E standard.
Table 4.15-32 shows the La Quinta roadway segment levels of service for the Buildout
(2040) scenario. Neither of the two analyzed roadway segments perform below the
acceptable LOS D standard.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-62 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 4.15-33 shows the unincorporated Riverside County roadway segment levels of
service for the Buildout (2040) scenario. None of the three analyzed roadway
segments perform below the acceptable LOS D standard.
Since all of these evaluated facilities are projected to operate at an acceptable level,
adoption and implementation of the General Plan update would not conflict with the
performance standards of these facilities in Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, La Quinta,
and unincorporated Riverside County. Therefore, cumulative impacts to these
jurisdictions would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.15-13
Cumulative Air Traffic Patterns. Adoption and implementation of the
General Plan updated in addition to anticipated cumulative growth in
the region would not modify the planning or operations of Palm
Springs International Airport or Bermuda Dunes Airport or introduce
land use patterns that may cause substantial safety risks to or from air
operations. This would be a less than cumulatively considerable
impact.
Palm Springs International Airport is located approximately 9 miles northwest of the
city and Bermuda Dunes Airport is located approximately 2 miles east of the city. The
Palm Desert General Plan policies and programs related to land use, mobility, and
structural heights would not influence air traffic patterns by creating either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
Therefore, the impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.15-14
Cumulative Design Hazards. Adoption and implementation of the
General Plan update in addition to anticipated regional growth would
not substantially increase hazards due to design features or
incompatible uses. This would result in a less than cumulatively
considerable impact.
The General Plan was developed to minimize conflicts between incompatible uses.
The City of Palm Desert has developed and maintains set standard drawings to ensure
that design features are consistent within the city and consistent with current design
practice. These standard drawings ensure that design features related to
transportation do not create any hazards on the transportation system. Given that the
City maintains these standards and that all projects processed by the General Plan are
reviewed by staff for appropriate design features, this impact is considered less than
cumulatively considerable.
In addition to the City process described above, several Mobility Element policies
address safety. This includes Policy 7.2 (requiring the City to review accident data and
address safety conditions in the city), Policy 1.1 (discussing complete streets and the
need to create safe, livable, and inviting environments), Policy 3.1 (discussing the need
for safe and convenient pedestrian system), Policy 3.6 (discussing the need for safe
pedestrian routes to school), Policy 4.5 (supporting regional education to improve
safety for bicyclists), and Policy 5.6 (discussion safe routes to transit). Thus, City
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-63
processes, standard drawings, and the policies in the Mobility Element are designed to
reduce design hazards and conflicts between incompatible land uses and between all
transportation network users. The impact would be less than cumulatively
considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.15-15
Cumulatively Result in Inadequate Emergency Access. Adoption and
implementation of policies in the updated General Plan in addition to
anticipated regional growth would not result in inadequate emergency
access. Adoption and implementation would reduce emergency access
program-level impacts to a less than cumulatively considerable level..
As discussed in Impact 4.15-7, emergency vehicles take the fastest and most expedient
routes to access an emergency. In some cases, emergency vehicles may travel through
multiple jurisdictions to respond to a mutual aid call. Palm Desert General Plan policies
would ensure emergency response readiness and address emergency preparedness
impacts including evaluating the impacts of transportation network changes on
emergency vehicle access and response times. Implementation of current state and
federal regulations, combined with Palm Desert General Plan policies and adjacent
jurisdictions’ emergency response plans, would reduce potential cumulative impacts
on emergency preparedness and emergency access. The impact would be less than
cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
IMPACT
4.15-16
Cumulative Impacts to Public Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian
Facilities. Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update
would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of such facilities. Adoption and
implementation would support the maintenance and expansion of
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities consistent with adopted local
and regional plans. Thus, implementation of the General Plan updated
and additional development would result in a less than cumulatively
considerable impact.
The General Plan Mobility Element proposes a comprehensive system of bicycle lanes
and golf cart facilities. Additionally, the Mobility Element identifies a series of Goals
and Policies to ensure the integrity and service levels for bikes, pedestrians, golf carts,
and transit facilities are maintained. Figure 4.2 of the Mobility Element (Proposed
Bicycle and Golf Cart Network) was developed to be consistent with regional and local
plans. The proposed roadway cross sections provide pedestrian facilities.
In addition to the proposed facilities noted above, the following General Plan Mobility
Element Policies support implementation of complete streets (which, by definition,
provide for all users of all ages and all abilities) or support the use of bicycles, golf
carts, transit, or walking:
Policy 1.1 – consideration of complete streets
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-64 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Policy 1.2 – evaluation of transportation system impacts on all travel modes
Policy 1.3 – facility service levels for all travel modes
Policy 1.4 – consider addition of vehicle capacity only after considering
improvement to other travel modes
Policy 3.1 – provide a safe and convenient pedestrian network
Policy 3.2 – prioritization of pedestrian improvements near community and
education facilities, supportive land use patterns, and non-automotive
connections such as multi-use trails and transit stops
Policy 3.3 – provide sidewalks on all public roadways
Policy 3.6 – consider school access and safe pedestrian routes to school
Policy 4.1 – provide bicycle facilities as shown on Figure 4.2
Policy 4.2 – prioritize on opportunities to provide bicycle facilities that
connect communities
Policy 4.3 – require bicycle parking
Policy 5.1 – promote public transit service
Policy 5.2 – review bus stop locations with SunLine Transit and modify as
needed
Policy 5.3 – encourage the implementation of private transit services
Policy 5.4 – encourage existing paratransit services
Policy 6.2 – evaluate multi-modal impacts and require fair share contributions
to mitigate impacts,
Policy 7.1 – monitor the performance of all facilities, including roadways,
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
Policy 9.3 – coordinate with CVAG and other agencies on the planning and
design of non-motorized routes such as CV Link
Policy 9.4 – collaborate with RCTC, CVAG, and SunLine Transit on the planning
and design of regional transportation facilities, emphasizing the construction
of a Metrolink station in Palm Desert
Policy 9.5 – identify and prioritize regional roadway, transit, and non-
motorized improvements to focus outreach with agencies such as Caltrans,
CVAG, RCTC, and elected officials
These policies all provide consistency with existing, planned, and regional
improvements supporting bicyclists, pedestrians, golf cart users, and transit users.
Therefore, with the General Plan Mobility Element’s proposed circulation network and
policies, impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities would be less than
cumulatively considerable.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-65
Mitigation Measures
None required.
VMT Analysis
Senate Bill 743 (SB743) was approved in 2013 and changed the way transportation
impacts would be determined according to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The bill required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to change the
CEQA guidelines to identify a more appropriate metric for determining transportation
impacts in transit priority areas. The bill goes on to direct OPR to consider applying this
metric statewide (everywhere, not just within the transit priority areas) which OPR has
completed and has drafted a second set of guidelines to address. The draft guidelines
state that a project would cause a significant environmental impact in the event the
project causes “substantial additional vehicle miles traveled (per capita, per service
population, or other appropriate efficiency measure).” Although lead agencies have
the ability to adopt their own significance criteria for identifying impacts under this
new metric (with substantial evidence to support their criteria), OPR has provided a
Technical Advisory within the guidelines to “map out” potential criteria that could be
applied by local agencies. The criteria, as currently written, are outlined below.
For residential projects, the project impact would be less than significant if
the resulting project VMT ratio is 15 percent below the existing regional and
city VMT ratio.
For office projects, the project impact would be less-than-significant if the
resulting project VMT ratio is 15 percent below the existing regional VMT
ratio.
For retail projects, the project impact is considered less than significant if the
project is local-serving retail. Retail which increases VMT compared to
previous shopping patterns may be considered significant, such as large
shopping centers with intended regional draw.
OPR is in the process of revising their guidelines (which should be released later this
year) and will then be submitting the guidance to the Natural Resources Agency (NRA)
to complete the rulemaking process. Once the rulemaking process is complete (likely
sometime in 2017), agencies will have two years to complete updates to their CEQA
guidelines and significance criteria.
VMT Estimates
Fehr & Peers utilized the calibrated PDTAM travel demand forecasting model to
estimate VMT for the project and the surrounding communities.
The PDTAM forecasting model is considered the most accurate way to estimate trip
length in this area as it incorporates the broader SCAG region and can track trips to
and from their origins and destinations. The PDTAM model reflects land use
characteristics (such as land use type, average trip length by trip purpose,
socioeconomic and vehicle ownership parameters, and the location of land use) and
provides the best tool for estimating how far trips travel to match up with their
destinations because it accounts for numerous variables that affect trip making
behavior.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-66 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
The VMT estimates incorporate the “full accounting” methodology in that it accounts
for the complete length of the trip from the origin to the destination and assigns 100
percent of that trip distance to the City of Palm Desert. The base year and future year
VMT estimates are summarized in Table 4.15-34. As shown in Table 4.15-34,
implementation of the General Plan update is anticipated to reduce VMT per service
population by approximately 11 percent over existing conditions.
Table 4.15-34 Palm Desert Weekday VMT
Scenario Total VMT VMT per Service Population1
Average Trip Length
(miles)
Base Year Model 2,257,745 24.6 6.21
Future Year Model 2,567,477 21.9 6.69
Notes:
1. Service population is the sum of population and employment on site.
Fehr & Peers also utilized the PDTAM travel demand model skim matrix information to
identify VMT for nearby cities and for the CVAG region. The resulting VMT estimates
are shown in Table 4.15-35. As shown in Table 4.15-35, with implementation of the
project, VMT per service population and average trip length are expected to be at the
lower end of what is expected in the Coachella Valley region. In fact, with
implementation of the General Plan, VMT per service population is anticipated to be
approximately 13 percent below the CVAG region. Additionally, average trip length is
less than all other cities in the CVAG region.
Table 4.15-35 Coachella Valley VMT Comparisons – Future Year
Area VMT VMT per Service Population1 Area
Palm Desert 2,567,477 21.9 6.69
Regional Comparison
CVAG 24,128,472 25.1 9.36
Nearby City Comparison
Cathedral City 2,357,367 22.5 6.88
Coachella 2,005,430 18.9 8.19
Desert Hot Springs 1,791,864 26.5 11.34
Indian Wells 341,922 33.1 8.50
Indio 2,905,842 19.5 6.70
La Quinta 2,482,410 26.2 8.77
Palm Springs 4,047,590 28.5 8.14
Rancho Mirage 1,525,055 27.6 7.73
Notes:
1. Service population is the sum of population and employment on site. Service population for
counties, planning areas, unincorporated counties and cities was estimated from PDTAM Future
Year Socioeconomic Data.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.15-67
Summary
As shown in the information above, the Palm Desert General Plan is anticipated to
result in less VMT per service population and lower average trip lengths relative to the
rest of the CVAG region. Additionally, the General Plan is anticipated to result in less
VMT per service population than what the city currently generates today.
It should be noted that the VMT estimates noted above were developed using the
PDTAM model. As such, although they are sensitive to land use, socioeconomic data,
and travel path, it is not sensitive enough to reflect other General Plan policies that
would further reduce VMT (such as improvements to bicycle facilities, transit, and
pedestrian facilities; transportation demand management (TDM) measures
implemented by employers in the area; or other policies relating to reduced VMT). As
such, the General Plan should result in additional VMT reductions that those
summarized above.
References
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2002. Guide for the Preparation of
Traffic Impact Studies.
City of Indian Wells. 2013. Indian Wells General Plan Circulation Element.
City of La Quinta. 2012. La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element.
City of Palm Desert. 2016. Palm Desert General Plan Mobility Element.
City of Rancho Mirage. 2005. Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element
County of Riverside. 2015. County of Riverside General Plan Circulation Element
Riverside County Transportation Commission. 2011. 2011 Riverside County Congestion
Management Program.
Sunline Transit Agency. 2014. STA website. Accessed May 1, 2016.
https://www.sunline.org/schedules.
Transportation Research Board. 1980. Interim Materials on Highway Capacity (Circular
212).
———. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual.
CHAPTER 4.15: TRANSPORTATION
4.15-68 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.16-1
4.16. University Neighborhood Specific Plan
Introduction
The University Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP) area consists of approximately 400
acres within the City limits, located approximately 3 miles north of the City’s civic core
bounded by Gerald Ford Drive and Frank Sinatra Drive to the North and South
(respectively) and Portola Avenue and Cook Street to the West and East (respectively).
The UNSP would allow for the development of a mix of uses to support both California
State University San Bernardino and the University of California Riverside. While the
UNSP is consistent with the General Plan that is evaluated in this EIR, it provides
additional discussion on design expectations that are more precise than the General
Plan.
This chapter evaluates the potential environmental impacts related to implementation
of the UNSP. The UNSP will be adopted separately following adoption of the General
Plan update, and will have its own findings and mitigation monitoring and reporting
program. The intent of this chapter is to summarize all the impacts associated with
implementation of the UNSP in a single location to make it easier to implement.
Many of the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the UNSP
are identical to those for the General Plan as a whole. To be comprehensive, an
abbreviated analysis of each environmental impact area evaluated in Section 4.1
through 4.15 of this EIR, has been included in this chapter. Where the UNSP includes
information affecting an environmental impact additional discussion is provided.
References and Background Information: Information for this resource chapter is
based on the Technical Background Report (TBR) prepared for the General Plan
update. The TBR is attached to this document as Appendix 4.0. This chapter also relies
upon the University Neighborhood Specific Plan that is included in its entirety as
Appendix 3.0. This EIR, including all associated documents, is available electronically
on the City’s website (http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/general-plan-
update).
Environmental Setting
The TBR provides extensive discussion of the environmental setting for the impact
analysis included in this EIR document. Furthermore, a thorough analysis of the
environmental setting has been included in Section 4.1-4.15 of this EIR. For a
discussion of the environmental setting, in relation to a specific impact area, refer to
the respective impact section of the EIR.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analysis Approach
As noted above, extensive language specifically addressing each impact area has been
included in Section 4.1-4.15 of this EIR. Refer to the respective impact section for a
thorough review of the regulatory context and analysis approach incorporated into
each impact analysis. The analysis of impacts is based on the likely consequences of
adoption and implementation of the General Plan update compared to existing
conditions.
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
4.16-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Aesthetics
As noted in Section 4.1 of the EIR, the Planning Area contains a number of scenic vistas
and resources including the surrounding Santa Rosa, San Jacinto and San Bernardino
mountain ranges. These views are generally unobstructed by the built environment
due to the lack of tall buildings within the City. The General Plan also provides a
number of policies to reduce potential aesthetic impacts, as outlined in the Polices
subsection of Section 4.1, including Policy 1.1 (encourages appropriate development
scale), Policy 2.3 (which addresses landscaping), and Policy 2.5 (which addresses
streetscaping).
