11 Final IS-MND_6.28.2024 — Cathedral City City Council, September 11, 2024

Administrative Draft
Rosemount Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Lead Agency:

City of Cathedral City
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234

Prepared by:

The Altum Group
44-600 Village Court, Suite 100
Palm Desert, CA 92260

June 2024

This page intentionally left blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rosemount Storage Project i

Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Preface ................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Regulatory Guidance ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Lead Agency ......................................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Purpose of this Document ................................................................................................................... 3

1.5 CEQA Process ....................................................................................................................................... 3

1.6 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................... 4

1.7 Organization of the Document ............................................................................................................ 5 Chapter 2 Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Proposed Project Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 7 Chapter 3 Project Checklist………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10

3.1 Project Information ........................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 4 Environmental Determination…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16

4.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................................... 18

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................................. 21

4.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Existing Physical Setting .................................................................................................................................. 29 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................................ 35 CO Hot Spot Emissions .................................................................................................................................... 42 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts ....................................................................................................... 43

4.4 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................... 45

4.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................. 51

4.6 Energy ................................................................................................................................................ 57

4.7 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................................. 62

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................ 65 Greenhouse Gas Setting ................................................................................................................................. 65

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................... 76

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................ 79

4.11 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................................... 84

4.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................. 86

4.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................. 88

4.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................................. 103

4.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................................. 105

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rosemount Storage Project ii

4.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................... 109

4.17 Transportation and Traffic ............................................................................................................... 111

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 130

4.19 Utilities and Services ....................................................................................................................... 134

4.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................................ 138

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................................ 140 Chapter 5 Report Preparers .............................................................................................................................. 143 Chapter 6 References ........................................................................................................................................ 144

List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of Land Use and Zoning ...................................................................................................... 10 Table 2 Proposed Building Type/Area for Scenario One ................................................................................. 13 Table 3 Parking Requirements for Scenario One ............................................................................................. 13 Table 4 Proposed Building Type/Area for Scenario Two ................................................................................. 14 Table 5 Parking requirements for Scenario 2 .................................................................................................. 14 Table 6 Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................................................................................... 24 Table 7 Local Area Air Quality Levels from Palm Springs Air Monitoring Station1 .......................................... 29 Table 8 Coachella Valley Portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin Attainment Status ............................................ 31 Table 9 Construction Equipment Assumptions1 .............................................................................................. 34 Table 10 Regional Significance – Unmitigated Construction Emissions (pounds/day) ..................................... 37 Table 11 Regional Significance-Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day) ................................................. 39 Table 12 Localized Significance – Construction ................................................................................................. 41 Table 13 Localized Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions ............................................................. 42 Table 14 Previous Cultural Investigations within the Project Study Area ......................................................... 53 Table 15 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Project Study Area ............................................. 54 Table 16 Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage Estimates ..................................................... 57 Table 17 Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates ...................................................................... 58 Table 18 Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary1 .............................................. 59 Table 19 Description of Greenhouse Gases ....................................................................................................... 66 Table 20 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................... 67 Table 21 Opening Year Unmitigated Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................... 68 Table 22 City of Cathedral City CAP Applicable Measures Project Comparison................................................ 70 Table 23 Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures1 ............................................... 71 Table 24 Project Consistency with SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS1 ......................................................................... 74 Table 25 Long-Term Noise Measurement Data for (LT1) (dBA)1 ....................................................................... 90 Table 26 Allowable Exterior Noise Level ........................................................................................................... 94 Table 27 Roadway Parameters and Vehicle Distribution .................................................................................. 95 Table 28 Alternative 1 Existing Scenario - Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL) ...................................... 96 Table 29 Alternative 2 Existing Scenario - Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL) ...................................... 97

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rosemount Storage Project iii

Table 30 Alternative 1 Operational Noise Levels (dBA, Leq) ............................................................................. 98 Table 31 Alternative 2 Operational Noise Levels (dBA, Leq) ............................................................................. 98 Table 32 Construction Noise Level by Phase (dBA, Leq) ................................................................................... 99 Table 33 Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ............................................................... 100 Table 34 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ....................................................................... 101 Table 35 Existing Conditions 2023 Intersection Operation Analysis ............................................................... 113 Table 36 Existing Year 2023 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ................................................................. 114 Table 37 Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions Intersection Operation Analysis .................................... 114 Table 38 Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ............................ 115 Table 39 Project Completion Year 2027 Conditions Intersection Operation Analysis .................................... 116 Table 40 Project Completion Year 2027 With Improvements Intersection Operation Analysis ..................... 116 Table 41 Project Completion Year 2027 Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ............................ 117 Table 42 Cumulative Projects .......................................................................................................................... 117 Table 43 Cumulative Year 2027 Conditions Intersection Operation Analysis ................................................. 121 Table 44 Cumulative Year 2027 With Improvements Intersection Operation Analysis .................................. 121 Table 45 Cumulative Year 2027 Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ......................................... 122 Table 46 Existing Plus Project (Scenario 1) Conditions AM Peak Hour Intersection Operation Analysis ........ 122 Table 47 Completion Year 2027 (Scenario 1) Conditions AM Peak Hour Intersection Operation Analysis .... 122 Table 48 Cumulative Year 2027 (Scenario 1) Conditions AM Peak Hour Intersection Operation Analysis ..... 123 Table 49 Project Feature Contributions .......................................................................................................... 124 Table 50 Horizon Year 2045 Plus Project intersection ……………………………………………………………………………… 138 Table 51 Project Fair Share Contributions………………………………………………………………………………………………… 139

List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Regional Location
Exhibit 2 Location Map
Exhibit 3 Site Map
Exhibit 4 Scenario One Site Plan
Exhibit 5 Scenario Two Site Plan
Exhibit 6 General Plan Land Use Designation
Exhibit 7 Zoning Map
Appendix
Appendix A – Air Quality, GHG, and Energy Study
Appendix B – Habitat Assessment and CVMSHCP Consistency Analysis Appendix C – Cultural and Paleontological Resource Study Appendix D – Noise Study
Appendix E – Soils Report
Appendix F - Traffic Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rosemount Storage Project vii

Acronyms
AB Assembly Bill
ACBI Agua Caliente Ban of Cahuilla Indians
ADA Americans with Disabilities act
ADT Annual Dail Traffic
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
APN Accessor Parcel Number
ARB Air Resource Board
AQMD Air Quality Management District
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMPs Best Management Practices
B.P Before Present
BSA Biological Study Area
CAAQS California Air Quality Standard
CA DOC California Department of Conservation
CA DWR California Department of Water Resources
CaEEMOD California Emissions Estimator Model
CAH HMMA California Hazardous Material Management Act CAL Fire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards
CAL Trans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CA SMGB California State Mining and Geology Board
CCPD Continual Cycling Peritoneal Dialysis
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental quality Act
CG General Commercial
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CNRA California Natural Resource Agency
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon Dioxide
CUP Conditional Use Permit
CVMSHCP Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan CVWD Coachella Valley Water District
CWA Clean Water Act
dB Decibel
dBA Decibel A Scale
DR Design Review
DWA Desert Water Agency
EBL East Bound Left Lane
EBR East Bound Right Lane
EIC Eastern Information Center
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMD Emergency Management Department

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rosemount Storage Project vii

EMFAC Emissions Factor
EOC Emergency Operations Center
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation
FHA Federal Highway Administration
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FRA Federal Responsibility Area
FTA Federal Transportation Agency
GHG Green House Gas Emissions
GP General Plan
GPU General Plan Update
HMTA Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
HRA Housing Rent Allowance
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IS Initial Study
IS/MND Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act I-10 Interstate 10
kBTU Kilo British Thermal Unit
kWh Kilowatts per hour
Leq Equivalent Sound Level
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LSTs Localized Significant Thresholds
MaB Myoma Fine Sands with high soil infiltration rates MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MMRP Monitoring and Reporting Program
ND Negative Declaration
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MTCO2e Metric Ton of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
NAAQS National Air Quality Standard
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NBL North Bound Left Lane
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration
NOD Notice of Determination
NOI Notice of Intent
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS National Resource Conservation Service
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OPR Office of Planning and Research
PCC Planned Community Commercial
PM 10 Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5 Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter PPV Peak Particle Velocity
PSUSD Palm Springs Unified School District

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rosemount Storage Project vii

RCFD Riverside County Fire Department
PRC Public Recourse Code
R1 Single Family Residential
R2 Multiple Family Residential
RCRA Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SBBM San Bernardino Basin and Meridian
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Associated Governments
SCAQMND South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SEO School Resource Officer
Sf Square Foot
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SO Sulphur Dioxide
SP Specific Plan
SP Southern Pacific
SPA Specific Plan Amendment
SRA State Responsibility Area
SRA 30 State Responsibility 30
SR State Route
SSAB Salton Sea Air Basin
SWAT Special Weapons and Tactics
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC Transportation Accident Commission
UBC Unified Building Code
USCOE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Services
USGS United State Geological Survey
US HWY 395 US Highway 395
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOX Volatile Organic Compound
WRP Water Resource Pan
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rosemount Storage Project vii

This page intentionally left blank.
1 INTRODUCTION
Rosemount Storage Project 1

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Preface
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by The Altum Group to evaluate potential environmental effects resulting from the proposed Rosemount Storage project, on Date Palm Drive, between McCallum Way and Rosemount Road, in the City of Cathedral City, County of Riverside, California (proposed Project). The proposed Project is located on Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 670-110-048-, 670-110-049, 670-110-050, 670-110-051, 670-110-052, 670-110-053, 670-110-056.