The Specific Plan is consistent with the proposed policies in the General Plan, and
includes specific design guidelines that affect development within the UNSP. The
Guidelines are included in Appendix 4.0 of the UNSP and summarized below:
A.1 Neighborhoods and Housing: This section describes and provides guidelines for
the design of a wide range of neighborhood housing types. It is intended and
permitted that these types – subject to the stated conditions – may be mixed quite
freely within many neighborhood areas, with larger and smaller single family homes
sharing a block or a street, with attached and detached housing types built nearby one
another, and small scale multi-family housing types built adjacent to or nearby single-
family housing.
A.2 Neighborhood Housing Types: These guidelines describe in some detail a palette
of the neighborhood housing types mentioned above. The guidelines include
characteristic and recommended building sizes, building massing, means of pedestrian
and vehicular access, frontage design, on-site yard space, and other important design
considerations. The enumerated housing types are recommended, but are not
expected to describe every possible type or configuration. Other types may surely be
proposed, and as long as they have characteristics of size, scale, massing, access, open
space that are similar to and compatible with those described in Chapter 4 and
Appendix 4.0 for the subject area, they can be reviewed and approved through the
project design review process
A.3 Neighborhood Center Guidelines: This section describes and provides guidelines
for the design of commercial, mixed-use and multi-family building types for the
Neighborhood Center zone. These building types are closely coordinated with the
Street Types and Public Frontage Types of Chapter 3, and the Private Frontage Types
of section A.5, below. These public space and private development design elements
are intended to be combined and coordinated in a variety of ways, providing both
flexibility of use and design expression while ensuring a good degree of cohesion, in
order to generate a unified and coherent public realm.
A.4 Neighborhood Center Building Types: As the guidelines in section A.2 do for
neighborhood housing types, these guidelines describe a range of commercial, mixed-
use and multi-family building types. Other types may be considered, but all buildings
in Neighborhood Centers must meet the design intent of Chapter 2, must support the
public intent of Chapter 3, must meet the standards of Chapter 4, and be consistent
with the intent and guidelines of Sections A.3 and A.4.
A.5 Private Frontage Types: These guidelines address the most important single topic
in this Plan – the manner in which each building fronts toward and attaches to the
public realm. These frontages – individually and collectively – define not only the
visual character of the Plan area, but also the degrees of privacy neighborhood
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.16-3
residents and prominence for neighborhood center business. They are the key to
making the public realm a pleasure to walk in, play in, and meet neighbors in, rather
than simple utilitarian, auto-oriented streets.
A.6 On-site Open Space: These guidelines provide direction for the design of yards,
courts, balconies and other on-site open spaces. This is a critically important section
for builders and developers to review carefully, as one of the key intentions of the
Plan is that housing be provided with private and semi-private open spaces that are
high in quality and generally modest in size. This intention is a direct response to the
observation that housing trends in Palm Desert have moved recently from a tradition
of very large private yards and large houses on large lots, to a new trend of fairly large
houses on very small lots with little or no useable private yard space.
This trend has skipped right over the long American and California traditions of small,
beautiful yards and courts for small, medium or large dwellings. These yards and
courts are the spaces that enable the iconic Southern California indoor-outdoor
lifestyle. In most cases, these required outdoor spaces take on the scale and character
of generous “outdoor rooms” rather than expansive landscaped play areas. The large
landscaped yards and swimming pools that characterize the heritage of Palm Desert
housing are certainly allowed by this Plan, but are not required. Houses packed tight
together with no yard spaces, on the other hand, are not allowed.
A.7 Architectural Guidelines: These guidelines provide recommendations for the
design of all buildings within the Plan area. Specifically, they provide direction for the
materials, configurations, detailing and colors of walls, openings, projections, roofs,
and other building elements. The essence of the design intentions is that buildings be
simple, elegant, permanent, and reflective of and in harmony with their immediate
neighborhood context, their University District context, and with the unique desert
city environment of Palm Desert.
These guidelines to not require any particular architectural styles, but do suggest that
architectural character relate to the Southern California and Coachella Valley heritage.
Architecture may, but need not, adhere to any previously defined architectural style,
but if such a style is selected it must be done well and with some rigor.
Reinterpretations of defined styles should be done with high levels of skill and caution.
Specifically recommended architectural attributes (and styles) include:
• simple, solid, masonry (or stucco simulating masonry construction)
architectural expression, consistent with permanence in a harsh desert
climate;
• permanent, sustainable materials that age gracefully and weather well in Palm
Desert’s harsh climate;
• deeply shaded openings and shaded outdoor spaces, consistent with
environmental sustainability in a desert climate, and buildings where indoor
and outdoor rooms flow seamlessly together;
• architecture based on the traditions of Spanish Revival, Palm Desert Ranch,
Mid-Century Modern, and Contemporary styles are specifically recommended.
Architecture that combines elements from multiple styles are specifically and strongly
discouraged.
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
4.16-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
A.8 Signage Guidelines: These guidelines provide direction for the design of signage
and lettering on buildings.
A.9 Sustainability Design Guidelines: All of the standards and guidelines in this Plan
are informed by and aimed at considerations of long term sustainability. The basic
structure and organization of the plan and the design of its public realm are aimed
directly at reducing automobile travel demand by bringing many daily and weekly
destinations within walking or biking distance of residences, and providing a safe and
comfortable environment that encourages the use of active transportation modes and
a healthy outdoor lifestyle. The development standards and design guidelines for
streets, public open spaces, and private development are all aimed at making
sustainable places populated by sustainable buildings that reduce the rate of
consumption of non-renewable resources such as petroleum, clean water, clean air,
and land.
Because of the strong emphasis that the 2035 General Plan places on sustainable
place-making, these brief guidelines highlight specific strategies and recommendations
for assuring the long-term sustainability of the University Neighborhoods,
recommending measures to reduce the per capita rates of consumption of energy,
water, land, and building materials.
In addition to the architectural guidelines, the UNSP includes landscaping guidelines in
Appendix B. Parallel to the architectural guidelines, the focus of the landscape
guidelines is on sustainable materials – landscape that requires little water and
relatively little grooming and maintenance, hardscape and wall materials that develop
a patina of age rather than crumbling or flaking over time – simply, elegantly and
composed to form beautiful, comfortable spaces for human habitation.
The table below outlines the thresholds of significance and determinations for
aesthetics, as evaluated in Section 4.1 of the EIR.
Thresholds of Significance
The following table summarizes the impacts as described in this EIR for adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan. Adoption of the UNSP will not change
the environmental determination of the thresholds.
Threshold Determination
1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista Less Than Significant
2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway
Less Than Significant
3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings
Less Than Significant
4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area
Less Than Significant
5. Cumulative effects on scenic vistas Less Than Significant
6. Cumulative effects on scenic resources within a state
scenic highway
Less Than Significant
7. Cumulative effects degrading existing visual character Less Than Significant
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.16-5
Threshold Determination
8. Cumulative effects of new sources of light or glare Less Than Significant
As noted above, all impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
proposed. Beyond the General Plan, the UNSP includes additional design guidelines
that further visual impacts within the Specific Plan area. The in addition to site design,
the UNSP includes public frontage standards, street standards, and street landscaping
standards. The UNSP will further reduce potential aesthetic impacts by providing
supplemental requirements beyond the General Plan requirements for development
within the specific plan area.
As the guidelines contained in the UNSP are consistent with the policies of the
proposed general plan, and provide more detail and guidance on how development
should occur, the impact of the UNSP on aesthetics is similar to or less than those of
the General Plan as a whole.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Due to the existing development within the City of Palm Springs, as well as the existing
landscape within the City, impacts to agricultural impacts are not anticipated
throughout the City. Within the Specific Plan area, there are no areas that contain
existing or proposed agricultural or forestry uses. As such, impacts related to
agricultural and forestry resources would be similar to those associated with the City
as a whole. Refer to the thresholds of significance below.
Thresholds of Significance
The following table summarizes the impacts as described in this EIR for adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan. Adoption of the UNSP will not change
the environmental determination of the thresholds.
Threshold Determination
1. 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 nonagricultural use
No Impact
2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract
No Impact
3. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code Section
51104(g))
No Impact
4. Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of
forestland to non-forest use
No Impact
5. Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or
conversion of forestland to non-forest use
No Impact
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
4.16-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Threshold Determination
6. Cumulative effects on agricultural and forestry resources Less than Significant
Similar to the General Plan, the UNSP, allows for the establishment of agricultural uses
in conjunction with other land uses. The expectation is that some of the area may be
used for community gardens, farm to table businesses and similar small scale private
and commercial agriculture. There is no agricultural use in the UNSP area currently,
and implementation of the UNSP would have similar impacts to agriculture as the
General Plan as a whole.
Air Quality
As noted in Section 4.3 of the EIR, the Project site is located in the Salton Sea Air Basin,
which is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
Palm Desert is in a non-attainment area for PM10; however, it is in attainment/meets
the standard for PM2.5, CD, NO2, SO2, and lead. As outlined in the Regulatory Setting
subsection of Section 4.3, there are a number of state, federal and regional
regulations that apply to air quality, including the Clean Air Act, SCAQMD Rule 403
dust regulations, and SCAQMD Rule 402 regulations. Further, there are a number of
policies in the General Plan that have been developed to reduce potential air quality
impacts, including Policy 6.1 (avoid locating sensitive uses near localized pollution),
Policy 6.2 (require new development to meet the State Green Building Code indoor air
quality standards) as well as others.
The proposed specific plan would include development that has the potential to emit
pollutants through its construction and operation. The table below outlines the
thresholds of significant and determinations of significance outlines in Section 4.3 of
the EIR.
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, impacts on air quality are considered significant if
adoption and implementation of the Palm Desert General Plan update would:
Threshold Determination
1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional
air quality management plan;
Less than Significant
Impact
2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation
Less than Significant
Impact
3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);
Less than Significant
Impact
4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations Less than Significant
Impact
5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people
Less than Significant
Impact
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.16-7
As analyzed in the EIR, impacts associated with the General Plan would be less than
significant. However, the UNSP also provides additional measures that would further
reduce potential impacts related to air quality. These include inclusion of multi-modal
streets in the to allow for alternative transit types, use of mixed use development to
reduce vehicle trips, and integrated pedestrian facilities to facilitate walking
throughout the UNSP. These features will allow for a reduction in air pollutants during
the implementation of the Project. As such, impacts to air quality in the UNSP would
be further reduced due to the requirements of the Project beyond those included in
the General Plan.
Consistent with section 4.3 of the EIR, mitigation measures are not proposed beyond
existing regulatory requirements, and impact would be less than significant.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As noted in Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the EIR, the implementation of
the General Plan would result in the potential for Significant and Unavoidable impacts
in regards to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Future emissions would largely come from
Mobile Sources (76%) as well as fuel combustion, waste disposal, solvent evaporation,
miscellaneous processes, and other mobile sources. The General Plan also includes a
number of policies developed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including Policy 2.1
(development of pedestrian facilities), Policy 2.11 (limit roadway design that
emphasizes vehicles over pedestrians when possible) and Policy 3.11 (development of
pedestrian connections to commercial areas). The table below outlines the Threshold
of Significant and determination for greenhouse gas impacts.
Thresholds of Significance
The following table summarizes the impacts as described in this EIR for adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan. Adoption of the UNSP will not change
the environmental determination of the thresholds.
Threshold Determination
1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions that may
have a significant impact on the environment and
inhibit the goals of Assembly Bill 32
Significant and Unavoidable
The proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact due to
future development as the General Plan is implemented. The emissions of GHG is
largely related to cars and truck traffic, so reducing vehicle miles travelled will reduce
GHG emissions. The proposed General Plan has a number of policies that encourage
walkability in the City, development of complete streets and removal of barriers to
alternative transportation. The proposed UNSP goes further by showing a more
detailed transportation network for the specific plan area. As noted in the UNSP, the
“The foundation of sustainable development is neighborhood pattern.
The basic layout of streets and blocks - prioritizing walkability and
pedestrian comfort over vehicular speed and capacity - is the most
basic requirement of sustainability, enabling a balanced mix of
transportation choices biased toward active modes rather than
motorized modes. Without a such a network of walkable streets and
small blocks, no quantity of bioswales, solar panels and electric vehicle
charging stations can achieve true, long-term sustainability.”
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
4.16-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
The UNSP furthers the proposed General Plan goals by establishing a suggested
transportation network as shown in Figure 4.14-1. While the proposed UNSP
encourages the reduction of vehicle miles travelled, there is no guarantee that future
residents will avail themselves of the ability and reduce personal car travel. Further,
there is no accurate method of estimating the future reduction of VMT as it relates to
quantified GHG emissions. As such, while the UNSP will undoubtedly reduce GHG
emissions from the estimate based on the proposed General Plan, it is not possible to
determine that the reduced emissions will lower GHG impacts to less than significant.
Therefore, this impact remains similar to the General Plan and be significant and
unavoidable.
Biological Resources
As noted in the Environmental Setting, included in Section 4.5 of the EIR, the General
Plan area contains a number of different vegetative plant communities and sensitive
species; however, the majority of the Planning Area is dominated by urban land uses.
The Specific Plan area is surrounded by development; however, it is largely
undeveloped currently. Section 4.5, Biological Resources, outlines the existing
regulatory programs that exist in regards to impacts to biological resources, as well as
proposed mitigation to reduce impacts to biological resources. Refer to the table
below, which outlines the thresholds of significance and impact determination.
Thresholds of Significance
The following table summarizes the impacts as described in this EIR for adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan. Adoption of the UNSP will not change
the environmental determination of the thresholds:
Threshold Determination
1. Impacts to special-status species Less Than Significant
2. Impacts to sensitive biological communities or
riparian habitat
Less Than Significant
3. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands Less Than Significant
4. Impacts to the movement of native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or within an
established migratory corridor
Less Than Significant
5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance
Less Than Significant
6. Cumulative impacts to biological resources Less Than Significant
As noted and analyzed in Section 4.5, Biological Resources, impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation proposed. Section 4.5 includes mitigation to work in
conjunction with the MCHSP to protect potential sensitive species within the Planning
Area. With implementation of the proposed mitigation, impact would be less than
significant with the implementation of the UNSP.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.5-1 Pertaining to special-status species with the potential to occur in the
Planning Area that are not part of the CVMSHCP:
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.16-9
1. Prior to the approval of grading plans for development
associated with the General Plan update, the project
applicant(s) shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a
biological resources evaluation for private and public
development projects in order to determine the
presence/absence of non-covered special-status plant species
with the potential to occur in and adjacent to (within 100 feet,
where appropriate) the proposed impact area, including
construction access routes. It is required that such surveys be
conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered
species are both evident and identifiable.