The proposed Project is also requesting an amendment to the Uptown Village Specific Plan, also known as the City of Cathedral City Specific Plan (SP) 96-54, in order to accommodate the mix of future uses at the Project site.

The objective of this environmental document is to inform the City decision‐makers, representatives of other affected/responsible agencies, and other interested parties, of the potential environmental effects that may be associated with the proposed Projec t and to incorporate mitigation measures as necessary in order to reduce or eliminate significant or potentially significant effects. It therefore serves as the environmental review of the proposed Project, as required pursuant to Section §15367 of the Sta te of California Guidelines for implementation of CEQA and the Public Resources Code (PRC). This IS/MND has evaluated each of the issue areas under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Checklist provided in Section 3.0 of this document. The purpose of the MND and the IS checklist (see Sections 4.1 -

4.20 of this IS/MND) is to determine any potentially significant impacts associated wi th the proposed Project.

1.2 Regulatory Guidance
This document has been prepared in accordance with all criteria, standards, and procedures of the CEQA Guidelines, §15070-§15075 (PRC §15063 and §21000 et seq). It is an informational document intended for use by the Lead, Trustee, and Responsible agencies , and members of the general public in evaluating the physical environmental effects resulting from planning, constructing, and operating the proposed Project. CEQA requires that a proposed project be reviewed to determine the environmental effects that would result if the project is approved and implemented and to determine if a proposed project has any potentially significant impacts on the environment. The Lead Agency therefore has the responsibility for preparing the associated environmental document pr ior to consideration of the approval of a proposed project and has the authority to make decisions regarding discretionary actions relating to implementation of the proposed project.

In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, Section §15064, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared if the Initial Study indicates that the proposed Project under review may have a potentially significant impact on the environment. A Negative Dec laration (ND) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) may be prepared instead, if the lead agency prepares a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and, therefore, why it does not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section §15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section §15070, a (ND/MND) shall be prepared for a proposed project subject to CEQA when either:
1 INTRODUCTION
Rosemount Storage Project 2

a) The Initial Study shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, or The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects, but:
b) Revisions in the proposed project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and, c) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If revisions are adopted into the proposed project in accordance with the CEQA Guidelin es Section §15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared.

Therefore, per CEQA Guidelines, this document is an MND and incorporates all of the elements of an IS.

This document also includes all appropriate conditions in the form of mitigation measures, in order to reduce potentially significant impacts.

As established in CEQA Guidelines Section §15063(c), the purposes of an IS are to:
• Provide the Lead Agency (City) with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR, ND, or MND;
• Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a proposed project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the proposed project to qualify for an ND or MND; • Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required; • Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a proposed project; • Provide a factual basis for finding in an ND or MND that a proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment;
• Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and,
• Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the proposed project.

As established in CEQA Guidelines Section §15063(d), the content of an IS should include:
• The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the initial study A location and short description of the proposed project;
• An identification of the environmental setting in and around the project site; • An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, with an explanation to indicate that there is some evidence to support the conclusions; • An examination of whether the proposed project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and,
• A discussion of ways to mitigate the any identified significant impacts.

1.3 Lead Agency
The Lead Agency is the public agency with primary responsibility over a proposed project. Where two or more public agencies will be involved with a proposed project, State CEQA Guidelines Section §15051 provides criteria for identifying the lead agency. State CEQA Guidelines §15051(b) states:
1 INTRODUCTION
Rosemount Storage Project 3

a) If the proposed project is to be carried out by a nongovernmental person or entity, the lead agency shall be the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the proposed project as a whole.
b) The lead agency will normally be the agency with the general governmental powers, such as a city of county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose such as an air pollution control district or a district which will provide public serve or public utility to the proposed project.

As the proposed Project is located in the City of Cathedral City (City), pursuant to PRC Code Section §21067, and State CEQA Guidelines §15367, the City is the “Lead Agency” for this Project. As the Lead Agency, therefore, the City is responsible for the r eview and approval of the proposed Project. Based on the findings of the IS for the proposed Project, the City has determined that a MND is the appropriate environmental document to prepare in compliance with CEQA (PRC, Section §21000 et seq.) since no potentially significant effects on the environment have been identified for this Project. This MND has been prepared by the City and complies with Section §15070 -§15075 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15000 et seq.).

1.4 Purpose of this Document
This IS/MND conforms to these requirements and to the content requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section §15070-§15075. Since the intention of this document is to present to decision -makers and the public information about the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed Project, this disclosure document is being made available to the public for review and comment.

In accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA (PRC Section §21000 et seq, the objective of this IS/MND is to inform city decision‐makers, representatives of other affected/responsible agencies, the public, and interested parties of the potential environmental consequences of the proposed Project. Upon completion of the IS/MND, it was determined that incorporation of the appropriate mitigation would reduce proposed Project environmental impacts to levels below significance thresholds; therefore, an EIR would not be required and a MND would be the appropriate level of CEQA document.

1.5 CEQA Process
The City has determined that this IS and its supporting reference material provide substantial evidence that an IS/MND is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed project. Therefore, a good- faith effort has been made during the preparation o f this IS/MND to contact affected agencies, organizations, and persons who may have an interest in this project. In reviewing the IS/MND, public agencies and the interested public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the project’s possible impacts on the environment. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the IS/MND will be distributed for public review with the IS/MND. The NOI identifies the location(s) where the IS/MND, the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and the associated Technical Appendices that support the IS/MND, are available for public review. Following the public review period, the City will review any comment letters received and determine whether any substantive comments (as defined by CEQA Guideline §15073.5(b)) were provided that may warrant revisions to the CEQA document. If no substantial revisions are necessary, then the IS/MND will be reviewed by the city decision -maker(s) to adopt this IS/MND. Following approval, a Notice of Determination (NOD) for the IS/MND will be filed with the Riverside County Clerk.
1 INTRODUCTION
Rosemount Storage Project 4

Comments or questions concerning this IS/MND may be submitted in writing by mail or e-mail to:

Sandra Molina
Director of Community and Economic Development
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, California 92234
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (760) 202-2433
The document is also available on the City’s website at: www.cathedralcity.gov/planning Comments on the IS/MND may be made in writing before the end of the public review period. A 20-day review and comment period from July 02, 2024, to July 22, 2024, has been established in accordance with Section §15072(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Following the close of the public comment period, the City Council will consider this IS/MND and comments in determining whether to approve/deny the proposed Project.

The Lead Agency will also prepare the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to address all applicable mitigation measures. If no substantial revisions are necessary, then the IS/MND will be reviewed by the city decision -maker(s) to adopt this IS/MND. Following approval, a Notice of Determination (NOD) for the IS/MND will be filed with the Riverside County Clerk.

1.6 Summary of Findings
Chapter 3 of this document contains the analysis and discussion of potential environmental impacts of the project. Based on the issues evaluated in that chapter, it was determined that the project would have either no impact or a less than significant impa ct related to most of the issue areas identified in the Environmental Checklist, included as Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. These include the following issue areas:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emission
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology
• Land Use
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population/Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Utilities/Service Systems
• Wildfire

1 INTRODUCTION
Rosemount Storage Project 5

Potentially significant impacts were identified for Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources; however, mitigation measures included in the IS/MND would reduce all impacts to a less than significant level. Potentially significant impacts were not identified for this IS/MND ; however, mitigation measures included in the IS/MND would reduce all impacts to a less than significant level.