2. For projects in which special-status species are found, likely to
occur, or where the presence of the species can be reasonable
inferred, the City shall require feasible mitigation of impacts to
ensure that the project does not contribute to the decline of
affected special-species populations in the region to the extent
that their decline would impact the viability of the regional
population. Before the approval of grading plans or any ground-
breaking activity for development associated with the General
Plan update, the project applicant(s) shall submit a mitigation
plan concurrently to the CDFW and the USFWS for review and
comment. The plan shall include mitigation measures for the
population(s) to be directly affected. The actual level of
mitigation may vary depending on the sensitivity of the species,
its prevalence in the area, and the current state of knowledge
about overall population trends and threats to its survival. The
final mitigation strategy for directly impacted plant species shall
be determined by the CDFW and the USFWS through the
mitigation plan approval process.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to the approval of grading plans
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
Cultural Resources
Due to the existing development within the City of Palm Springs, opportunities for
potential impacts to cultural resources are reduced in comparison to development
areas consisting of predominantly undisturbed land. The specific plan area, while
generally undeveloped, is surrounded by development on all sides. As noted under the
Regulatory Setting subsection of section 4.6 of the EIR, a number of federal and state
laws provide safeguards for cultural resources. Furthermore, the General Plan also
contains a number of policies related to cultural resource protection, including Policy
9.1 (regulating the disturbance of human remains), Policy 9.2 (provides guidance for
discovered human remains) and Policy 9.3 (which addressed tribal coordination for
future development projects). Implementation of the Specific Plan would require
compliance with applicable General Plan policies. The table below outlines the
thresholds of significance and determinations for cultural resources.
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
4.16-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Thresholds of Significance
The following table summarizes the impacts as described in this EIR for adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan. Adoption of the UNSP will not change
the environmental determination of the thresholds:
Threshold Determination
1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5
Less Than Significant
2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5
Less Than Significant
3. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries
Potentially Significant
4. Cumulative Effects on Historical Resources Potentially Significant
5. Cumulative Effects on Archaeological Resources Potentially Significant
6. Cumulative Effects on Human Remains. Less Than Significant
Furthermore, a number of mitigation measures are included in order to reduce
potential impacts to cultural resources. These mitigation measures include standards
for Phase I archeological studies, archeological monitoring during construction, as well
as other requirements. The development within the specific plan area would result in
impacts similar to those associated with the General Plan. Furthermore, future
development in the specific plan area would be subject to the proposed mitigation
from Section 4.6, which are included below.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.6-2a The initial archaeological study (Phase I Assessment), at a minimum,
shall consist of the following tasks in order to identify known
archaeological resources in a given project site: a cultural resources
records search, a pedestrian survey of the project site, a review of
the land use history, and coordination with knowledgeable
organizations or individuals (e.g., Native American tribes). If
warranted, additional analyses such as archaeological test
excavations and/or remote sensing methods shall be implemented
to identify resources.
Timing/Implementation: During the environmental review process
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
MM 4.6-2b The project applicant shall coordinate with the California Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and local Native American
tribes during the environmental review process to ensure their
concerns are considered, to assist in the identification of prehistoric
or Native American resources, and to assist in the development and
implementation of treatment measures to reduce or avoid potential
impacts to these resource from a development proposal.
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.16-11
Timing/Implementation: During the environmental review process
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
MM 4.6-2c If resources are identified, they shall be evaluated for their eligibility
for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, the
National Register of Historic Places (if applicable), and/or a local
listing and to determine whether the resource qualifies as a unique
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA (Phase II Assessment).
Methodologies for evaluating a resource can include, but are not
limited to, subsurface archaeological test excavations, additional
background research, and coordination with Native Americans and
other interested individuals in the community.
Timing/Implementation: During the environmental review process
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
MM 4.6-2d If the resources are determined eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, appropriate mitigation shall be
developed and implemented to mitigate impacts to the resource. If
resource avoidance measures, such as resource “capping” (covering
a resource with a layer of fill soils before building on the resource) or
incorporating a resource into a park plan or open space, are deemed
not feasible, additional subsurface archaeological excavations (i.e.,
data recovery) that serve to recover significant archaeological
resources before they are damaged or destroyed by the proposed
development shall be implemented (Phase III Assessment).
Documentation (technical reports and California Department of
Parks and Recreation Site Forms) and recovered materials (artifacts
and other specimens) shall be curated at a suitable repository
and/or museum for future study and research.
Timing/Implementation: During the environmental review process
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
MM 4.6-2e Archaeological construction monitoring and construction personnel
awareness training shall be conducted for development proposals
that have a high potential to encounter previously unknown buried
resources during construction. If resources are encountered during
construction, appropriate treatment measures shall be developed to
preserve the resource. If it is not feasible to preserve the resource, a
program to remove or recover the resource from the construction
site shall be implemented.
Timing/Implementation: During grading and construction
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
Geology and Soils
As noted in section 4.7 of the EIR, the Planning Area is potentially subject to a number
of geological processes and hazards, including wind erosion, seismic groundshaking,
fault rupture, and soil expansion/collapse. While these hazards exist, there are a
number of state and local requirements all projects must adhere too, including the
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
4.16-12 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Alquist-Priolo Act (prohibiting development of structures for human occupancy on
active faults), Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, as well as the Palm Desert Municipal
Code. Furthermore, a number of General Plan policies exist to protect development
from seismic hazards including Policy 2.1 (seismic safety standards), Policy 2.2
(structural stability requirements) as well as many others. Development within the
UNSP would be required to meet all structural requirements to reduce the potential
for risks associated with geological and soil conditions. The table below outlines the
thresholds of significant and impact determinations, as analyzed in Section 4.7,
Geology and Soils.
Thresholds of Significance
The following table summarizes the impacts as described in this EIR for adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan. Adoption of the UNSP will not change
the environmental determination of the thresholds:
Threshold Determination
1. (a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death, involving: rupture of a
known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault. Refer to California Geological Survey
(formerly Division of Mines and Geology) Special
Publication 42
Less than Significant
1. (b) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death, involving: strong seismic
ground shaking
Less than Significant
1. (c) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death, involving: seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction.
Less than Significant
1. (d) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death, involving: landslides.
Less than Significant
2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil.
Less than Significant
3. 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.
Less than Significant
4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property.
Less than Significant
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.16-13
Threshold Determination
5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater.
Less than Significant
6. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature.
Less than Significant
As noted in the table above, impacts associated with geology and soils would be less
than significant with the implementation of existing regulatory programs and policies.
Implementation of the specific plan would result in impacts of a similar degree to
those associated with the General Plan.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the EIR outlines the potential
impacts related to the implementation of the General Plan. The Planning Area has
potential risks related to hazardous material cleanup sites, hazardous material
transport routes, airport related hazards, and potential fire hazard severity areas.
Refer to the Environmental Setting subsection of Section 4.8 for further information. A
number of existing federal and state regulations exist to reduce potential hazards
risks, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Emergency
Services Act, as well as many others. Further, the General Plan contains a number of
policies developed to reduce potential hazards impacts, including Policy 1.1 (Establish
a database containing community hazards information), Policy 1.2 (Maintain and
update the City Hazard Mitigation Plan), as well as many others. The specific plan Area
has the potential to contain hazardous materials within its boundaries, experience a
chemical spill due to hazardous materials transport in the vicinity of the Specific Plan
area, fire hazards, and potential airport accidents. Refer to the table below, which
outlines the thresholds of significant and determinations evaluated in Section 4.8 of
the EIR.
Thresholds of Significance
The following table summarizes the impacts as described in this EIR for adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan. Adoption of the UNSP will not change
the environmental determination of the thresholds:
Threshold Determination
1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials.
Less than significant impact
2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and/or accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
Less than significant impact
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
4.16-14 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Threshold Determination
3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school.
Less than significant impact
4. 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, create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment.
No impact
5. For a project located within an airport land use
plan, result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area.
Less than significant impact
6. For a project locate within 2 miles of a private
airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area.
Less than significant impact
7. Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
Less than significant impact
8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Less than significant impact
While the implementation of the UNSP may result in potential hazards impacts,
existing regulatory safeguards, as noted above, and proposed General Plan policies
would ensure that impacts are similar to those of the proposed General Plan.
Hydrology and Water Quality
As addressed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the EIR, Palm Desert is
located in an area with a number of hydrological features including a number of rivers
and creeks that flow from the surrounding mountains as well as groundwater supplies.
As outlined in the Regulatory Setting subsection of Section 4.9, there are a number of
existing state and federal regulations regarding hydrology and water quality, including
the Clean Water Act, National Flood Insurance Program, Title 22 Standards as well as
others. The General Plan also has a number of policies addressing hydrology and water
quality, including Policy 1.1 (requires projects to develop new stormwater
infrastructure for new development), Policy 1.3 (encourages the development of
groundwater infiltration facilities) as well as others. The table below outlines the
thresholds of significance and impact determinations outlined in Section 4.9 of the EIR.
Thresholds of Significance
The following table summarizes the impacts as described in this EIR for adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan. Adoption of the UNSP will not change
the environmental determination of the thresholds:
Threshold Determination
1. Violate water quality standards and waste
discharge requirements
Less Than Significant
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.16-15
Threshold Determination
2. Deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with
groundwater recharge
Less Than Significant
3. Alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area so as to result in substantial on- or off-site
erosion or siltation
Less Than Significant
4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area so as to result in on- or off-site
flooding
Less Than Significant
5. Create or contribute runoff water exceeding the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or providing substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff
Less Than Significant
6. Substantially degrade water quality Less Than Significant
7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area Less Than Significant
8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows
Less Than Significant
9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving flooding
Less Than Significant
10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow Less Than Significant
11. Cumulative effects on water quality Less Than Significant
12. Cumulative effects on groundwater supply and
recharge
Less Than Significant
13. Cumulatively alter stormwater drainage systems
and patterns resulting in erosion or flooding
Less Than Significant
14. Cumulatively place structures within 100-year
flood hazard area
Less Than Significant
15. Cumulatively expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding
Less Than Significant
16. Cumulative inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow
Less Than Significant
The UNSP also incorporates a number of additional guidelines for improved hydrology
and water quality within the specific plan area. The standards within the Specific Plan
include hydrology and water quality improvement features, such as the Street
Landscape Standards which incorporate areas for stormwater infiltration, On-Site
Open Space Design Guidelines that include drought tolerant landscaping, and Public
Open Space standards that include recommendations to reduce impermeable
surfaces. Potential retention areas are shown in Figure 5.9 of the UNSP, and water
quality is a key component of the Sustainability Design Guidelines included in the
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
4.16-16 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
specific plan. While the implementation of the Specific Plan may result in potential
hydrology and water quality impacts, existing regulatory safeguards, and General Plan
policies would ensure that impacts are similar to those of the proposed General Plan.
Land Use and Planning
As noted in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the EIR, the General Plan defines
the development patterns of the City through the designation of land uses and polices,
which directly influence the land use of the City. There are a number of state and
regional regulations that apply to land use and planning, including the California
Government Code, the SCAG 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy, as well as others. Furthermore, General Plan policies provide
land use guidance including Policy 1.1 (encourages review of development scale),
Policy 2.5 (enhance streetscaping for pedestrians) as well as many others. The table
below outlines the thresholds of significance and impact determinations evaluated in
Section 4.10 of the EIR.
Thresholds of Significance
The following table summarizes the impacts as described in this EIR for adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan. Adoption of the UNSP will not change
the environmental determination of the thresholds:
Threshold Determination
1. Physically divide an established community No Impact
2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect
Less Than Significant
Impact
The UNSP includes extensive discussion related to land uses and place types based on
the land use designations contained in the proposed General Plan. The UNSP includes
design guidelines and placement establishing a land use pattern for the specific plan
area. Development within the specific plan area will include a mix of institutional,
educational, residential, commercial and employment similar to those of the proposed
General Plan. The design of the UNSP results these uses connected by complete
streets encourage all modes of transportation, and connectivity to the rest of the City.
The UNSP includes and implements all of the environmental protection regulations
adopted by the City regarding development. Because the UNSP includes all of the
development requirements of the proposed General Plan and is designed to connect
internally and externally to the City, development in the specific plan area would have
similar impacts to those of the proposed General Plan.
Mineral Resources
As discussed in Section 4.11, Mineral Resources, of the EIR, the Planning Area contains
areas that have the potential to contain mineral resources; however, sufficient study
to determine the resources has not been completed. The Specific Plan area, while
vacant, is not determined to contain significant mineral deposits. The table below
outlines the threshold of significant and determination analyzed in Section 4.11 of the
EIR.
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.16-17
Thresholds of Significance
The following table summarizes the impacts as described in this EIR for adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan. Adoption of the UNSP will not change
the environmental determination of the thresholds:
Threshold Determination
1. 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 and 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
Less Than Significant
As noted above, impacts related to mineral resources would be less than significant.
With existing regulatory programs, impacts within the specific plan area would be
similar to those of the proposed General Plan.
Noise
As noted in the EIR, existing noise in the General Plan area is generated by traffic,
aircraft, train operations, and stationary sources. Despite these sources, ambient noise
levels in the City are generally low in comparison to urban areas. Noise in the City is
regulation by a number of federal, state, and local laws including Federal
Transportation Administration regulations, California Code of Regulations Title 21, and
the Palm desert Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. As the City grows through
implementation of the General Plan and UNSP, noise levels are anticipated to
increase. A number of General Plan policies address noise, including Policy 1.2
(Require noise buffers between new project and sensitive receptors), Policy 1.4
(coordinate transportation facility planning to reduce potential impacts to
development) as well as many others.
The table below outlines the significance thresholds and impact determinations
analyzed in Section 4.12 of the EIR.
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, impacts on noise are considered significant if adoption
and implementation of the Palm Desert General Plan update would:
Threshold Determination
1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of applicable local, state, or
federal exterior and interior noise standards
Less Than Significant
2. Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or ground
borne noise levels
Less Than Significant
3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project
Less Than Significant
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
4.16-18 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Threshold Determination
4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project
Less Than Significant
5. Exposure of persons residing or working in the
area to excessive noise levels, for a project
located within an airport land use plan or
within 2 miles of a public airport
Less Than Significant
6. Exposure of persons residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels, for a
project within the vicinity of a private air strip
Less Than Significant
As analyzed in the EIR, the Project would have less than significant impacts in regards
to noise. The UNSP also provides additional design features that will reduce impacts,
including development of roadways that would accommodate multiple modes of
transit which would reduce vehicle trips and traffic noise. Further, the UNSP design
standards include requirements to move noise generating infrastructure (such as air
intake systems) away from walkways. These additional measures will further reduce
potential impacts associated with noise within the UNSP.
Consistent with Section 4.12 of the EIR, impact would be less than significant in
regards to noise. No mitigation measures, beyond existing regulations, are proposed.
Population, Employment and Housing
As noted in Section 4.13, Population, Employment, and Housing, of the EIR, the
General Plan would guide the development within the City of Palm Desert, which
would allow for orderly growth and allow for additional opportunities for the growing
population of the area. A number of General Plan Policies also address potential
impacts, including Policy 3.5 (encourages affordable housing development), Policy 8.3
(encourages improvement of the jobs-housing balance) and Policy 9.2 (encourages
efficient growth).
As shown in Table 4.16-1, the projected growth in the City is modest, and reflects an
annual change of 0.77 percent over the 28-year period represented in the Table. Over
the growth period, the UNSP area is assumed to include a portion of the overall City
growth as shown in the table.
Table 4.16-1. Population & Employment Growth Estimate
2012 2035 2040 Net Growth
City of Palm Desert
Population 49,786 60,226 61,691 11,905
Households 23,352 30,666 31,401 8,049
Employment 36,874 49,352 50,536 13,662
University Neighborhood Specific Plan
Population 2,368
Households 1,67
Employment 2,281
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.16-19
While the UNSP is intended to concentrate growth in and around the universities, the
anticipated growth is included in the regional projections as shown above. There are
no existing homes within the specific plan area, therefore no homes will be displaced.
The development of the universities is anticipated to draw students from around the
region, some of whom may live in the UNSP. The student estimate for 2040 is
approximately 12,000. Although some of the students will stay in the area following
graduation, it is more likely that many will move elsewhere to further their education
and careers. The City anticipates that growth associated with the universities will be
steady and part of the growth of the region as a whole. The universities will have
dorms and some housing opportunities, and the UNSP will provide additional housing
potential that is included in the growth projections in Table 4.16-1.
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, impacts on population, employment and housing are
considered significant if adoption and implementation of the Palm Desert General Plan
update would:
Threshold Determination
1. Induce substantial population growth Less Than Significant
2. Displace people or housing Less Than Significant
3. Cumulative inducement of population growth Less Than Significant
4. Cumulative effects displacing people or housing Less Than Significant
As there are no existing residents within the UNSP to displace and the growth of the
specific plan area is included in the regional growth projections, impacts related to
population and employment are considered similar to those of the General Plan.
Public Services and Utilities
As noted in Section 4.14 of the EIR, potential future development accommodated by
the implementation of the General Plan could have impact capacity of public services,
including law enforcement, fire, libraries, parks, water services, as well as others. An
exhaustive analysis of each public service, including regulatory setting and applicable
General Plan policies, is included in Section 4.14 of the EIR. The table below contains
the thresholds of significance, and impact determinations, analyzed in Section 4.14 of
the EIR.
Thresholds of Significance
The following table summarizes the impacts as described in this EIR for adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan. Adoption of the UNSP will not change
the environmental determination of the thresholds:
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
4.16-20 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Threshold Determination
1. Create substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered fire-related facilities or
services, the construction and/or provision of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for fire protection and emergency
services
Less Than Significant
2. Cumulative impacts on fire protection Less Than Significant
3. Create substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for law
enforcement services
Less Than Significant
4. Cumulative demand for law enforcement
services
Less Than Significant
5. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered school 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
Less Than Significant
6. Cumulative schools impacts Less Than Significant
7. 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;
include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment
Less Than Significant
8. Cumulative parks and recreation demands Less Than Significant
9. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of 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
Less Than Significant
10. Cumulative library impacts Less Than Significant
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.16-21
Threshold Determination
11. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Less Than Significant
12. Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects; cause the CVWD to determine it has
inadequate capacity to serve projected demand
for wastewater treatment, in addition to its
existing commitments
Less Than Significant
13. Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects.
Less Than Significant
14. Have insufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or would require new or expanded
entitlements.
Less Than Significant
15. Cumulative water and wastewater impacts Less Than Significant
16. Be served by a landfill with insufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs; not comply
with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste
Less Than Significant
17. Cumulative solid waste impacts Less Than Significant
The proposed Specific Plan includes integration of facilities within the Specific Plan
area including park land, roadways, and educational facilities. Further, the Specific
Plan includes areas of compact development that allow for a further compressed
service and utility system. Furthermore, Chapter 5, Infrastructure and Public Services
of the UNSP identifies infrastructure and public service needs, and proposes new
resources to address future demands.
Proposed Water
Potable and non-potable water is provided to the city by the Coachella Valley Water
District (CVWD). Water demand in Palm Desert and the surrounding regions is
supplied by several sources including: groundwater, surface water from local streams,
imported water from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River by way of
the Coachella Canal, and recycled water. Natural sources of groundwater recharge
come from runoff and infiltration from the San Bernardino, San Jacinto and Santa Rosa
Mountains, as well as inflow from other sub-basins to the west.
CVWD has developed a Domestic Water System Hydraulic Model of the entire water
supply and distribution system. This model will be utilized by CVWD staff and/or
consultant(s) to properly size the facilities for each development at the developers
cost.
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
4.16-22 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
The City’s Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance adopted as part of the California
Water Conservation Landscaping Act of 1990 establishes minimum water-efficient
landscaping requirements for all new and rehabilitated public and private landscape
projects. The City strongly encourages conservation of water in the form of water-
efficient landscaping and irrigation design, as well as water-conserving home
appliances and fixtures.
Based on an estimated water consumption of 750 gallons per day (gpd) per dwelling
unit, the projected demand for 2,617 dwelling units is estimated to be 1.96 mgd.
CVWD is to determine ultimate water demand for the project.
Preliminarily, the amount of proposed 8” water main needed is 68,600 feet with 7,500
feet of proposed 12” water main. Ultimate water pipe sizes and quantities to be
determined once final tract map layouts and water improvement plans have been
approved. It is anticipated that the existing 12” DIP, 18” DIP, and 18” CML/CML water
mains along the perimeter of the project will provide sufficient water capacity without
any water main upgrades. (See Figure 5.2 of the UNSP)
The following water resources are defined in order to supply the anticipated demand
of the UNSP.
• One 12” water main point of connection is proposed at Frank Sinatra Drive
with three additional 8” water main points of connection which will all tie into
the existing 18” CML/CMC main along Frank Sinatra Drive.
• One 12” water main point of connection is proposed at Portola Road with 10
additional 8” water main points of connection which will all tie into the
existing 18” CML/CMC main along Portola Avenue.
• One 12” water main point of connection is proposed at College Street with 11
additional 8” water main points of connection which will tie into the existing
18” DIP water main along College Street.
• Six 8” water main points of connection are proposed at Gerald Ford Drive
which will tie into the existing 18” DIP water main along Gerald Ford Drive.
Proposed Wastewater
There is an existing 12” sewer main along Frank Sinatra Drive/Portola Road, an existing
18” sewer main along Gerald Ford Drive, and an existing 8” sewer main along portions
of University Park Drive/College Street. Preliminarily, the amount of proposed 8”
sewer main needed is 76,200 feet with approximately 190 manholes based on 400
foot spacing. It is anticipated that the existing 8”/12”/18” sewer mains along the
perimeter of the project will provide sufficient sewer capacity without any sewer main
upgrades (see Figure 5.3 of the UNSP).
The following infrastructure resources and installations are anticipated in order to
supply the site and use demand of the UNSP.
• Two 8” sewer main points of connection are proposed at Frank Sinatra Drive
which will tie into the existing 12” sewer main along Frank Sinatra Drive.
• Nine 8” sewer main points of connection are proposed at Portola Road which
will tie into the existing 12” sewer main along Portola Road.
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.16-23
• Four 8” sewer main points of connection are proposed at Gerald Ford Drive
which will tie into the existing 18” sewer main along Gerald Ford Drive.
Proposed Storm Drainage
There are two existing drainage catch basins at the southeast corner of Frank Sinatra
Drive and Portola Road. There are also two catch basins noted to the north and south
of College Drive on the east side of Portola Road as well as a catch basin at the
southeast corner of Gerald Ford Drive/Portola Ave.
In order to meet the demand of the UNSP, a 17 additional subareas ranging from 17.1
to 26.0 acres are proposed within the limits of the specific plan area (See Figure 5.9 of
the UNSP). Each of the subareas would have 6 catch basins with 24” storm drain pipe,
which would drain to open space areas that will be used for retention. As proposed,
runoff would not leave the project site alleviating any potential negative water quality
impacts to downstream water bodies.
Proposed Schools
The UNSP is located within the Desert Sands Unified School District. The District
operates four elementary, one middle, and one high school. The UNSP also has access
to fourteen private schools located in the community. In regards to continuing
education, the College of the Desert, Cal State University San Bernardino, University of
California Riverside, and Brandman University all run facilities in the local area.
To expand future capacity, the Palm Springs Unified School District also has a
proposed K-8 school site located within the City of Palm Desert.
Proposed Parks and Recreation
The City (including its sphere of influence) has 163 acres of parkland, 23,060 acres of
open space, and 6,834 acres of golf courses. The City currently provides 3.232 acres of
parkland per resident.
The UNSP includes a number of proposed new parks, green spaces/greenways and
public plazas that will supplement the City’s existing park inventory. As the project is
phased, the City will review parkland under construction within the UNSP to ensure
that sufficient supplies are provided throughout project implementation.
Proposed Emergency Services
The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection services for the City of
Palm Desert. The nearest fire station is located approximately one mile from the
project site, at the intersection of Portola Ave. and Country Club Dr. The Palm Desert
Policy Department is provided by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. The
Police station is located 0.5 miles west of the Project on Gerald Ford Dr.
As determined by the EIR analysis, all impacts to public services and utilities would be
less than significant with the implementation of the proposed General Plan. The
Specific Plan further reduces impacts in the Specific Plan area by analyzing future
utility needs defining future infrastructure. Further, the Specific Plan development
patters include compact development to further reduce the extent of the future utility
network. Consistent with Section 4.14 of the EIR, impact would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is proposed.
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
4.16-24 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Transportation
As noted in Section 4.14 of the EIR, the Circulation network would be directly
impacted through the General Plan process. The General Plan includes projections for
future roadways and allows for the orderly development of roadways in conjunction
with future development. The City provides a number of transportation facilities and
services, including bus service, bicycle and golf cart facilities, pedestrian facilities, as
well as others. Future development has the potential to impact the level of service for
these facilities. A number of state and regional regulations apply to transportation
facilities, including the Complete Streets Act, Sustainable Communities and Climate
Protection Act, the Riverside County Congestion Management Program, as well as
other regulate service levels for transportation facilities. Further, the General Plan has
a number of circulation policies, including Policy 1.1 (encourages development of
complete streets), Policy 1.4 (encourages the addition alternative transportation
facilities before additional vehicle facilities) as well as many others. The table below
outlines the thresholds of significance and impact determinations analyzed in section
4.15 of the EIR.
Thresholds of Significance
The following table summarizes the impacts as described in this EIR for adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan. Adoption of the UNSP will not change
the environmental determination of the thresholds:
Threshold Determination
1. Result in signalized intersections and roadways in
Palm Desert failing to meet the performance
standard of LOS D
Less than Significant
2. Conflict with Caltrans traffic study guidelines,
which establish LOS C as the performance
standard
Significant and Unavoidable
3. Conflict with the Riverside County Congestion
Management Program, which establishes LOS E as
the performance standard
Less than Significant
4. Conflict with the performance standards of
jurisdictions adjacent to Palm Desert Less than Significant
5. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks
Less than Significant
6. Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
Less than Significant
7. Result in inadequate emergency access Less than Significant
8. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance
or safety of such facilities
Less than Significant
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 4.16-25
The Specific Plan includes a land use and circulation plan that evaluates future land
uses in the Specific Plan area, and roadways and other transportation facilities that
would serve the Specific Plan area. Further, the Specific Plan includes guidelines for
future transportation facilities including Street Type definitions, development
standards, and street landscape standards to provide for a complete street
environment within the Specific Plan area.
Fehr & Peers used the Palm Desert Traffic Analysis Model (PDTAM) to find the
generation, distribution, and assignment of trips onto the local roadway system to and
from the UNSP. Based on this analysis, Fehr & Peers identified potential near-term
impacts at the facility listed below. Improvements are included in the mitigation
measures provided for the General Plan.
• Intersection of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive (MM 4.15-1a)
Additionally, Fehr & Peers identified potential near-term impacts at the three facilities
listed below. These impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the
construction of the Interstate-10 interchange at Portola Avenue.
• Intersection of Monterey Avenue and the I-10 Eastbound ramps
• Monterey Avenue north of Dinah Shore Drive
• Intersection of Portola Avenue and Magnesia Falls Drive
As noted above, the General Plan does have the potential to result in significant
impacts. However, as proposed, the Specific Plan contains land use and transportation
features that will reduce impacts within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area
would be subject to the following mitigation measure also included in Section 4.15.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.15-1a The City of Palm Desert shall implement Policy 1.7 (System
Efficiency) and optimize traffic signals at the intersections identified
in this report that are under City jurisdiction.
Two City intersections operate below the acceptable LOS D in the
PM peak hour (Washington Street & Country Club Drive and
Monterey Avenue & Dinah Shore Drive) in the Buildout (2035)
scenario. Optimization of the cycle length to 130 seconds at
Washington Street and Country Club Drive (and the coordinated
intersections along Washington Street) would result in acceptable
operations. Optimization of the cycle length to 130 seconds at
Monterey Avenue & Dinah Shore Drive (and the coordinated
intersections along Monterey Avenue) would result in acceptable
operations when implemented in combination with the identified
improvements in mitigation measure MM 4.15-1b.
Timing/Implementation:
Timing to be determined prior to approval of first
development proposal within the UNSP.
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
MM 4.15-1b The City of Palm Desert shall implement the following intersection
and roadway improvements:
CHAPTER 4.16: UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
4.16-26 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Monterey Avenue & Dinah Shore Drive: Provide an additional (third)
eastbound left turn lane. Right-of-way acquisition may be required.
Washington Street (north of Country Club Drive): Provide an
additional (fourth) southbound lane between the I-10 eastbound
ramps and the Country Club Drive intersections. Suitable right-of-
way can be acquired from the existing 23-foot median lane. The
additional lane would transition directly to the outer southbound
left turn lane at the intersection of Washington Street and Country
Club Drive.
Timing/Implementation:
Timing to be determined prior to approval of first
development proposal within the UNSP.
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
Cumulative Impacts
The UNSP is anticipated to accommodate approximately 20 percent of the projected
population growth through 2040. This growth will occur using all of the sustainability
principles provided in the General Plan. It is reasonable to assume that connectivity
for all modes of transportation will encourage more walking, biking, golf cart and
transit use than can be found in the City as a whole. This in turn will reduce associated
transportation impacts ranging from vehicle noise to greenhouse gas emissions.
Providing for both an increase in density and amenities like jobs, shopping and
services in the UNSP will reduce the distance travelled to obtain these services
reducing overall vehicle miles travelled. Efficient land use will accommodate more of
the growth of the City reducing the need to expand boundaries, or seek immediate
intensification of existing neighborhoods.