1.7 Organization of the Document
This document is divided into the following sections:

1.0 Introduction - Provides an introduction and describes the purpose and organization of this document.

2.0 Project Description - Provides a detailed description of the proposed project.

3.0 Project Checklist - Provides the environmental determination for the proposed Project based on each of the 20 issue areas.

4.0 Environmental Determination - Describes the environmental setting for each of the environmental subject areas (as described in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines), evaluates a range of impacts classified as “no impact,” “less than significant,” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” in response to the environmental checklist, and provides mit igation measures, where appropriate, to mitigate potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

5.0 Report Preparers - Identifies staff and consultants responsible for the preparation of this document.

6.0 References – Provides a list of references used to prepare the IS/MND. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Rosemount Storage Project 6

Chapter 2 Project Description
This section of the IS/MND describes the Date Palm and Rosemount Storage Project (proposed Project; Project) and provides a description of the proposed Project’s location, objectives, and required approvals. The purpose of the proposed Project is to develo p a seven (7) acre site in the city of Cathedral City, County of Riverside California. The Specific Plan will include the creation of Planning Unit four, which is the subject of the Specific Plan Amendment and can be found on Exhibit 4. The City is the Lead Agency for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The IS/MND is examining the project with two possible site plans so that the worst-case scenario is examined. The Site Plans can be found on Exhibits 4 and 5. Exhibit 4 will be the self- storage facility with various retail and restaurants with a total square footage of 133,243 square feet. Exhibit 5 will have the self-storage facility, retail, and a Grocery Store /Big Box Retail building with a total area of 169,779 square feet.

The project will also include a Specific Plan Amendment (No. 99 -58A) which will create Planning Unit four (4) with a n area of 7.16 acres for this proposed project and provide corresponding development standards.

Planning Unit four (4) will be separated from Planning Unit One (1) which will remain with an area of 2.11 acres.

The Specific Plan Amendment will be a policy document and will not have any impact on Aesthetics, Agriculture, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gasses, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Mineral Resour ces, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities/Service Systems, Wildfires, and Mandatory Findings of Significance.

2.1 Project Location

2.1.1 Regional Setting
The approximate seven (7) acre proposed Project site (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 670 -110-048-, 670- 110-049, 670-110-050, 670-110-051, 670-110-052, 670-110-053, and 670-110-056), located in the mid-central part of the city of Cathedral City (city), Ri verside County (County), California ( Exhibit 1: Regional Location). As shown in Exhibit 1, regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 10 (I-10) located approximately two (2) miles to the east and by State Route 111 (SR -111), which is approximate ly two and a half (2.5) miles to the west of the Project site. The community of Thousand Palms and city of Desert Hot Springs are located to the north, the cities of Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indio, Coachella, and Indian Wells to the south and east, and the city of Palm Springs to the west.

The currently vacant Project site is located off Date Palm Drive, between McCallum Way and Rosemount Road, in a fairly developed area of the city (Exhibit 2). Surrounding land uses include small commercial and residential uses to the east and south of the site, a bank and commercial uses to the west and vacant land to the north of the site. Surrounding zoning consists of R1 - Single Family Residential and R2 Multiple Family Residential to the east and south, and PCC Planned Community Commercial to the west and north. Current Land Use and Zoning Designations
According to the City ’s 2040 General Plan Land Use Map, the Project site is designated General Commercial.

According to the City’s Zoning Map, the site is zoned PCC Planned Community Commercial (City of Cathedral City, 2023). Exhibit 7, Zoning Map, shows the existing zoning for the proposed Project area, and Exhibit 6, 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Rosemount Storage Project 7

General Plan Land Use Designation, shows the existing land use designations for the proposed Project area (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report; 2021).

2.1.2 Existing Project Site
As illustrated by Exhibit 3, Site Map, the proposed Project site is currently vacant. The topography of the project site is relatively flat, with a few low trees and shrubs scattered across the site. Residential and small commercial uses, such as a Dollar Tree and the vacant retail building are located adjacent to the site on its eastern and southern boundaries. Rosemount Road forms the northern boundary of the site, while Date Palm Drive, a three-lane roadway (in both directions) forms the western boundary of the site.

2.2 Proposed Project Characteristics
The proposed Project includes the development of approximately seven (7) acres located in the city of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road to the north and McCallum Way to the south. The project will require a recommendation from the Planning Commission and for City Council to take final action on an entitlement and legislative action for parcels including APN: 670 -110-48, 670-110-49, 670- 110-50, 670-110-51, 670-110-52, 670-110-53, and 670-110-56. The proposed project includes the below:

A Design Review and Lot Merger for the construction of a 2 -story indoor self-storage facility with a total area of 115,054 square feet at 57,527 square feet per floor. The current zoning of the site is Specific Plan No. 99-58 with the underlying zone of PCC (Planned Community Commercial) District.

A Specific Plan Amendment to create Planning Unit four which would allow the indoor self-storage use and a 50,000 square foot Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building as well as changes to the development code, new streamlined architectural standards, and updated list of permitted and conditional land uses.

The Mitigated Negative Declaration was processed at full buildout so that future entitlements would not have to obtain separate Mitigated Negative Declarations. At full buildout the project could include either of two scenarios: retail uses with a 2 -story indoor mini-storage facility, or a Grocery Store up to 50,000 square feet / Big Box Retail building, 2 -story indoor mini -storage facility, and retail uses. The project is currently being proposed as a phased project and each future proposal would require its own entitlement consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Design Review only includes the indoor mini-storage facility, underground retention basin, and a minimum of 12 spaces for on-site parking.

With regard to CEQA, the proposed Project would be developed with phased construction which includes the operation of a 2 -story 115,054 square foot (sf) indoor climate -controlled mini -storage facility with 57,527 square feet per floor. The indoor self-storage facility includes climate-controlled self-storage, retail, office, and loading areas. The CEQA Analysis includes two scenarios, scenario one would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate controlled self- storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with areas of 2,413 sf and 4,617 sf respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with areas of 3,217 sf each. Scenario two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading area and one (1) Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. All scenarios will have on-site landscaping, on-site parking, signage, low walls, along frontage, and underground retention for on-site water retention. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Rosemount Storage Project 8

The proposed Project would require City Council approval of the following discretionary and ministerial actions:
(1) Specific Plan Amendment (SPA);
(2) Design Review (DR);
(3) Building Permit; and,
(4) Approval of the Project IS/MND.

Site Plan
The proposed Project has analyzed two scenarios both of which would be considered most intense use and cover a number of outcomes. Future owners would be able to take similar proposals and make a Finding of Consistency per Section 15063 of CEQA. The scenarios are as follows:

Scenario One
• An approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) (at 57,527 sf per floor) self-storage facility with retail and office as well as associated loading and utility storage Units; • One (1) retail building with an area of 4,725 sf;
• Two (2) retail buildings with 3,217 sf each (total 6,434 sf) • Two (2) drive-thru restaurants with areas of 4,617 and 2,413 square feet; • The proposed Project would include associated parking, trash enclosures, landscaping, and internal circulation system;
• The on-site landscaping for the site will amount to approximately 68,666 sf or 21% of the site; • A monument sign for the overall facility will be located at the main entryway on Date Palm Drive.

Scenario Two

• An approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) (at 57,527 sf per floor) mini storage with retail and office as well as associated loading and utility storage Units; • One Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 square feet. • One (1) retail building with area of 4,725 square feet; • The proposed Project would include associated parking, trash enclosures, landscaping, and internal circulation system;
• A monument sign for the overall facility will be located at the main entryway on Date Palm Drive.

2.2.1 Landscaping/Lighting
The proposed Project site and the surrounding vicinity are generally flat in elevation. The landscaping plans would comply with all applicable codes of the City of Cathedral City Municipal Codes and the Coachella valley Water District. The site would be landscaped with a variety of plants that are native and indigenous to California’s climatic conditions and require low and medium water use. The proposed trees would include various evergreen and deciduous trees, such as: California Fan Palms, Palo Verdes, Live Oaks, African Sumacs, Shoestring Acacias, Desert Willows, Crape Myrtles, and Ironwood trees which would be placed throughout the site, including all parking areas. All proposed trees would have moderate to low water use.

The Project site currently has a 6 -foot wall along the eastern edge of the site to separate the site from the neighboring residential uses will propose low-walls along Date Palm Drive. The proposed Project would include freestanding lights with a maximum height of 18 feet located around the parking lot areas, as well as building 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Rosemount Storage Project 9

lights. All lighting would be shielded to prevent light spillover onto adjacent areas, as required by Section 9.89 of the Cathedral City Municipal Code.

2.2.2 Circulation
Under existing conditions, Rosemount Road does not extend to Date Palm Drive. The Project will be conditioned to construct half -width roadway improvement along the property frontage on Rosemount Road including curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving.

2.2.3 Infrastructure
The proposed Project would include an 8-inch water line and sewer line along with a 12-inch storm drainpipe.

The proposed Project has been designed consistent with City fire standards to ensure adequate access and turning radius is provided for fire equipment.

Water, Sewer and Storm Drainage
Phase one (1) of the project’s infrastructure will include an 8-inch water lines and 8-inch sewer lines that would tie into the City’s existing 8-inch water line and sewer line located adjacent to the alley between the proposed Project site and the adjacent residential uses , and a 12-inch storm drain line that would divert all water into the on -site underground retention basin for the phase one (1) storage facility . Phase 2 of the project’s infrastructure will be determined after the construction of phase one (1).

2.2.4 Construction Schedule
Project construction is anticipated to take approximately 15 months with completion estimated completion in early 2025, if the project is approved. No import or export of soil is required. All construction equipment and construction worker vehicles would be staged (parked) on site during construction.

2.2.5 Employment
Project operation is estimated to generate 150 full-time and part-time employees. :K
LWHZD
WHU 5LYHU

9HQWXUD
'U
7D FKH YD K 'U
5LR 9 LVWD 'U
5LR 3 HFRV 'U
$YHQ
LG
D
OD
9 LVWD
3DVDGD 5G
3HODGRUD 5
G
$Y
HQ
LG
D /D 3D
]
7RUWX JD 5G
&OXEKRXVH
9 LH
Z
'
U
$YHQ
LGD
0 DUD
Y
LOOD
0DG ULG 5G
9HUR QD 5G
$Y
H
QLGD 4XLQWD
QD
(
3RU
WD
OH
V
'
U
&RQFHSF LRQ 5G
+HUPRVLOOR 5G
(QFLQLWDV 5G
/RV
*D
WRV 5G
2QWLQD 5G
(VWLR 5G
-DUDQD 5G
0HG DQR 5 G
*D UELQR 5G
6DQW
LDJR 5G3HLQ HW D 5G
2YD QWH 5G
7DP DUD 5G
5DQ JR 5G
'DWH
3D
OP
'U
'
D
WH
3 D
OP
'
U
9LVWD & KLQ R
'HVHUW 3ULQFHVV
&RXQWU\ &OXE
:KLWHZDWHU 5LYHU
6DQ -RDTX
LQ
'U
WK $YH
0F&D OOX P :D\/DQ
G
DX %OY
G
:K
LV
S
H
ULQJ
3 D
OP
V 7
UO
9HUDQR 5G
9HJD 5G
%DU LVWR 5G
$
Y
HQL
G

D -XDUH
]
6N
\ %
OX
H
:

D
WH
U 7U
O
0 R
QWH 9LVWD 5G
$YHQLGD 0DUDYLOOD
$YHQ
LG
D GH
O
<
H
UP
R
$YH
Q
LG
D
OD 3D
ORPD
6 :LOOLDPV 5G
&
D
Q\RQ 9
LV
WD 5G
6DQ /XLV 5
H\ 'U
$YHQLGD ORV 1LQRV
6KL
IWLQJ 6DQ
G
V 7UO
3 X
H
E
OR 7
UO
6 9
HOOD 5G
'HVH
UW 9
LV
WD 5G
$
X
URUD 9
LVWD 5G
$OFLWD 5 G
$YHQLGD GHO 3DGUH
:
/DJ
XQD
'U
&
LH
OR 9
LVW
D
5G
1DYDMR 7U
O
5DQFKR 9
LV
WD 'U
$OLVR 5G
'XUD
QJR 5G
3HUOLWD 5G
&RUW D 5G
5L VXHQR 5
G 5LVXHQR 5G
6DQ $QWRQLR 'U
( 5DPR Q 5G
'
D
WH 3DOP
'
U 'DW
H 3
DO
P
'U
6 *HQH
$XWU\ 7U
O
6 *HQH $XWU\ 7
UO
1 *HQH
$XWU\
7UO
&LPDUURQ *ROI
5HVRUW
(VFHQD *ROI
&OXE

9D
UQH
U5G
9LD
%H
OOD
'DYDOO 'U
6 DQ (
OMD\ $YH
.HQZRRG 'U
WK $YH
&\SUHV V 5G
5D
WW
OHU
5G
0F&DOOXP :D\
:LOO RZ /Q
5DPRQ 5G
:HVWLQ 0LVVLRQ
+LOOV *ROI 5HVRUW
6SD
5LPORQ
/RPD/LQGD8QLYHUVLW\8&5LYHUVLGH$JXD&DOLHQWH%DQGRI,QGLDQV&RXQW\RI5LYHUVLGH&DOLIRUQLD6WDWH3DUNV (VUL+(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7 HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6%XUHDXRI/DQG0DQDJHPHQW(3$136 86&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$
1 Exhibit
Regional Map
Uptown Village Specific Plan Amendment
1 in = 5.6 mi
N
Project Site
Site Area
Legend
Date Palm Dr
I-10
$YHQLGD OD 9LVWD
9HJD 5G
$YH
QLGD $OYH
UD
$YHQLGD ;LP
LQR
$YHQ
LGD GH
O<HUPR
$YHQLGD GHO 3DGUH
'XUDQJR 5G
$OH[
DQG
HU'U
WK $YH WK $YH
$YHQLGD ORV 1LQR
V
6HQRUD 5G
$YHQLGD -XDUH]
'DW H 3DOP 'U
$YHQ
LG
D -XDUH]
$YHQLGD GHO <HUPR
$YHQLGD ;LPLQR
0F& DOOXP :D\
$YHQLGD GHO 3DGUH
$YHQLGD $OYHUD
6DQ 9

LQFHQWH
$YH
6DQ
<VLGUR
$YH
6DQ $
UGR $YH
'DWH 3
DOP 'U
6DQ
(OM
D\
$YH
6DQ (
OMD
\ $YH
%ULVEDQH '
U
1RUWKKDPSWRQ $YH
6DQWD 5
RVD 6W
WK $Y H W K $YH
&\SUH VV 5G
5L GJHZD\ $Y H
:

LQWHU 'U
0 XLUILHOG :

D\
6DO HP 5G
$XJX
VWD '
U
%URRNYLHZ :D\
6DZ
JUDVV 5G
&RORQLDO 'U
(QQLV .HDW
6RFFHU 3DUN
-DPHV
:RUNPDQ
0LGGOH 6FKRRO
-DPHV
:RUNPDQ
0LGGOH 6FKRRO
6DQ (
OMD\ $YH
0F&DOOX P :D \
(O 'REH 5G
3OHDVDQW *UY
(O &DQWR 5G
6XQQ\ 6DQGV
(OHPHQWDU\
6FKRRO
(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV/RPD/LQGD8QLYHUVLW\8&5LYHUVLGH$JXD&DOLHQWH%DQGRI,QGLDQV&RXQW\ RI5LYHUVLGH&DOLIRUQLD6WDWH3DUNV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK *HR7 HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6%XUHDXRI/DQG0DQDJHPHQW(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$ 0D[DU
2 Exhibit
Loca�on Map
Uptown Village Specific Plan Amendment
1 in = 0.7 mi
Project Site
N
Site Area
Legend
3 Exhibit
Site Map
Uptown Village Specific Plan Amendment
1 in = 0.5 mi
N
Site Area
Legend
Date Palm Dr
Rosemount Rd
4 Exhibit
Not to Scale
McCallum Way
Rosemount Avenue
Date Palm Drive
NORTH
Conceptual Site Plan - Scenario 1
Uptown Village Specific Plan Amendment - Planning Unit 4 LEGEND
Indoor Climate-Controlled Mini-Storage Facility - 115,054 SF Retail - 4,725 SF
Fast Food Drive-Through Restaurant - 2,413 SF
Fast Food Drive-Through Restaurant - 4,617 SF
1 (2) Retail - 3,217 SF Each 5
5 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
PLANNING UNIT 2PLANNING UNIT 2