None of the above is certain. Residents of the UNSP may still work, shop and play
outside of their neighborhood which would not result in any of the reduced
environmental impacts envisioned by the Specific Plan. The intent of the UNSP is to
provide residents with the best opportunity to live locally. As many of the
sustainability practices could result in less cost to the resident (i.e. walking vs. driving)
it is fair to assume that many will act in their own best interest and make use of the
opportunities provided in the UNSP resulting in a reduction in environmental impacts.
As the UNSP is a part of the General Plan and incorporates the sustainability features
of the General Plan, the implementation of the UNSP is considered less than
cumulatively considerable.
CHAPTER 5: OTHER CEQA REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 5-1
5. OTHER CEQA REQUIRED
CONSIDERATIONS
Introduction
Section 15126 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require
that all aspects of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the
environment, including planning, acquisition, development, and operation. As part of
this analysis, the EIR must also identify (1) significant environmental effects of the
proposed project, (2) significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the
proposed project is implemented, (3) significant irreversible environmental changes
that would result from implementation of the proposed project, and (4) growth
inducing impacts of the proposed project. It should be noted that although growth
inducement itself is not considered an environmental effect, it could potentially lead
to foreseeable physical environmental effects, which are discussed under growth
inducing impacts below.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe significant
impacts that cannot be avoided, even with implementation of feasible mitigation
measures. Chapter 2.0, Executive Summary, of this EIR identifies the significant and
unavoidable impacts of the proposed project.
Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant
irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project.
Section 15126.2(c) states:
Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the
project may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes
removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impact and, particularly,
secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a
previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar
uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents
associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be
evaluated at assure that such current consumption is justified.
Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if:
the primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future
generations to similar uses;
CHAPTER 5: OTHER CEQA REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS
5-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
the project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from
any potential environmental accidents associated with the project;
the project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; or
the proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project
involved the wasteful use of energy).
Implementation of the proposed would result in the continued commitment of the
majority of the planning area to urban uses, thereby precluding non-urban uses
through the lifespan of the plan. While some of the existing golf courses may be
converted to community scale agricultural use, restoration of the planning area to a
less developed condition would not be feasible given the degree of disturbance, the
urbanization of the area, long-term historic urban use, and the level of capital
investment. Implementation the General Plan would represent a continued
investment in historic uses within the urban area.
The CEQA Guidelines also require a discussion of the potential for irreversible
environmental damage caused by an accident associated with the project. While
implementation of the General Plan would potentially result in the use, transport,
storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes, as described in Section 4.8, “Hazards and
Hazardous Materials”, all activities would comply with applicable state and federal
laws related to hazardous materials transport, use, and storage, which significantly
reduces the likelihood and severity of accidents that could result in irreversible
environmental damage. The proposed project does not propose an increase in airport
or transportation activities directly although growth assumed in the plan may increase
usage of these resources. Specific projects resulting in expansion of these resources
would be subject to all applicable state and federal laws and require project-level
CEQA review.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the continuation of long-term
resource commitments to urban development. The proposed project represents an
incremental intensity increase over the existing General Plan by allowing for mixed
uses and integrated design along State Route 111 and in the University Neighborhood
Specific Plan. However, this increased intensity would represent a redevelopment of
existing land uses or infill of vacant parcels substantially surrounded by existing urban
development. Among other benefits, the increase in density reduces the need to
annex and develop previously undeveloped lands to meet the growth projections.
Operations associated with future uses would also consume fossil fuels, water, natural
gas, and electrical energy, and create GHG emissions. These unavoidable
consequences of urban growth are described throughout Chapter 4.4 of this EIR.
Resources that would be permanently and continually consumed with implementation
of the General Plan include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels. The
California Building Code, along with state and federal laws regarding efficiency of
appliances and vehicles, will ensure that the amount and rate of consumption of these
resources would not result in the inefficient or wasteful use of such resources.
With respect to operational activities, compliance with all applicable building codes, as
well as standard conservation features, and current City programs would ensure that
natural resources are conserved to the maximum extent possible. It is possible that
new technologies or systems will emerge, or will become more cost-effective or user-
friendly, to further reduce the reliance upon nonrenewable natural resources.
CHAPTER 5: OTHER CEQA REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 5-3
Nonetheless, future construction activities related to implementation the proposed
project would result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy
resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil), natural gas, and
gasoline for automobiles and construction equipment.
Growth Inducing Impacts
As required by Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must discuss ways in
which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth or the
construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding
environment. Also, the EIR must discuss the characteristics of the project that could
encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the
environment, either individually or cumulatively. Growth can be induced in a number
of ways, such as through the elimination of obstacles to growth, through the
stimulation of economic activity within the region, or through the establishment of
policies or other precedents that directly or indirectly encourage additional growth.
Although growth inducement itself is not considered an environmental effect, it could
potentially lead to environmental effects.
In general, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a
geographic area if the project removes an impediment to growth (e.g., the
establishment of an essential public service, the provision of new access to an area; a
change in zoning or general plan amendment approval); or economic expansion or
growth occurs in an area in response to the project (e.g., changes in revenue base,
employment expansion, etc.). These circumstances are further described below:
Elimination of Obstacles to Growth: This refers to the extent to which a
proposed project removes infrastructure limitations or provides infrastructure
capacity, or removes regulatory constraints that could result in growth
unforeseen at the time of project approval.
Economic Effects: This refers to the extent to which a proposed project could
cause increased activity in the local or regional economy. Economic effects can
include effects such as the “multiplier effect.” A “multiplier” is an economic
term used to describe interrelationships among various sectors of the
economy. The multiplier effect provides a quantitative description of the
direct employment effect of a project, as well as indirect and induced
employment growth. The multiplier effect acknowledges that the on-site
employment and population growth of each project is not the complete
picture of growth caused by the project.
Impacts of Induced Growth
Potential growth inducement impacts of adoption and implementation of the
Proposed Project are addressed in Section 4.13, “Population, Employment, and
Housing” of this EIR under Impact 4.14-1. The projected 204 population is 61,691
which represents an overall increase of approximately 25 percent from the 2015
population of 49,335 and an average annual increase of 0.90 percent over the next 25
years. The proposed General Plan would accommodate the projected 2040 population
of 61,691 residents who represent an increase of 11,905 residents from the 2012
population of 48,786. The overall growth rate for this 28 year period averages 0.77
percent per year.
CHAPTER 5: OTHER CEQA REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS
5-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
The purpose of a general plan is to guide the anticipated growth and development in a
community. The design focus of the HWY 111 Corridor and the University
Neighborhood Specific Plan is intended to encourage development. The Proposed
Project would accommodate approximately 2,368 new residents that represent about
20 percent of the anticipated population growth in the City by 2040. While the UNSP
includes development of universities that would be expected to draw growth to this
area of the City, the anticipated growth is included in the regional growth projection
for the General Plan. There is no aspect of the proposed project that would be
expected to significantly increase the growth rate projected in the community over
the planning period.
Cumulative Impacts
CEQA requires that an EIR contain an assessment of the cumulative impacts that could
be associated with the proposed project. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15355, “Cumulative impacts refers to two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other
environmental impacts.” Although project-related impacts may be individually minor,
the cumulative effects of these impacts, in combination with the impacts of other
project, could be significant under CEQA and must be addressed (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15130(a)).Through the evaluation of cumulative impacts, CEQA attempts to
ensure that large-scale environmental impacts will not be ignored.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) allow for the use of two alternative methods to
determine the scope of projects for the cumulative impact analysis:
List Method - A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing
related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside
the control of the agency.
Regional Growth Projections Method - A summary of projects contained in an
adopted general plan or related planning document or in a prior
environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which
described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the
cumulative impact (Section 15130).
The analysis of cumulative effects “need not provide as great detail as is provided for
the effects attributable to the project alone,” but the discussion “shall reflect the
severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence” (CEQA Guidelines Section
15130(a)(b)). Where a lead agency concludes that the cumulative effects of a project,
taken together with the impacts of past, present, and probable future projects, are
significant, the lead agency then must determine whether the project’s incremental
contribution to such significant cumulative impact is “cumulatively considerable,” and
thus significant in and of itself (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)). The section
additionally states “when the combined cumulative impact associated with the
project’s incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, the EIR
shall briefly indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant and is not discussed
in further detail in the EIR. A lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting
the lead agency’s conclusion that the cumulative impact is less than significant.”
The Regional Growth Projection Method is appropriate for evaluating cumulative
impacts because it accounts for general growth within the region and considers long-
CHAPTER 5: OTHER CEQA REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 5-5
term growth. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) publishes an
Integrated Growth Forecast which satisfies the Regional Growth Projection Method
qualifiers by providing regional and long-term growth considerations based on
regional planning documents.
The SCAG Integrated Growth Forecast represents a regional and small-area socio-
economic forecasting/allocation model that estimates and projects population and
households for the 2020 and 2035 planning horizons by federal and state mandated
long-range planning efforts such as the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), the
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA). It should be noted that forecasts such as the one prepared
for the SCAG Integrated Growth Forecast are prepared as planning tools and do not
predict the course of future events. SCAG’s forecast, which are based on adopted
general plan land use policies for jurisdictions, among other factors, are used primarily
to prepare the RTP/SCS and to provide inputs into air quality management plans.
Experience shows that these forecasts are most reliable at the regional and county
level and less so for smaller areas like cities and census tracts.
While SCAG’s projections do not account for the proposed land use changes included
as part of proposed project, the regional traffic model was revised to reflect the
proposed changes and the result of the analysis is included in Section 4.15
Transportation. The land use and potential development changes are also included in
4.3 Air Quality, 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 4.12 Noise chapters of the EIR.
With the exception of GHG emissions, all of the impacts associated with the land use
changes are either less than significant, or can be mitigated to less than significant as
shown in each chapter. Cumulative impacts for each impact area are identified in each
technical discussion presented in Section 4.0.
Table 5-1. Population & Employment Growth Estimate
2012 2035 2040 Net Growth
City of Palm Desert
Population 49,786 60,226 61,691 11,905
Households 23,352 30,666 31,401 8,049
Employment 36,874 49,352 50,536 13,662
University Neighborhood Specific Plan
Population 2,368
Households 1,67
Employment 2,281
CHAPTER 5: OTHER CEQA REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS
5-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 6-1
6. ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to describe “a range of
reasonable alternatives to the project…, which would feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.”
An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, it must
consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster
informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider
alternatives which are infeasible.
The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for
examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives.
There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be
discussed other than the rule of reason. Section 15126.6(b) describes the purpose of
the alternatives analysis as follows:
Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant
effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources
Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on
alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or
substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project
objectives, or would be more costly.
The State CEQA Guidelines suggest that alternatives should be compared to the
proposed project’s environmental impacts, and that the “no project” alternative be
considered (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e]). In defining “feasibility” (e.g.,
“feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project”), State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6(f)(1) states, in part:
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the
feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability
of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory
limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant
impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent
can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative
site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of these
factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.
In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to
acknowledge the objectives of the project, the project’s significant effects, and unique
project considerations. These factors are crucial to the development of alternatives
that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
6-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Development of Project Alternatives
The range of alternatives included for analysis in an EIR is governed by the “rule of
reason.” The selection and discussion of alternatives fosters informed decision-making
and informed public participation. This is accomplished by providing sufficient
information to enable readers to reach conclusions themselves about such
alternatives. This approach avoids assessing an unmanageable number of alternatives
or analyzing alternatives that differ too little to provide additional meaningful insights
about their environmental effects. The alternatives addressed in this Draft EIR were
selected in consideration of one or more of the following factors:
The extent to which the alternative would accomplish most of the basic
objectives of the project.
The extent to which the alternative would avoid or reduce any of the identified
significant environmental effects of the project.
The feasibility of the alternative, taking into account site suitability and parcel
sizes, and consistency with applicable public plans, policies, and regulations.
The appropriateness of the alternative in contributing to a reasonable range of
alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.
The alternatives analyzed in this EIR were ultimately chosen based on each
alternative’s ability to feasibly attain the basic project objectives while avoiding or
reducing one or more of the project’s significant effects. The analysis provides readers
with adequate information to compare the effectiveness of identified mitigation or
significant adverse impacts and to enable readers to make decisions about the project.
Project Objectives
An EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a project that would
feasibly attain the basic project objectives while avoiding or reducing one or more of
the project’s significant effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]). In identifying
the range of alternatives for the proposed project for analysis in this EIR, the following
project objectives were considered:
1. Anticipate new demographics and market trends to expand economic
competitiveness and attract new employers.
2. Continue to serve as a destination that entices visitors and to endure as a
community with a high quality of life that attracts the best and the brightest
residents, students, and businesses.
3. Create a greater range of development patterns to offer existing and future
residents additional options for the types of place they live in, maintaining a
moderate density and scale: just enough to create interest and activity, but
not so much as to overwhelm people and not so little as to dilute the sense of
place or inhibit walking and bicycling.
4. Create safe and comfortable places for pedestrians with convenient, safe, and
easy street crossings and convenient, close access to buildings.
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 6-3
5. Reduce automobile dependence through enhanced active transportation
options.
6. Create an authentic, walkable downtown along the Highway 111 corridor.
7. Create a mixed-use, mixed-housing walkable neighborhood in the vicinity of
the California State University campus.
8. Create lively centers for residents and visitors to congregate throughout the
city.
9. Create a layered transportation network that will expand transportation
opportunities for walking, bicycling, and transit, while recognizing the
importance of the automobile, to expand access to the city and throughout
the city.
10. Maintain the city’s unique geographic setting by protecting existing open
space and expanding the types of open space and recreational areas within
the city.
Summary of Significant Impacts
The project’s significant environmental impacts that the alternatives will seek to
eliminate or reduce were determined and based on the findings contained in each
technical section (Sections 4.1 through 4.15) of this DEIR. Table 6.0-1 summarizes all
environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed project for which
mitigation measures were identified or where it was determined that there was no
feasible mitigation. The significant and unavoidable impacts include increased traffic
on Interstate 10 and the determination that the cumulative citywide emissions of
greenhouse gasses will be above the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) 2035 threshold used in this EIR.