MUL TI-FAMILY - SENIOR MUL TI-FAMILY - SENIOR

CITIZEN CITIZEN

5.81 ACRES5.81 ACRES

PLANNING PLANNING
UNIT 3 UNIT 3

SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY

DETACHED DETACHED

2.34 ACRES2.34 ACRES
PLANNING UNIT 1 PLANNING UNIT 1

COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL

2.11 Acres2.11 Acres PLANNING UNIT 4PLANNING UNIT 4

COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL

7.16 Acres7.16 Acres
5 Exhibit
Not to Scale
McCallum Way
Rosemount Avenue
Date Palm Drive
NORTH
Conceptual Site Plan - Scenario 2
Uptown Village Specific Plan Amendment - Planning Unit 4 LEGEND
Indoor Climate-Controlled Mini-Storage Facility - 115,054 SF Retail - 4,725 SF
Grocery Store or other Big Box Use - 50,000 SF
1 1
2 2
3 3
PLANNING UNIT 2PLANNING UNIT 2

MUL TI-FAMILY - SENIOR MUL TI-FAMILY - SENIOR

CITIZEN CITIZEN

5.81 ACRES5.81 ACRES

PLANNING PLANNING
UNIT 3 UNIT 3

SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY

DETACHED DETACHED

2.34 ACRES2.34 ACRES
PLANNING UNIT 1 PLANNING UNIT 1

COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL

1.97 Acres1.97 Acres PLANNING UNIT 4PLANNING UNIT 4

COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL

7.16 Acres7.16 Acres
6 Exhibit
General Plan Land Use Designa�on
Uptown Village Specific Plan Amendment
City of Cathedral City General Plan Land Use Map (2019) Not to Scale
Project Site
N
Site Area
Legend
7 ExhibitZoning Map
Uptown Village Specific Plan Amendment
City of Cathedral City General Plan Land Use Map (2019) Not to Scale
Project Site
N
Site Area
Legend
McCallum Way
Date Palm Dr
30th Avenue
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 10

Chapter 3 Project Checklist

3.1 Project Information

1. Project Title: Rosemount Storage

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Cathedral City, 68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero, Cathedral City, CA 92234

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Andrew Firestine – 760-770-0344

4. Project Location: The project site is located on a seven (7 ) acre site along Date Palm Drive, between McCallum Way and Rosemount Road in the city of Cathedral City, County of Riverside. The city is located in the greater Coachella Valley, an arid rift valley in the Colorado Desert Riverside County. The Coachella Valley extends approximately 45 miles southeast from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Salton Sea and Imperial Valley.

The San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains form the Valley’s northeastern limits, while the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Moun tains lie to the southwest. Regional access to the project site is from Interstate 10 (I-10) located a little over two (2) miles to the east. Exhibit 1 shows the regional location of the project site.

5. General Plan Designation: The Project site has a General Plan designation of CG General Commercial with an overlay of Uptown Village Specific Plan.

6. Zoning: The Project site is zoned under Specific Plan 99 -58 with an underlying zone of PCC (Planned Community Commercial) District.

7. Description of Project : The proposed Project is self- storage facility with two different scenarios. Scenario One is an indoor climate controlled Mini Storage Facility 115,054 SF with various retail and restaurants with a total square footage of approximately 133,243 square feet (see Exhibit 4). Scenario Two is a climate controlled mini storage facility, retail, and a Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a total area of approximately 169,779 square feet. The project will also include a Specific Plan Amendment (No. 99 -58A) which will create Planning Unit four (4) with an area of 7.16 acres for this proposed project and provide corresponding development standards. Planning Unit four (4) will be separated from Planning Unit One (1) which will remain with an area of 2.11 acres.

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning: The site is surrounded by vacant parcels to the north and residential development interspersed with a place of worship, school and other commercial uses to the east, south and west. The land use designation and zoning of the Project site are listed in Table 1 and shown in Exhibits 5 and

6. Table 1 Summary of Land Use and Zoning
Direction General Plan Designation Zoning Existing Land Use North CG (General Commercial PCC (Planned
Community Commercial) Vacant/Place of Worship
South General Commercial
PCC (Planned
Community Commercial)
and R-1 (Single Family
Residential)
Retail Stores
Multiple Residential
Single Family
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 11

Direction General Plan Designation Zoning Existing Land Use East
RM (Medium Density
Residential) and RL (Low
Density Residential)
R-1 and R-2

Single Family Residential and
Multi-Family Residential

West General Commercial PCC Retail, bank, Drive-Thru Restaurant

9. Existing Site Characteristics : The Project site is currently vacant with low lying shrubs. Elevations onsite range from approximately 372 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 378 feet amsl, with the site sloping gently from the northwest to the southeast (USGS National Map; accessed 2023) . Exhibit 2 shows the site’s local vicinity and Exhibit 3 shows a zoomed in area of the Project site. (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report; 2021).

Climate and Air Quality
The proposed Project site is located in Salton Sea Basin of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), that includes the City of Cathedral City and Riverside County. The Coachella Valley portion is about 164 square miles and is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The Air Basin is bounded by the San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast, the San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa Mountains to the southwest, the San Gorgonio Pass to the northwest, and the Salton Sea to the southeast. The climate of the Coachella Valley is a continental, desert -type, with hot summers, mild winters, and very little annual rainfall. Precipitation is less than six inches annually and occurs mostly in the winter months from active frontal systems, and in the late summer m onths from thunderstorms. Temperatures exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit, on average, for four months each year, with daily highs near 110 degrees Fahrenheit during July and August. Summer nights are very mild with minimum temperatures in the mid -70's. During the winter season, daytime highs are quite mild, but the dry air is conducive to nocturnal radiational cooling, with early morning lows around 40 degrees. The Coachella Valley is exposed to frequent gusty winds, which contribute to air quality problems by entraining sand and other particulate matter (SCAQMD, 2009).

The Coachella Valley portion of the SSAB fails to meet national ambient air quality standards for ozone and respirable particulate matter (PM10) and is classified as a “nonattainment area” for those pollutants (USEPA, 2022).

Geology and Soils
The Project site is in the Coachella Valley within the Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province, a low -lying desert basin dominated by the Salton Sea. The proposed Project site is on a slight westerly slope with low susceptibility for rock falls (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update, 2018). The Banning Branch and Mission Creek Faults, which are part of the San Andreas Fault Zone traverses the city zones are located over three (3) miles to the northeast of the site level (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 Ge neral Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report; 2021).

Hydrology
The project site is in the Whitewater River Watershed of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region and the Colorado River Basin level (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report; 2021).
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 12

Biology
The dominant plant community on the vacant project site and throughout the vacant area of the biological study area (BSA) is creosote bush scrub. The BSA consists of the proposed Project site with a 500 -foot-wide buffer zone. The site is primarily considered disturbed and developed land. Disturbed land is present along site boundaries, within unpaved access roads, and in the southeast portion. Due to regular disturbance, these areas are barren or minimally vegetated. Developed land is present along existing and planned paved roadways that traverse the middle portion of the site and the site’s southeast corner. No fish or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for fish were observed on or within the vicinity of the proposed Project site. No amphibians or reptiles were observed during the field investigation.

The only avian species observed were common raven (Corvus corax) and Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae).

The only mammalian species detected were kangaroo rat (Dipodomys sp.) and domestic dog (Canis familiaris).

No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed on-site. The site has not been identified as occurring in a wildlife corridor or linkage. No jurisdictional drainage, wetland features, or blueline streams have been recorded on the Project site.

Cultural
The project was reviewed through a Paleontological Resource Assessment by PaleoWest ( Appendix C).

PaleoWest found that there was little potential for significant artifacts in the Project area. Recommendation of cultural monitoring to be incorporated into mitigation measures.

Public Services
The following public services serve the project site level (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report; 2021).
• Fire: Riverside County Fire Department and the City of Cathedral City Fire Department • Police: Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and the Cathedral City Police Department • Schools: Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Parks: City of Cathedral City Parks Division
• Library: Riverside County Library System
Roadway Network
Regional and local traffic is primarily provided via Interstate 10 (I -10) which traverses the City in a northwest- southeasterly direction and runs parallel to State Route 111 (also known as East Palm Canyon Drive). Vista Chino, Ramon Road, Dinah Shore Drive, Landau Boulevard, Cathedral Canyon Drive, Date Palm Drive, and Varner Road are the major arterials in the city level (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report; 2021).