As explained in Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, there is no adopted threshold
for emissions. This EIR uses the SCAQMD efficiency-based threshold for proposed
general plans of 6.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per service
population (residents plus employees) per year in 2020 and 4.1 metric tons of CO2e
per service population per year in 2035. As shown in Table 4.4-4, the EIR determined
that the incremental growth identified in the General Plan will be 105,449 metric tons
of CO2e annually under year 2020 conditions and 94,837 metric tons of CO2e annually
under year 2035 conditions, which results in emissions below the threshold. These
levels of CO2e can be attributed to a combination of policies in the project, design
features that encourage non-motorized transportation and energy efficiencies
associated with the California Building Code, landscaping and design, and even the
proximity of homes to services and employment. As a General Plan, however, the
policies apply to both existing and projected future development. When the existing
community greenhouse gas emissions are calculated and added to the emissions from
projected growth, the resulting emissions per service population are 6.5 metric tons of
CO2e for year 2020 conditions and 6.4 metric tons of CO2e for year 2035 conditions.
The 2020 conditions ratio is below the 2020 SCAQMD plan-level threshold of 6.6
metric tons per service population, yet the 2035 ratio exceeds the 2035 SCAQMD plan-
level threshold of 4.1 metric tons per service population.
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
6-4 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
In the case of the impact to Interstate 10, the proposed project includes numerous
policies that would reduce vehicle miles travelled, increase walking, biking, and use of
alternative transportation, and encourage Palm Desert residents to stay in town for
work, shopping, and recreation. Regardless, the population and employment growth
projected for the city as shown in Section 3.0, Project Description, will occur with or
without the proposed project. As such, it is reasonable to assume that some of the
projected growth will use Interstate 10, thereby worsening the impact, regardless of
this project. The City also participates in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
and the City of Palm Desert Development Impact Fee, and reviews development
projects to determine whether improvements to the transportation system should be
an exaction on project approval. The California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) has sole jurisdiction over improvements along Interstate 10. Having no
jurisdiction over the interstate limits the City’s ability to enforce physical mitigation.
Further, because the City has no ability to construct, there can be no certainty
between the collection of impact fee(s) for interstate improvements and the
construction of improvements in time to address the impact identified in Impacts
4.15-2 and 4.15-10 in Section 4.15, Transportation.
The other impacts identified in Table 6.0-1 are similar to existing development in the
city and are easily reduced to less than significant levels through conventional
mitigation measures such as notification of tribes or modification to existing
intersections.
Table 6.0-1 Summary of Significant Impacts
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Cultural Resources
Substantial change in the
Significance of a unique
archaeological resource
(Impact 4.6-2)
PS MM 4.6-2a through 4.6-
2d
LS
Cumulative effects on
historical resources
(Impact 4.6-5)
CC General Plan policies and
adherence to existing
federal, state, and City
regulations
LCC
Cumulative effects on
archaeological resources
(Impact 4.6-6)
CC MM 4.6-2a through 4.6-
2d
LCC
Greenhouse Gases
Citywide greenhouse gas
emissions will be above the
SCAQMD threshold during
the planning horizon
(Impact 4.4-1)
PS None feasible SU
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
Table 6.0-1, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 6-5
Impact
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Transportation
LOS performance standard
(Impact 4.15-1)
PS MM 4.15-1a and 4.15-1b LS
Conflict with Caltrans
performance standards
(LOS) (Impact 4.15-2)
PS None feasible SU
Cumulative LOS
performance standard
(Impact 4.15-9)
CC MM 4.15-1a and 4.15-1b LCC
Cumulative conflict with
Caltrans performance
standards
(Impact 4.15-10)
CC None feasible SU
Alternatives Descriptions and Analysis
Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, there were no alternatives
suggested or rejected as infeasible during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) scoping
process. However, the City nonetheless identified potential alternatives for
consideration, yet ultimately eliminated these alternatives from further analysis in the
EIR. Suitable alternatives are those which:
1. Can substantially reduce the proposed project’s significant impacts;
2. Can attain most of the basic project objectives;
3. Are potentially feasible; and
4. Are reasonable and realistic.
Alternatives that do not meet each of these four criteria may be eliminated from
further consideration in the EIR. The following alternatives have been considered by
the City but rejected for their failure to meet the four criteria and therefore will not be
analyzed further in this EIR.
Distributed Land Use Alternative
The Distributed Land Use Alternative was developed to determine whether
accommodating projected growth in the city through increasing density in the existing
neighborhoods, rather than in the Highway 111 corridor and the University
Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP), would distribute traffic more evenly along
Interstate 10. Rather than concentrating growth in the UNSP or Highway 111 areas,
the same anticipated growth would occur incrementally over the city through smaller
individual projects and infill. The assumption is that a more geographic distribution of
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
6-6 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
new homes and businesses would result in different routes to and from Interstate 10,
reducing the impact on the roadway between Cook Street and Monterey Avenue.
The reduction of trips, pedestrian connectivity, and other General Plan and Specific
Plan expectations would either occur very slowly as the intervening property is
developed or would not occur at all, as there would be no resources to pay for the
improvements and no way to compel existing property owners to retrofit.
This alternative was rejected because Monterey Avenue and Cook Street form two of
the three existing freeway on-ramps in the area and it is logical to assume that two-
thirds of existing and future traffic would continue to use the freeway segment
identified in Impact 4.15-2 as failing. Further, this alternative would not meet the basic
project objectives dealing with alternative transportation. Specifically, it would not
meet Objective 5 because distant and separate developments will have a difficult time
connecting transportation corridors. Further, Objectives 6, 7, and 8 would be more
difficult, to realize as the anticipated density would be in the existing neighborhoods.
Finally, as the transportation network and associated design efficiencies assumed with
the 111 Corridor Plan and University Neighborhood Specific Plan would not occur, it is
reasonable to assume that there would be more vehicular traffic associated with the
planned growth, which would increase greenhouse gas emissions.
Off-Site Alternative
Off-site alternatives are typically included in an environmental document to avoid,
lessen, or eliminate the significant impacts of a project by considering the proposed
development in an entirely different location. To be feasible, development of off-site
locations must be able to fulfill the project purpose and meet most of the project’s
basic objectives. Given the nature of the proposed project (adoption of a General Plan
for the entire city), it is not possible to consider an off-site alternative because the city
boundaries have been established through incorporation. Further, this alternative
would not meet the basic project objectives because consideration of another location
would not address issues pertinent to the establishment of land use designations and
policies to regulate Palm Desert’s orderly development. For this reason, an off-site
alternative was considered infeasible pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(c) and was rejected as a feasible project alternative
Alternative locations for key project components, specifically the University
Neighborhood Specific Plan and the 111 Corridor Plan, were also rejected from further
consideration. The University Neighborhood Specific Plan proposes a new mixed-use
community adjacent to the planned campuses for California State University San
Bernardino and the University of California, Riverside, on approximately 400 acres.
There are no other locations within the city of the size necessary to sustain a new
mixed-use community. In addition, any alternative location for the Specific Plan would
not be adjacent to the planned university campuses, which would reduce potential for
synergy between these compatible and complementary uses. Finally, moving the
Specific Plan to an alternative location would leave approximately 400 acres of land
adjacent to the planned campuses undeveloped or underdeveloped. Alternative uses
on land adjacent to the future campuses would likely not serve university students and
employees well, and these campus users would be required to drive farther distances
for services, housing, meals, and other uses. Finally, an alternative location would
mean that basic project Objective 7, create a mixed-use, mixed-housing walkable
neighborhood in the vicinity of the California State University campus, would not be
met. Similarly, Objective 1 would not be met to the same extent as the proposed
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 6-7
project, because failing to develop the area in the vicinity of the campuses would be a
failure to expand competitiveness, attract new employees to the campuses, and
anticipate new demographics (specifically, the new students and employees brought
to the area by the planned campuses). Objective 2, which includes enticing the best
and brightest students to the city, would not be met to the same extent, as services
associated with the new campuses would be developed to a much lesser degree than
under the proposed General Plan. Objective 6 would also be met to a lesser extent,
because students and employees of the campuses would be forced to drive farther for
housing and other services. The need to drive farther would also increase greenhouse
gas emissions, worsening the impacts identified in Impact 4.4-1.
Similarly, an alternative location for the downtown concept contemplated by the 111
Corridor Plan is similarly infeasible. The 111 Corridor Plan proposes to develop a
walkable downtown by enhancing the existing commercial and residential base. These
uses cannot be located elsewhere within the city because the condition does not exist.
Finally, an alternative location for the 111 Corridor Plan concept would reduce the
project’s ability to meet the basic objectives. Specifically, Objective 6, create an
authentic, walkable downtown along the Highway 111 corridor, would not be met. In
addition, this alternative would not meet Objective 3, allowing for a range of uses that
encourage the sense of place, and Objective 8 to create a lively center for residents
and visitors to congregate.
Development of Former Golf Courses
The city has several golf courses that are no longer in operation and may no longer be
maintained to high standards. The golf courses represent several hundred acres of
land in the city limits, and public services and utility access are already present.
Development of these areas with residential and commercial uses (i.e., townhomes,
apartments, offices, and retail uses) would increase the city’s density and intensity,
and as a result could reduce the need in other areas of Palm Desert.
The former golf courses are currently surrounded by residential development that was
designed to front a golf course. The redevelopment of golf courses therefore would
present a design and land use challenge, as the property to be redeveloped often
comprises narrow fairways with little to no roadway access. While golf course areas
are designed for golf cart and pedestrian access, they typically are not accessible by
passenger vehicles or service trucks (e.g., garbage, delivery, and emergency vehicles).
Thus, new redevelopment on former golf courses may be constrained by access issues.
Similarly, use compatibility, form, massing, orientation, and other design constraints
presented by existing development adjacent to the golf courses make redevelopment
with residential or commercial uses impractical. Redevelopment of golf courses with
nonresidential uses specifically could also result in traffic pattern, noise, light, and
other impacts on existing residences.
The proposed General Plan includes policies (see Land Use & Community Character
Element Policy 8.10) that encourage the reuse of former golf courses with uses similar
to nurseries, boutique agriculture, and open space. These uses would not be as
constrained by the unconventional parcel sizes and shapes presented by the former
golf courses and would not result in the same types of compatibility issues with
existing adjacent residences. Redevelopment of the former golf courses for more
conventional agriculture seems unlikely due to the proximity of homes that would be
incompatible with agricultural spraying and agricultural-related dust, noise, and odor.
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
6-8 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Redevelopment of golf courses with residential and commercial uses would also not
reduce the proposed General Plan’s significant and unavoidable traffic impacts
because traffic would continue to use Interstate 10, and the golf courses are located
between Cook Street and the Monterey Avenue interchanges. Impacts relating to
cultural resources would be the same as with the proposed General Plan, and
transportation impacts to local roadway intersections and segments would be similar
or greater than the proposed General Plan. This alternative would also conflict with
Objective 3 that encourages a complementary design approach by increasing density
and intensity in areas with low-density homes. The filling of open space in these areas
would also conflict with Objective 10 that encourages the protection of open space
and recreation areas.
For these reasons, the Development of Former Golf Courses Alternative, which would
redevelop former golf courses with residential and commercial uses, was rejected on
grounds that such an alternative would be infeasible, unreasonable, and not realistic,
and the alternative would not substantially reduce the project’s significant impacts.
This alternative was not analyzed further.
Retrofitting Existing Development to Address Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
This alternative considered requiring homes and businesses to meet Title 24 energy
standards at time of sale or physical improvement to the property. Impact 4.4-1 in
Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, shows that the energy use by the existing city
will contribute citywide emissions above the SCAQMD threshold of 6.6 metric tons of
CO2e per service population (residents plus employees) per year in 2020 and 4.1
metric tons of CO2e per service population per year in 2035. While the proposed
project includes numerous programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
the city’s existing conditions (i.e., older buildings, lack of alternative transportation
connectivity, and the distance between services and customers) will continue to
generate greenhouse gas emissions, even as new, more efficient development comes
online over the course of General Plan buildout. As shown in Table 4.4-4, when
considered alone, new development under the proposed General Plan would be highly
efficient, and when considered against service population thresholds, would alone
result in a less than significant impact. As also shown in Table 4.4-4, it is the
consideration of emissions from existing conditions that results in an exceedance of
the relevant significance threshold. Therefore, this alterative considered retrofitting
existing homes and businesses with solar panels, better insulation, new double-paned
windows, and more efficient roofs and HVAC equipment. However, retrofitting of
buildings occurs gradually over time as they are refurbished or replaced due to
obsolescence or redevelopment. Thus, it is unlikely that the retrofitting of sufficient
numbers of existing buildings would occur soon enough to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in 2040 to below the SCAQMD threshold.
Programs to require retrofitting of buildings to bring them to Title 24 California
Building Code standards would add considerably to the cost of each building and
would be detrimental to affordable housing and business retention, conflicting with
Objective 1 that seeks to expand economic competitiveness and attract new
employers. In addition, it is unclear whether the City would have the authority to
mandate retrofitting of a building for energy efficiency if there was no request for a
discretionary permit or entitlement. Finally, this alternative was rejected as infeasible
because the City could not bear the cost of upgrading every home to meet Title 24
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 6-9
standards, and there would be no public support for a program that placed the cost of
upgrades on homeowners or business owners.
Alternatives Evaluated
For this EIR, two alternatives are evaluated in detail:
Alternative 1: No Project/Existing (2004) General Plan
Alternative 2: Decreased Density Alternative
The following discussion analyzes CEQA’s mandatory No Project Alternative as well as
a Decreased Density Alternative. CEQA requires that EIRs analyze a reasonable range
of alternatives developed to address the significant effects of a proposed project. As
summarized earlier, the proposed General Plan results in significant and unavoidable
direct and cumulative transportation impacts as a result of conflicts with Caltrans level
of service (LOS) performance standards along freeway segments outside of the City’s
jurisdiction. The proposed General Plan also results in potentially significant impacts to
cultural resources and impacts related to conflicts with local LOS performance
standards for local roadway intersections and segments. However, these potentially
significant impacts are reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of
mitigation.
As discussed in more detail below, Alternative 1, No Project Alternative, is a required
alternative pursuant to CEQA. Alternative 2, Decreased Density Alternative, was
considered to analyze whether a decreased density alternative could reduce the
proposed General Plan’s significant and unavoidable transportation-related impacts.
Alternative 1. No Project
This alternative is analyzed in this EIR, as it is required under CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(e). According to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the “no
project” analysis shall discuss “what is reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable
future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with
available infrastructure and community services.”
This alternative assumes that the proposed General Plan would not be adopted and
implemented. Instead, Palm Desert would continue to grow and develop consistent
with the existing 2004 General Plan. Alternative 1 would continue to allow for growth
because there is sufficient vacant land within the existing General Plan Planning Area
to accommodate the city’s projected increase of approximately 11,905 new residents
and 13,662 new jobs by 2040. This growth is assumed to occur with or without the
proposed project. Alternative 1 assumes that no changes to the 2004 General Plan,
including the Land Use Map, Circulation Diagram, goals, policies, or actions, would
occur. Alternative 1 also assumes that none of the proposed General Plan elements,
including the 111 Corridor Plan (City Center Area Plan) or the University Neighborhood
Specific Plan, would be adopted.
Even under the No Project Alternative, it is assumed that, as has been done in the
past, the City would continue to update its transportation improvements blueprint
and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) based on current available information. These
updates would be done even without adoption of the proposed General Plan’s
Mobility Element. This is because the City would pursue the same physical
improvements with or without an updated Mobility Element.
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
6-10 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Alternative 2. Decreased Density
The Decreased Density Alternative reduces the total amount of development potential
that would be allowed under the proposed General Plan and was considered to
determine whether decreased density would reduce the proposed General Plan’s
significant and unavoidable transportation-related impacts.
This alternative assumes that the 111 Corridor Plan will not be adopted and
implemented along with the proposed project. As a result, the underutilized
commercial area along Highway 111 would remain designated for commercial uses
and be developed consistent with the 2004 General Plan land use configuration.
This alternative does not reduce the density of the University Neighborhood Specific
Plan (UNSP). The City developed the UNSP with the intent of providing a mix of
housing product types and densities that could foster a more pedestrian and
neighborhood atmosphere to better interact with the university campuses along Cook
Street. The UNSP creates a land-use pattern that is more traditionally planned and
that provides guidelines for specific types of housing developments and street
networks which are harmonious with the students, faculty, and users of the university
campuses. By reducing density in this area, the city would be defaulting to a more
suburban type of development that is not conducive to creating a pedestrian
atmosphere that achieves the goal of embracing the campuses into the fold of the
city. The alternative to provide less density in the UNSP area is rejected because it fails
to recognize the importance of a California State University within the city limits and
the needs of university enrollees and employees. It also fails to create a multimodal
transportation system that could reduce vehicle trips between the UNSP area and the
university campuses.
In Palm Desert, most portions of Highway 111, including within the 111 Corridor Plan
area, have already been improved to the roadway’s ultimate six-lane divided standard.
However, under this alternative, the circulation, access, parking, landscape, and urban
design improvements will not occur as envisioned in the 111 Corridor Plan. While
some of the following improvements may occur over time, they would occur without a
comprehensive plan or vision.
Highway 111 – Lane widths will not be reduced to the 10-foot standard, and
no bike or pedestrian facilities would be constructed.
Highway 111 Boulevard Improvements – Reconfigured frontage roads to
improve vehicular circulation and pedestrian and bicyclist comfort and safety
would not be constructed along Highway 111.
Downtown District – The Downtown Core Overlay District to facilitate mixed-
use development fronting Highway 111, El Paseo, and cross streets, as well as
more intense development in certain blocks near San Pablo Street, would not
occur.
San Pablo Avenue – Modifications to the streets to facilitate public and private
development based on the proposed street types would not be implemented.
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 6-11
Comparative Impacts of Alternative 1: No Project
Aesthetics
As discussed in detail in Section 4.1, the proposed General Plan would result in less
than significant impacts related to scenic vistas and resources, degradation of existing
visual character, and creation of new sources of light or glare that would adversely
affect nighttime views. Impacts to State Route 74 would be less than significant
through implementation of proposed General Plan policies that prevent visual clutter.
The proposed General Plan would result in new urban development that would
substantially alter views and the visual character, and add new sources of shadow,
light, and glare in the Planning Area. However, due to General Plan policies and
actions applicable to new development, these impacts would be less than significant.
In addition, the proposed General Plan, as well as the University Neighborhood
Specific Plan, includes design guidelines that would further ensure visual and aesthetic
impacts would remain less than significant.
Alternative 1 would generally have similar effects on the degradation of existing visual
character, creation of shadows, and creation of new sources of light or glare to the
proposed project. However, under this alternative, the City will continue to enforce
the design standards and codes currently in place. Neither the proposed General Plan
nor the No Project Alternative will remove or alter existing policies regarding
aesthetics. However, Alternative 1 would not include policies such as Environmental
Resources Element Policy 2.2, which proposes to minimize the impact on views by
restricting new billboards along the city’s roads and highways, and Policy 2.1, which
proposes to protect and preserve existing, signature views of the hills and mountains
from the city. The No Project Alternative would not prevent development and would
also not result in the adoption of policies designed to improve the aesthetics of new
development. As such, the impact would be greater than that of the proposed project.
[Greater]
Agricultural and Forest Resources
The proposed project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. In addition, no conflicts with existing
zoning for agricultural use or with a Williamson Act contract are expected to occur.
The proposed project would also result in no impacts to the loss of forestland or the
conversion of forestland to non-forest uses.
Under the No Project Alternative, impacts would be similar to those of the proposed
project, as development under the existing General Plan Land Use Map is expected to
continue with the same existing conditions. There is no Prime Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance in the Planning Area. However, the Planning Area does contain
Unique Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance. The land identified as Unique
Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance is not currently being used for agricultural
uses. Therefore, future development under the existing Land Use Map, as with the
proposed project, would not convert any agricultural lands. [Similar]
Air Quality
The air quality analysis for the proposed project identified less than significant impacts
related to consistency with air quality plans, short-term construction, long-term
operations, carbon monoxide hot spots, and odors. No significant and unavoidable
impacts were identified.
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
6-12 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
The No Project Alternative would likely result in similar air quality impacts as
compared to the proposed project because the majority of the Planning Area would
still be developed in some manner, regardless of the actual land use (similar
development area and construction activity). As such, air quality impacts are
anticipated to remain less than significant with this alternative. Therefore, impacts
would be similar to those of the proposed project. [Similar]
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed project would result in cumulatively considerable greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. Alternative 1 would
result in greater greenhouse gas emissions because the growth anticipated for the city
will still occur. However, the plans, designs, and policies included in the proposed
project would not be implemented, resulting in less opportunity to reduce emissions.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s GHG significance threshold would
still be exceeded. Therefore, impacts would be similar to those of the proposed
project. [Greater]
Biological Resources
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to special-
status species, sensitive biological communities or riparian habitat, jurisdictional
wetlands, and movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
within a migratory corridor. In addition, no conflicts with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources were identified.
The existing General Plan lacks some of the specific policies and programs proposed as
part of the proposed General Plan requiring consideration of biological resources in
development decisions. For example, Environmental Resources Element Policy 3.1
requires new development to comply with the requirements of the Coachella Valley
Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), which is designed to ensure that
impacts to covered special-status species are less than significant. Environmental
Resources Element Policy 4.2 would support the creation of local and regional
conservation and preservation easements that protect habitat areas, serve as wildlife
corridors, and help protect sensitive biological resources. Therefore, without the
implementation of a more progressive and updated document, development would
still occur as envisioned in the currently adopted General Plan, resulting in biological
resources impacts that may be greater than those of the proposed project. [Greater]
Cultural Resources
With the incorporation of mitigation measures, implementation of the proposed
General Plan would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources. Under
Alternative 1, the City would continue to function under the direction of the existing
adopted General Plan policies that regulate cultural and paleontological resources.
Impacts under Alternative 1 would be comparable to those identified for the proposed
project. [Similar]
Geology and Soils
Development in the city would not result in significant impacts associated with
geology and soils because all future development is required to be designed in
compliance with the requirements contained in the California Building Code (CBC),
which includes provisions for buildings to structurally survive an earthquake without
collapsing and includes measures such as anchoring buildings to the foundation and
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 6-13
structural frame design. In addition, Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.28.110
sets development standards and requirements for areas in the Seismic Hazard Overlay
District that must be incorporated into development proposals prior to design and
construction. All applications for development in the overlay district must submit in-
depth geological soils investigation technical studies. Alternative 1 would result in
development similar to the proposed project, and such development would also be
required to implement CBC design standards and adhere to the City’s Municipal Code
for seismic design. Therefore, impacts would be comparable to those identified for the
proposed project. [Similar]
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts
associated with hazards and hazardous materials. A similar development footprint
would still occur under the currently adopted General Plan. Under the existing General
Plan, future development projects would still be required to comply with existing
federal, state, and local laws and regulations related to hazardous materials transport
and use and related to urban fire. Overall impacts under Alternative 1 would be similar
to those of the proposed project. [Similar]
Hydrology and Water Quality
Development under the proposed project would result in infill development and a
slight increase in impervious surfaces in a largely built-out environment. Development
under the proposed General Plan would not significantly affect water quality or
flooding potential and hazards. Compliance with the existing General Plan and
enforcement of existing regulations would result in similar water quality and flood
hazard impacts, including impacts related to flooding and seiche or mudflow.
Alternative 1 would allow for a similar development footprint as under the proposed
General Plan, resulting in similar impacts related to stormwater flows (including
erosion and flooding) and groundwater recharge. However, the existing General Plan
lacks some of the specific policies and programs requiring consideration of hydrology
and water quality in development decisions. Therefore, without the implementation
of a more progressive and updated document, development would still occur as
envisioned in the currently adopted General Plan, resulting in hydrology and water
quality impacts that may be greater than those of the proposed project. [Greater]
Land Use and Planning
No significant land use impacts associated with the proposed General Plan are
expected to occur. Under the No Project Alternative, the City would continue to
function under the direction of the existing ordinances and in accordance with the
land use designations of the existing General Plan. Development would occur in
accordance with the existing General Plan. As with the proposed project, with
implementation of the goals and policies of the existing General Plan Land Use
Element, it is not anticipated that significant land use incompatibility issues would
occur. [Similar]
Mineral Resources
The entirety of Palm Desert is classified as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3) under the
California Mineral Land Classification System. In MRZ-3 areas, mineral resources are
present, but the significance of the resource is considered speculative because no
mining has historically occurred in the area. Impacts are reduced to less than
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
6-14 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
significant levels in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. Similarly,
with the No Project Alternative, impacts are anticipated to be the same as those of the
proposed project due to a development potential with a similar footprint, although
not necessarily with the same intensity and density. In addition, future development
would be required to comply with the same regulations to reduce impacts to mineral
resources. [Similar]
Noise
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to construction
noise, traffic noise, rail noise, aircraft noise, construction vibration, and vibration
associated with the operation of new land uses. The No Project Alternative would
likely result in similar noise impacts as compared to the proposed project, as the
majority of sites would still be developed under the currently adopted General Plan.
[Similar]
Population, Employment, and Housing
Implementation of the proposed project would have less than significant impacts
related to inducement of population growth and displacement of people or housing.
Because growth potential is consistent for the city and could occur under either the
proposed project or this alternative, as projected by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), impacts would be similar to the proposed project.
The land use concept in the updated General Plan has been developed to
accommodate projected population increases and make sure Palm Desert is
strategically positioned to manage future growth and to capture positive growth
opportunities. The proposed Land Use Map and policy orientation of the updated
General Plan seek to make efficient and appropriate use of land. [Similar]
Public Services and Utilities
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to public services and
utilities. Under Alternative 1, existing General Plan policies would apply and
development would continue to increase, putting additional demand on public
services, schools, and utilities and service systems. Although more development
intensity and density is anticipated in association with the proposed General Plan,
specifically the 111 Corridor Plan and the University Neighborhood Specific Plan,
retaining the existing General Plan Land Use Map would still result in the need for the
provision of water, wastewater, and sewer services in areas that are currently vacant.
Additional police and fire services would be still required to accommodate growth. As
such, ultimate buildout of the existing General Plan would result in similar demands on
public services and utilities. [Similar]
Transportation
The proposed project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to conflicts
with Caltrans LOS Performance Standards along certain freeway segments. The
segments of Interstate 10 forming the northern city boundary will perform below the
Caltrans threshold in the Buildout (2040) scenario. As discussed in Section 4.15 in
detail, mitigating the identified impacts to these segments is infeasible and would
require complete reconstruction of the freeway and additional travel lanes. Since
freeways are an interconnected system, it would not be possible or effective to
provide isolated spot improvements of one segment of the freeway where deficient
operations are observed. Furthermore, the facilities are not controlled by the City of
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 6-15
Palm Desert. All other traffic-related impacts, including the Level of Service (LOS)
Performance Standard, performance standards of adjacent jurisdictions, air traffic
patterns, emergency access, and expansion of public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities, would result in less than significant impacts after the incorporation of
mitigation.
The No Project Alternative would also result in significant transportation impacts along
these freeway segments. For the same reasons outlined in Section 4.15, impacts to
these freeway segments would not and could not be reduced or eliminated under the
No Project Alternative.
Additionally, although it is difficult to specifically determine uses that would be
developed under the No Project Alternative, and therefore the degree of impact
related traffic would have on area roadways and intersections, it is anticipated that
considering the highest and best use of the property, this alternative would generate
additional daily vehicle trips above the number generated with the proposed project.
Even though development associated with this alternative would be subject to similar
requirements to reduce potential impacts, including the requirement to participate in
the funding of off-site improvements, the existing General Plan lacks the
comprehensive transportation strategy including all modes of transportation that is
proposed with the project. While the amount of growth may be similar, the lack of a
transportation strategy designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled and encourage non-
motorized transportation could result in more traffic impacts at some locations. For
these reasons, impacts relative to traffic are considered to be greater with this
alternative than with the proposed project. The No Project Alternative does not
eliminate or substantially reduce the proposed General Plan’s significant and
unavoidable transportation impacts. [Greater]
Project Objectives Summary
As shown in Table 6.0-2, the No Project Alternative has the potential to meet some,
but not most, of the basic project objectives. Specifically, the No Project Alternative
has the potential to meet Objectives 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10 because the existing General
Plan offers some policies that would encourage community attractiveness and
businesses. Palm Desert will remain a beautiful city attracting visitors for recreation as
well as new residents. However, in contrast, the No Project Alternative would not
meet the remaining objectives. Specifically, Objectives 3, 6, and 8 would not be met
because the current land use pattern does not recognize the Highway 111 corridor as
a destination for entertainment and as a model of walkability. Objectives 5 and 9
would not be met because the proposed project includes a comprehensive and
complementary transportation plan that recognizes all forms of transportation and
moves away from the vehicle-centric model of the existing General Plan.
Comparative Impacts of Alternative 2: Decreased Density
Alternative
Aesthetics
The proposed General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to aesthetics
and visual resources. Under Alternative 2, less intensive development would be
allowed than under the proposed General Plan. Because the 111 Corridor Plan would
not be adopted as part of this alternative, fewer views along the Highway 111 corridor
would likely be blocked as a result of building height or proximity to adjacent
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
6-16 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
development. Depending on the intensity of development, fewer view corridors could
be blocked between buildings, resulting in less obstruction of views. Light and glare
impacts associated with development of vacant land would be less than with the
proposed project. [Similar]
Agricultural and Forest Resources
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to agricultural land
conversion. This alternative would also distribute land uses and density throughout an
existing urban area. Because this alternative would intensify land uses already
committed to urban uses, it would have the same impact on agricultural land use as
the proposed project. [Similar]
Air Quality
The air quality analysis for the proposed project identified less than significant impacts
related to consistency with air quality plans, short-term construction, long-term
operations, carbon monoxide hot spots, and odors. No significant and unavoidable
impacts were identified.