Utilities
The following utilities serve the project site level (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report; 2021).

Water: Coachella Valley Water District and Desert Water Agency Sewer and Wastewater: Coachella Valley Water District
Solid Waste collection: Burrtec Waste Industries
Electricity: Southern California Edison and Imperial Irrigation District Natural Gas: Semper Energy
Telecommunications: Spectrum; Frontier Communications
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 13

10. Proposed Project Characteristics:

The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two-phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with area of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with area of 3,217 sf each. Based on our approximations there will be a total of 242 parkin g spaces available, which is 150 spaces over the City of Cathedral City parking requirement for parking. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate - controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading area and one (1) Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include parking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site.

Table 2 Proposed Building Type/Area for Scenario One
Proposed Building Type Square Footage (SF)
Self-Storage 115,054
Retail Building 4,725
Fast Food Drive Thru 2,413
Fast Food Drive Thru 4,617
Retail (2) 6,434
Total Building Area 133,243

Table 3 Parking Requirements for Scenario One
Proposed Building
Type
Square
Footage
(SF)
Parking Ratios
Number of Spaces
Required

Number Provided
Mini-Warehouse 115,054 1 space per 10,000 sf 12 Spaces

12 Spaces
Retail 4,725 1 per 250 sf

19 spaces

19 Spaces
Drive Thru
Restaurant 1 2,413 16 spaces + 1 per 150
over 4,000 sf
16 Spaces

16 Spaces
Drive Thru
Restaurant 2 4,617 16 spaces + 1 per 150
over 4,000 sf 19 Spaces 19 Spaces
Retail 6,434 1 per 250 sf 26 spaces

26 Spaces
Additional Spaces
Provided
150 Spaces
Total 133,243 sf 92 Spaces

242 Spaces
Parking Spaces exceed City Standard by 150 Spaces
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 14

Table 4 Proposed Building Type/Area for Scenario Two
Proposed Building Type Square Footage (SF)
Self-Storage 115,054
Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building 50,000
Retail 4,725
Total Building Area 169,779
Table 5 Parking requirements for Scenario 2
Proposed
Building Type
Square
Footage
(SF)
Parking Ratios
Number of
Spaces Required

Number of
Spaces Provided
Self-Storage 115,054 1 space per 10,000
sf
12 Spaces

12 Spaces
Grocery Stores/
Big Box Retail
building
35,000
Sales
Area
1 per 300

117 Spaces

117 Spaces
Retail 4,725 1 per 250 sf 19 spaces

20 Spaces
Additional Spaces
Provided
35 Spaces
Total 125,979 148 Spaces

184 Spaces
The Number of Spaces Provided exceed the number of spaces required by 35 spaces.

NOTE: The only areas where a comparison was made between Scenario One and Two were for Traffic, Air Quality, and Noise where the two scenarios could have different results.

11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None.

12. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
On January 17, 2024 formal NAHC Letters pursuant to SB 18; and February 07, 2024 pursuant to AB 52; required the City of Cathedral City to notify the following Tribes:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
• Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians
• La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
• Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians
• Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation
• Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 15

• Morongo Band of Mission Indians, responded but did not request consultation • Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
• 29 Palms of Mission Indians also responded to the letter but did not request consultation. • Ramona Band of Cahuilla
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
• Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
The 29 Palms of Mission Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians did not express an interest in consultation. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians did request that there be an on-site Tribal Monitor during any excavation.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 16

Chapter 4 Environmental Determination
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT COMPLIANCE:

This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to identify and assess the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed Project. This document has been prepared to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (P ublic Resources Code [PRC}, Section §21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15000 et seq.). CEQA serves as the main framework of environmental law and policy in California. CEQA emphasizes the need for public disclosure and identifying and p reventing environmental damage associated with proposed projects. Unless a project is deemed categorically exempt, CEQA is applicable to any discretionary project that must be approved by a public agency in order to be processed and established. The propos ed Project does not fall under any of the statutory or categorical exemptions listed in the 2023 CEQA Statute and Guidelines (California PRC, Section §21000 et seq.; 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15000 et seq.), and, therefore, must meet existing CEQA requirements.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated”, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 17

in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as describe on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. __________________________________________________ _______________ Signature Date
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 18

4.1 Aesthetics

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AESTHETICS – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

a) Less than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is a publicly accessible viewpoint that provides expansive views of a high value to the community. Important scenic vistas and resources in the City of Cathedral City include those that are visible from major public roadways and public areas that contain views of the mountains, general open space, as well as views of parks, golf courses and the City’s downtown areas. This parcel does not qualify as a Scenic Vista since it has no special features, views, or rock o utcroppings. Effects on scenic vistas associated with changes in land use would relate to changes to views of important landscape features near a proposed project site.

The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two-phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 sf and 4,617 sf respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include the standards of the Uptown Village Specific Plan, City’s Design Guidelines and use high quality architecture , landscaping, and lighting to maintain a high degree of compatibility and preserve the aesthetics of the area. In addition, the project will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee who are responsible for maintaining a high degree of design.

The Project would also require an amendment to the City’s Uptown Village Specific Plan (SP 96 -54). Since the proposed Project site is currently vacant with low scrub brush, rocks and boulders, construction of the 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 19

proposed Project would have the potential to obstruct some distant views of the mountains with new buildings, streets, signage, lighting, and landscaping. Even though the proposed Project would have to comply with all applicable Imagine 2040 GP policies, (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report; 2021) impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant.

The Uptown Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan; SP) is a policy document and will be amended to create Planning Unit Four (4) with an area of 7.16 acres from Planning Unit One (1) leaving it with an area of 2.11 acres. The proposed SP amendment would be a policy level document that would not in itself impact scenic vistas.

b) No Impact. A scenic highway is generally defined by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) as a public highway that navigates an area of outstanding scenic quality and contains striking views, flora, geology, or other unique natural features. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by the traveling public, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the public's enjoyment of the view. The propo sed Project site is approximately 2 miles east of highway 111 which is designated as a scenic highway, no other notable scenic features are on or in the vicinity of the proposed Project site (CalTrans California State Scenic Highway System Map; March 2023). The proposed Project site is not visible from Highway 111 and therefore, the proposed Project will not interfere with any views of a scenic vista from highway 111. The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on state scenic highways.

c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would develop an existing vacant parcel that currently has scrub brush and small rock outcroppings scattered throughout the site. Date Palm Drive and McCallum Way, respectively, from the western and southern boundaries of the site and are part of the overall Urban Area of the Coachella Valley. The project will comply with all applicable sections of the CCMC and the Specific Plan.

Public views from the site include distant views of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the southwest and the San Jacinto Mountains and Mt San Jacinto to the west, Mt. San Gorgonio and the San Bernardino Mountains to the northwest and the Indio Hills and Little San Bernardino Mountains to the north and northeast. The Architectural Review Committee will ensure that the visual quality has a high degree of amenity.

While construction of the proposed Project has the potential to disrupt the existing views of the mountains, canal and surrounding open areas, construction activities would be short-term, and any public views would be temporarily impacted for the duration of Project construction. Although the proposed Project would add new facilities and structures to a currently vacant site and therefore alter the existing visual character of an open and vacant site, the proposed Project would have to comply with applicabl e Imagine 2040 GP policies. The Project would not therefore degrade the existing visual quality of the area and therefore the impact will be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

d) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is currently vacant with no light sources on the site (Google Earth Pro; accessed July 2023). Surrounding uses are vacant parcels primarily to the north and west, and residential as well as small commercial and office uses to the east and south of the Project site. Currently, the uses surrounding the Project site have unobstructed views towards Date Palm Drive, Rosemount Road, and McCallum Way. Existing uses around the site currently experience some daytime glare and nighttime light from surrounding retail and small restaurant uses, as well as vehicular traffic along Date Palm Drive, Rosemount 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 20

Road, and McCallum Way (Google Maps; accessed July 2023). The proposed Project would introduce additional new sources of daytime glare and nighttime lighting with the construction of the two -story storage facility, one-story restaurants, and retail buildings , which will add to the existing sources of daytime glare from reflections off glass doors, windows, and other surfaces, and to the existing nighttime lighting in the general area. The project will comply with Section 9.89 Outdoor Lighting Standards of the CCMC, turn in a photometric analysis, and full lighting plan to ensure all standards are met and there is no nuisance light to sensitive receptors. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

The Uptown Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan; SP) is a policy document and will be amended to create Planning Unit Four with an area of 7.16 acres from Planning Unit One leaving it with an area of 2.11 acres. However, as a policy level document, the proposed SP amendment would not, in itself, create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 21

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

4.2.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an o ptional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to informat ion compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Governme nt Code Section
51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

a – e) No Impact. The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two -phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store /Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include parking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part-time employees. The City’s Imagine 2040 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 22

General Plan EIR concluded that there are no agricultural uses located within the city limits (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update EIR; 2021). The proposed Project is categorized as Other Lands by the California Department of Conservation (DLRP Important Farmland Finder (ca.gov) , accessed 2024) .