Under the Reduced Density Alternative, improvements along Highway 111 that would
help to reduce vehicle miles traveled would not be implemented such as mixed-use
development. Two major improvements along Highway 111—reducing lane widths to
the 10-foot standard in order to construct bike or pedestrian facilities and
reconfiguring frontage roads to improve vehicular circulation and pedestrian and
bicyclist comfort—might not occur. These urban design elements facilitate the use of
alternative transportation in the 111 Corridor Plan area, helping to reduce vehicle
miles traveled. While without the implementation of the urban design elements
included in the 111 Corridor Plan, air quality impacts would be slightly greater than
those of the proposed project because residents would need to travel farther for
services and entertainment, the policies in the remainder of the proposed General
Plan, including the details in the Mobility Element, would result in overall
transportation system improvements similar to those of the proposed project.
[Greater]
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed project would result in cumulatively considerable GHG emissions that
may have a significant impact on the environment. Alternative 2 would result in lower-
density residential and mixed-use development, which would increase vehicle miles
traveled and associated GHG emissions. However, once implemented, this alternative
would still result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. Goals, policies,
and action plans set forth in the proposed project would help to reduce air quality
impacts. However, it is not possible to ensure that they will result in a reduction of
emissions impacts based on the current high pollutant concentrations in the region. As
such, this alternative would still result in cumulatively considerable greenhouse gas
impacts. [Similar]
Biological Resources
The biological resources analysis determined that the proposed project would result in
less than significant impacts related to special-status species, sensitive biological
communities or riparian habitat, jurisdictional wetlands, and movement of native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or within a migratory corridor. In addition,
no conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources were
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 6-17
identified. Although intensity and density would vary along the Highway 111 corridor,
Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts as those described for the proposed
project due to a similar overall project footprint. In addition, the same policies as in
the proposed project would also apply under this alternative, helping to reduce
impacts to biological resources. [Similar]
Cultural Resources
With the incorporation of mitigation measures, implementation of the proposed
General Plan would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources. Impacts
related to cultural resources would largely be a function of the location and not the
density of development; therefore, this alternative’s impacts would be similar to those
identified for the proposed project. The same policies and mitigation measures as in
the proposed project would also apply under this alternative. It is the intent of the
proposed project that development conducted pursuant to the General Plan will
mitigate all significant impacts on cultural and archaeological resources. [Similar]
Geology and Soils
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to
geology and soils. Reducing the proposed project’s density and removing the 111
Corridor Plan from the proposed General Plan would not wholly preclude any
additional development from occurring along Highway 111. The potential reduction in
intensity and density of development would not result in substantially fewer impacts
to geology and soils when compared with the project. In fact, future development
under the Decreased Density Alternative would be subject to the same General Plan
policies and local and state regulations (i.e., the CBC) and therefore impacts would be
less than significant. Therefore, similar impacts to geology and soils would occur under
this alternative as under the proposed project. [Similar]
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The risk of exposure to hazards under Alternative 2 may be less than that described
for the proposed project. Even though the development footprint of the proposed
General Plan and Alternative 2 would be similar or identical, given that Alternative 2
will result in less dense development, there may be a very small reduction in the
potential for hazardous materials exposure. However, the same goals and policies as
in in the proposed General Plan would apply to this alternative. [Similar]
Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to hydrology and water
quality, either by impacting the groundwater aquifer underlying the city or by
increasing demand for water supply and thus requiring increased groundwater
production. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would also increase the
amount of impervious surface area and result in an increased demand for water
supply. However, the goals, policies, and action items proposed in the General Plan
would also apply under this alternative and impacts would be less than significant.
[Similar]
Land Use and Planning
This alternative would result in less density and intensity along the Highway 111
corridor; however, with the exception of some vacant parcels, the area along the
highway is largely built out with commercial uses. The land use envisioned under the
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
6-18 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
current General Plan for the corridor would nonetheless result in additional land use
intensification in this area, just not to the extent allowed and encouraged under the
proposed General Plan. Alternative 2 assumes that the majority of proposed land uses
would be consistent with the General Plan land use designations. The risk of
established communities being divided or changed significantly in a negative way
would be similar to the possibility with the proposed General Plan because the same
policies and action items would apply under this alternative to improve not only
connectivity but compatibility between existing and future development. A primary
goal of the proposed project is to retain the city’s current character, and a number of
policies address consistency of new development with existing developments through
the use of materials, siting, and other design techniques (see Land Use & Community
Character Element Policies 1.1, 3.4, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, and 4.6). These same policies
would apply under Alternative 2; therefore, impacts would be similar to those of the
proposed General Plan. [Similar]
Mineral Resources
While this alternative proposes less development than the proposed General Plan,
which includes the 111 Corridor Plan, there is no less potential for impacts between
mineral resource excavation uses and other land uses developed. As with the
proposed project, future site-specific project development under this alternative will
be required to comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. These
regulations would maintain the availability of mineral resources while continuing to
encourage proper reclamation and enhancement of areas impacted by extractive and
mining activities for the public’s health, safety and welfare. Therefore, implementation
of this alternative would also ensure that future development in the city would not
have any significant adverse impacts on mineral resources, nor would future mineral
resource extraction have any significant adverse impacts on future development.
[Similar]
Noise
Under this alternative, noise related to construction and vehicle traffic would continue
to contribute to the local noise environment. Increased development has the potential
to result in temporary construction noise received by existing nearby residents. This
impact is similar to that of the proposed project and would be subject to the same
noise policies, such as Noise Element Policy 2.2 requiring that noise impacts from
construction activities and private development are minimized. Aside from the
intensity and density of development along the Highway 111 corridor, development
overall would be comparable to that with the proposed project. Therefore, overall
noise impacts from this alternative are considered similar to those of the proposed
project. [Similar]
Population, Employment, and Housing
Implementation of the proposed project would have less than significant impacts
related to inducement of population growth and displacement of people or housing.
Under the proposed project, impacts associated with population are nearly identical
to the proposed land use concept because growth potential under either scenario is
consistent with that projected by SCAG. The land use concept in the updated General
Plan has been developed to accommodate projected population increases and make
sure Palm Desert is strategically positioned to manage future growth and to capture
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 6-19
positive growth opportunities. The proposed Land Use Map and policy orientation of
the updated General Plan seek to make efficient and appropriate use of land.
Similar to the No Project Alternative, Alternative 2 would result in less growth
potential than the proposed General Plan. However, population increase is not in and
of itself an environmental impact. However, growth that cannot be accommodated
could result in physical impacts to air quality, traffic, noise, public services, utilities,
recreation, etc. Alternative 2 would, like the proposed General Plan, result in growth
inducement, but to a lesser extent. [Lesser]
Public Services and Utilities
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to public services and
utilities. Similarly, Alternative 2 is not expected to result in less of a need for public
services. While the density and intensity of development may decrease under this
alternative, because the Highway 111 corridor is largely built out, water, wastewater,
and sewer services already exist along the corridor. Similarly, impacts to police and fire
services under Alternative 2 are similar to impacts under the proposed project. As with
the proposed project, development as a result of Alternative 2 would be subject to the
same requirements to address impacts on public services and utilities. Overall, the
impacts to public services from this alternative are considered similar to those of the
proposed project. [Similar]
Transportation
The proposed project would have significant and unavoidable impacts due to conflicts
with Caltrans LOS Performance Standards along certain freeway segments. The
segments of Interstate 10 forming the northern city boundary will perform
unacceptably in the Buildout (2040) scenario. Mitigation of this impact is infeasible, as
it would require complete reconstruction of the freeway and additional travel lanes.
Since freeways are an interconnected system, it would not be possible or effective to
provide isolated spot improvements of one segment of the freeway where deficient
operations are observed. Furthermore, the facilities are not controlled by the City of
Palm Desert. All other traffic-related impacts, including to the local LOS Performance
Standard, performance standards of adjacent jurisdictions, air traffic patterns,
emergency access, and expansion of public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities,
would result in less than significant impacts after the incorporation of mitigation.
The Decreased Density Alternative would keep the circulation policies of the currently
adopted General Plan intact. The proposed General Plan includes policies encouraging
an active pedestrian environment, human-scale design, and an emphasis on
accessibility for public transit, which would also apply under Alternative 2. These
policies enhance future development potential and are intended to reduce vehicle
miles traveled and encourage more nonmotorized transportation, particularly in the
111 Corridor Plan area and in the University Neighborhood Specific Plan area.
However, removing the 111 Corridor Plan component from the proposed project
would reduce the need to reconfigure the area to the degree proposed with the
project because the area would result in less intense and dense development. Overall,
trip generation along Highway 111 may be slightly reduced as a result of less dense
development along the corridor under this alternative. Regardless, however, the
significant and unavoidable impacts to the Interstate 10 freeway segments remain
significant and unavoidable, even under this alternative, and the impacts are not
substantially lessened. [Lesser]
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
6-20 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Project Objectives Summary
As shown in Table 6.0-2, the Decreased Density Alternative would achieve almost all
of the project objectives because, with the exception of the 111 Corridor Plan not
being a part of project components, all other project features would remain. The only
objective this project does not meet is Objective 5, creating an authentic walkable
downtown along the Highway 111 corridor. The alternative would not meet the intent
of Objective 2 to demonstrate how an existing part of the community can be
developed to entice new investment. The Decreased Density Alternative also does not
meet Objective 8 in creating lively centers for residents and visitors to congregate
throughout the city. By reducing the density along the Highway 111 corridor, however,
the alternative does not address either the greenhouse gas impacts or the
transportation impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the EIR.
Table 6.0-2 Comparison of Project Objectives
Project Objectives
Proposed
Project
Alternative 1:
No
Project/Existing
General Plan
Alternative 2:
Decreased
Density
Alternative
Anticipate new demographics and
market trends to expand
economic competitiveness and
attract new employers.
✔ ✔ ✔
Continue to serve as a destination
that entices visitors and to endure
as a community with a high
quality of life that attracts the
best and the brightest residents,
students, and businesses.
✔ ✔ ✔
Create a greater range of
development patterns to offer
existing and future residents
additional options for the types of
place they live in, maintaining a
moderate density and scale: just
enough to create interest and
activity, but not so much as to
overwhelm people and not so
little as to dilute the sense of
place or inhibit walking and
bicycling.
✔ ✔
Create safe and comfortable
places for pedestrians with
convenient, safe, and easy street
crossings and convenient, close
access to buildings.
✔ ✔ ✔
Reduce automobile dependence
through enhanced active
transportation options.
✔ ✔
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
Table 6.0-2, continued
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 6-21
Project Objectives
Proposed
Project
Alternative 1:
No
Project/Existing
General Plan
Alternative 2:
Decreased
Density
Alternative
Create an authentic, walkable
downtown along the Highway 111
corridor.
✔
Create a mixed-use, mixed-
housing walkable neighborhood in
the vicinity of the California State
University campus.
✔ ✔ ✔
Create lively centers for residents
and visitors to congregate
throughout the city.
✔ ✔
Create a layered transportation
network that will expand
transportation opportunities for
walking, bicycling, and transit,
while recognizing the importance
of the automobile, to expand
access to the city and throughout
the city.
✔ ✔
Maintain the city’s unique
geographic setting by protecting
existing open space and
expanding the types of open
space and recreational areas
within the city.
✔ ✔ ✔
Comparison of the Alternatives
In the following discussion, impacts for those issue areas resulting in greater or lesser
impacts than the proposed project are summarized describing how impacts for each
alternative would differ from the project, including whether any significant impacts
would be reduced or avoided and whether any new significant impacts would result.
Table 6.0-3 compares the impacts for each environmental topic area against the
proposed project.
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
6-22 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
Table 6.0-3 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Environmental
Topic
Proposed Project
Impact Finding
(Mitigated)
Alternative 1:
No
Project/Existing
General Plan
Alternative 2:
Decreased Density
Aesthetics LTS + =
Agricultural and
Forest Resources
LTS = =
Air Quality LTS = +
GHG Emissions SU + =
Biological Resources LTS + =
Cultural Resources LTS = =
Geology and Soils LTS = =
Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
LTS = =
Hydrology and
Water Quality
LTS + =
Land Use and
Planning
LTS = =
Mineral Resources LTS = =
Noise LTS = =
Population,
Employment, and
Housing
LTS = -
Public Services and
Utilities
LTS = =
Transportation SU + -
Overall + -
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
LS = Less Than Significant
= Level of significance is similar to the proposed project.
+ Level of significance is greater than the proposed project.
- Level of significance is less than the proposed project, but the impact is not necessarily
reduced to a less than significant level.
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 6-23
Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires that EIRs identify the environmentally superior alternative. Table 6.0-3
summarizes the potential impacts of the alternatives evaluated in this section as
compared to the potential impacts of the proposed project. As demonstrated in
Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this EIR, the project would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts with regard to greenhouse gases and transportation.
As shown in Table 6.0-3 and summarized above, impacts resulting from the No Project
Alternative would be largely similar to or greater than those of the proposed project.
However, Alternative 2, the Decreased Density Alternative, would result in slightly
fewer impacts than the proposed project with reduced impacts related to
transportation, thereby making it environmentally superior to the proposed project
with regard to this issue area. Therefore, Alternative 2 is considered the
environmentally superior alternative. However, while Alternative 2 may reduce traffic
impacts slightly due to reduced overall development, this reduction would be
relatively small. The impacts related to Caltrans LOS Performance Standards would
remain significant and unavoidable, and they would not be substantially reduced with
Alternative 2.
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVES
6-24 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 8: REPORT PREPARERS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT | 7-1
7. LIST OF PREPARERS
Preparers
PREPARATION OF EIR
City of Palm Desert
Ryan Stendell ......................................................... Director of Community Development
Eric Ceja .................................................................................................. Principal Planner
Michael Baker International – EIR Consultant
Mark Teague, AICP ........................................................................... EIR Project Manager
Seth Myers ................................................................................... Environmental Planner
Yvette Noir .................................................................................... Environmental Planner
Morgan Weintraub ....................................................................... Environmental Planner
Lindsay Taylor ............................................................................... Environmental Planner
Suzanne Wirth .......................................................................................... Technical Editor
Hilary Potter ............................................................................ Graphics/Word Processing
Raimi + Associates – EIR Consultant
Matt Burris, AICP, LEED AP ................................................................... Associate Principal
Rincon Consultants, Inc. – EIR Consultant
Greg Martin ................................................................................... Environmental Planner
Technical Studies
General Plan .................................................................................... Raimi + Associates
Palm Desert University Neighborhood Specific Plan ........ Raimi + Associates
Technical Background Report .................................................... Raimi +Associates
CHAPTER 8: REPORT PREPARERS
7-2 | CITY OF PALM DESERT
This page intentionally left blank.