Implementation of the proposed Project would not create a conversion of agricultural land and therefore the proposed Project would not have an impact on agricultural land that is categorized as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.

Additionally, since the proposed Project site is not regulated under a Williamson Act Contract (California Department of Conservation’s Williamson Act Enrollment Finder; 2022), the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning or agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract. There would be no impact.

The Project site is vacant with small shrubs and bushes dispersed intermittently throughout the site. There are no forest lands or timberlands on the site. The proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland ; Nor would the proposed Project result in the loss or conversion of forest land. There would be no impact to forest land and timberland.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 23

4.3 Air Quality

4.3.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?

The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two-phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with areas of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate -controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include p arking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part-time employees.

Air Quality Regulatory Setting
Regulatory Settings
Air pollutants are regulated at the national, state, and air basin level; each agency has a different level of regulatory responsibility. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates at the national level. The California Air Resources Board ( CARB) regulates at the state level. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulates at the air basin level.

National and State
The EPA is responsible for global, international, and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The EPA sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State Implementation 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 24

Plans, provides research and guidance for air pollution programs, and sets National Air Quality Standards, also known as federal standards. There are six common air pollutants, called criteria pollutants, which were identified from the provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970. • Ozone
• Nitrogen Dioxide
• Lead
• Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
• Carbon Monoxide
• Particulate Matter
• Sulfur Dioxide
The federal standards were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals , thus the standards continue to change as more medical research is available regarding the health effects of the criteria pollutants. Primary federal standards are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health.

A State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a document prepared by each state describing existing air quality conditions and measures that will be followed to attain and maintain federal standards. The State Implementation Plan for the State of California is administered by the CARB, which has overall responsibility for statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention. California’s State Implementation Plan incorporates individual federal attainment plans for regional air districts. The air district prepares their federal attainment plan s, which are sent to CARB to be approved and incorporated into the California State Implementation Plan. Federal attainment plans include the technical foundation for understanding air quality (e.g., emission inventories and air quality monitoring), control measures and strategies, and enforcement mechanisms. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs.htm for additional information on criteria pollutants and air quality standards.

The federal and state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 6 and can also be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.

Table 6 Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentrations3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,
6 Method7
Ozone (O3)
1-Hour 0.09 ppm Ultraviolet
Photometry
- - Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry 8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm (147
μg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter (PM10)8
24-Hour 50 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
150 μ/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 μg/m3 - -
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)8
24-Hour - - - - 35 μg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis Annual Arithmetic
Mean 12 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
1-Hour 20 ppm (23 μg/m3) Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
35 ppm (40 μg/m3) - - Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry (NDIR)
8-Hour 9.0 ppm (10 μg/m3) 9 ppm (10 μg/m3) - -
8-Hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 μg/m3) - - - -
1-Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) - -
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 25

Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)9
Annual Arithmetic
Mean

0.030 ppm (357
μg/m3)
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence

0.053 ppm (100
μg/m3)
Same as
Primary
Standard
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescenc
e
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)10
1-Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
75 ppb (196 μg/m3) - -
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3-Hour - - - - 0.5 ppm
(1300 mg/m3)
24-Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) 0.14 ppm
(for certain Area)10 - -
Annual Arithmetic
Mean - - 0.130ppm
(for certain Area)10 - -
Lead11,12
30 Day Average 1.5 μg/m3
Atomic Absorption
- -
Calendar Qrtr - - 1.5 μg/m3
(for certain Area)12 Same as
Primary
Standard
High Volume
Sampler and
Atomic Absorption Rolling 3-Month
Average - - 0.15 μg/m3
Visibility
Reducing
Particles13
8-Hour See footnote 13
Beta Attenuation
and Transmittance
through Filter Tape No
National
Standards
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl Chloride11 24-Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) Gas
Chromatography
Table 2 Ambient Air Quality Standards, Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024.

Notes:

1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8 -hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are no t to be equaled or exceeded.

California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded m ore than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8 -hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24 - hour average concentration above 150 μg/m 3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, th e 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further cla rification and current national policies.

3. Concentration expressed first in areas in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.

5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public heal th.

6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the U.S. EPA.

8. On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m 3 to 12.0 μg/m 3. The existing national 24 -hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m 3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m 3. The existing 24 -hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.

9. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1 -hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.

10. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24 -hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3 -year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1 -hour daily maximum concentratio ns at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24 -hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 s tandards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 26

Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In t his case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

11. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined.

These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

12. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3 -month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m 3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are app roved.

13. In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10 -mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30 -mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

Several pollutants listed in Table 6 are not addressed in this analysis. Analysis of lead is not included in this report because the project is not anticipated to emit lead. Visibility -reducing particles are not explicitly addressed in this analysis because particulate matter is addressed. T he project is not expected to generate or be exposed to vinyl chloride because proposed project uses do not utilize the chemical processes that create this pollutant and there are no such uses in the project vicinity. The proposed project is not expected to cause exposure to hydrogen sulfide because it would not generate hydrogen sulfide in any substantial quantity.

South Coast Air Quality Management District
The agency for air pollution control for the Salton Sea Air Basin (basin) is the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD, in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments, is responsible for developing, updating, and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the basin. An AQMP is a plan prepared and implemented by an air pollution district for a county or region designated as nonattainment of the federal and/or California ambient air quality standard s. The term nonattainment area is used to refer to an air basin where one or more ambient air quality standards are exceeded.

Every three (3) years the SCAQMD prepares a new AQMP, updating the previous plan and having a 20 -year horizon.

On March 23, 2017, CARB approved the 2016 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP is a regional blueprint for achieving the federal air quality standards and healthy air.

The 20 22 AQMP includes both stationary and mobile source strategies to ensure that rapidly approaching attainment deadlines are met, that public health is protected to the maximum extent feasible, and that the region is not faced with burdensome sanctions if the Plan is not approved or if the NAAQS are not met on time.

As with every AQMP, a comprehensive analysis of emissions, meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, regional growth projections, and the impact of existing control measures is updated with the latest data and methods.

The most significant air quality challenge in the Basin is to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions sufficiently to meet the upcoming ozone standard deadlines. The primary goal of the 2022 AQMP is to meet clean air standards and protect public health, including ensuring benefits to environmental justice and disadvantaged communities. Now that the plan has been approved by CARB, it has been forwarded to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its review. If approved by EPA, the plan becomes federally enforceable.

South Coast AQMD has initiated the development of the 2022 AQMP to address the attainment of the 2015 8- hour ozone standard (70 ppb) for South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley. To support the development of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 27

mobile source strategies for the 2022 AQMP, South Coast AQMD, in conjunction with California Air Resources Board, has established Mobile Source Working Groups which are open to all interested parties.

South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules
The AQMP for the basin establishes a program of rules and regulations administered by SCAQMD to obtain attainment of the state and federal standards. Some of the rules and regulations that apply to this Project include, but are not limited to, the following:
• SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort , repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

• SCAQMD Rule 403 governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction and operation activities.

Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best Management Practices, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph, and establishing a permanent ground cover on finished sites.

Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, Rule 403 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust f rom creating a nuisance off site. Applicable suppression techniques are indicated below and include but are not limited to the following:
• Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas in active for 10 days or more). • Water active sites at least three times daily.
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) section 23114. • Paved construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road. • Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less. • Suspension of all grading activities when wind speeds (including instantaneous wind gusts) exceed 25 mph.
• Bumper strips or similar best management practices shall be provided where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. • Replanting disturbed areas as soon as practical.
• During all construction activities, construction contractors shall sweep on-site and off-site streets if silt is carried to adjacent public thoroughfares, to reduce the amount of particulate matter on public streets.

SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coating and limits the VOC content in paints and paint solvents. This rule regulates the VOC content of paints available during construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during construct ion and operation of the Project must comply with Rule 1113.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 28

Idling Diesel Vehicle Trucks – Idling for more than 5 minutes in any one location is prohibited within California borders.

Rule 2702. The SCAQMD adopted Rule 2702 on February 6, 2009, which establishes a voluntary air quality investment program from which SCAQMD can collect funds from parties that desire certified GHG emission reductions, pool those funds, and use them to purchase or fun d GHG emission reduction projects within two years, unless extended by the SCAQMD Governing Board. Priority will be given to projects that result in co - benefit emission reductions of GHG emissions and criteria or toxic air pollutants within envi ronmental justice areas. Further, this voluntary program may compete with the cap -and-trade program identified for implementation in CARB’s Scoping Plan, or a federal cap and trade program.

Local
Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Cathedral City, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through its police power and decision-making authority. It is the responsibility of the District, CVAG, and the City of Cathedral City to monitor pollutant levels and regulate air pollution sources. With the installation of additional monitoring devices in the Whitewater River, the District is collecting data to establish a “naturally occurring” or “background” level for PM10 in the Coachel la Valley. This data will allow a more meaningful estimate of manmade PM10 emissions.

City of Cathedral City General Plan

The City of Cathedral City updated their General Plan in July 20 21. The 20 21 General Plan Air Quality and Climate Stability Element contains the following goals and policies aimed at reducing air pollution:

• Goal Preservation and enhancement of local and regional air quality to assure the long-term protection of the community’s health and welfare.
o Policy 1 The City shall be proactive in regulating local pollutant emitters and shall cooperate with Coachella Valley Association of Governments and the South Coast Air Quality Management District to assure compliance with air quality standards. o Policy 2 The City shall fully implement dust control ordinances, and coordinate and cooperate with local, regional, and federal efforts to monitor, manage, and reduce the levels of major pollutants affecting the City and region, with particular emphasis on PM10 emissions. o Policy 3 City land use planning efforts shall assure that sensitive receptors are separated from polluting point sources to the greatest extent practicable. o Policy 4 Development proposals brought before the City shall be reviewed for their potential to adversely impact local and regional air quality and shall be required to mitigate any significant impacts.
o Policy 5 The City shall encourage and promote the use of clean alternative energy sources for transportation, heating and cooling, lighting, and other power needs. o Policy 6 The City shall encourage and support the development of facilities and projects that facilitate and enhance the use of alternative modes of transportation, including pedestrian - oriented retail and activity centers, dedicated bicycle and LSEV paths and lanes, and community-wide multi-use trails.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 29

o Policy 7 The City shall promote the expanded availability of mass transit services, coordinating with Sunline Transit Authority to link residential, commercial and resort businesses, and employment centers with the City’s residential neighborhoods and nearby communities. o Policy 8 The City shall continue to implement effective street sweeping and post -windstorm cleanup programs to reduce the cumulative impacts of blowsand and nuisance dust resulting from construction activities, natural processes, and other sources. o Policy 9 The City shall promote public educational programs that describe the causes of air pollution, encourage the use of alternative energy sources, and recommend methods for reducing the impacts of blowsand.
o Policy 10 The City shall continue to implement and update policies, regulations, and action plans that promote climate stability and greenhouse gas emission reductions, including but not limited to the Climate Action Plan, Energy Action Plan, Greenhouse Gas Inventor y and Green for Life program.

Existing Physical Setting
The project site is located in the City of Cathedral City within the County of Riverside, which is part of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB). The middle part of Riverside County (between San Gorgonio Pass and Joshua Tree National Monument), belongs in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), along with Imperial County. The SSAB portion of Riverside County is separated from the South Coast Air Basin region by the San Jacinto Mountains and from the Mojave Desert Air Basin to the east by the Little San Bernardino Mountains.

Local Air Quality
The SCAQMD has divided the South Coast Air Basin into 38 air-monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station representative of each area. The project is within Source Receptor Area 30, Coachella Valley. SCAQMD operates the Palm Springs air monitoring station approximately 5.1 miles northwest of the project site. The Palm Springs monitoring station is used to collect monitoring data; however, these locations do not provide all ambient weather data. Therefore, additional data was pulled from the SCAQMD historical data for the Coachella Valley Area (Area 30) for both sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide to provide the existing levels. Table 7 presents the monitored pollutant levels within the vicinity. However, it should be noted that due to the air monitoring station distance from the project site, recorded air pollution levels at the air monitoring station reflect with varying degrees of accuracy, local air quality conditions at the project site.

Table 7 Local Area Air Quality Levels from Palm Springs Air Monitoring Station1 Year
Pollutant (Standard)2 2018 2019 2020
Ozone:

Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.111 0.100 0.119
Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 11 5 9
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.099 0.084 0.094
Days > NAAQS (0.07 ppm) 56 34 49
Days > CAAQS (0.070 ppm) 58 39 53
Carbon Monoxide:

Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 1.1 1.3 0.8
Days > NAAQS (20 ppm) 0 0 0
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.8 0.7 0.5
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 30

Year
Pollutant (Standard)2 2018 2019 2020
Days > NAAQS (9 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide:

Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.043 0.041 0.047
Days > NAAQS (0.25 ppm) 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide:3
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) - - -
Days > CAAQS (0.25 ppm) - - -
Inhalable Particulates (PM10):

Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (ug/m3) 422.3 75.6 129.8
Days > NAAQS (150 ug/m3) 2 0 *
Days > CAAQS (50 ug/m3) 0 6 *
Annual Average (ug/m3) 22.9 20.7 23.2
Annual > NAAQS (50 ug/m3) No No No
Annual > CAAQS (20 ug/m3) Yes Yes Yes
Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM2.5):

Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (ug/m3) 30.2 15.5 23.9
Days > NAAQS (35 ug/m3) 0 0 0
Annual Average (ug/m3) 6 6 6.4
Annual > NAAQS (15 ug/m3) No No No
Annual > CAAQS (12 ug/m3) No No No

1. Source: obtained from https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year and /or https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. 2 CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ppm = parts per million 3 No data available.

Table 4 Local Area Air Quality Levels From Palm Springs Air Monitoring Station, Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024.

The monitoring data presented in Table 7 shows that ozone is the air pollutant of primary concern in the project area, which are detailed below.

Ozone
During the 2018 to 2020 monitoring period, the State 1 -hour concentration standard for ozone has been exceeded between five and eleven days each year at the Palm Springs Station. The State 8-hour ozone standard has been exceeded between 39 and 58 days each year over the past three years at the Palm Springs Station.

The Federal 8-hour ozone standard has been exceeded between 34 and 56 days each year over the past three years at the Palm Springs Station.

Ozone is a secondary pollutant as it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of chemical reactions between other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and NO2, which occur only in the presence of bright sunlight.

Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in the area. Many areas of the SCAQMD contribute to the ozone levels experienced at the monitoring station, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind.

Carbon Monoxide
CO is another important pollutant that is due mainly to motor vehicles. During the 2018 to 2020 monitoring period, the Federal 1-hour and 8-hour concentration standards for CO were not exceeded.

4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 31

Nitrogen Dioxide
During the 2018 to 2020 monitoring period, the Federal 1 -hour concentration standard for Nitrogen Dioxide has not been exceeded. Sulfur Dioxide
The Coachella Valley did not have SO2 data available for the last three years.

Particulate Matter
During the 2018 to 2020 monitoring period, the Palm Springs Station recorded two days of exceedance of the Federal 24-hour PM10 concentration standard and an exceedance in the State PM10annual average standard.

During the same period, the Palm Springs Station did not record an exceedance of the Federal 24-hour standard for PM2.5.

According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing these fine particles. People with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in fine particles. Children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive are smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive because many breathe through their mouths during exercise.

Attainment Status
The EPA and the ARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Each standard has a different definition, or ‘form’ of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the Federal 8 -hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8 -hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM 2.5 standard is met if the three -year average of the annual average PM 2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard. Table 8 lists the attainment status for the criteria pollutants in the basin.

Table 8 Coachella Valley Portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant Averaging Time National
Standards1 Attainment Date2 California Standards2
1979
1-Hour Ozone3
1-Hour
(0.12 ppm) Attainment 11/15/2007
(Attained 12/31/2013) Nonattainment
1-Hour (0.09 ppm) - - Nonattainment
2015
8-Hour Ozone4
8-Hour
(0.070 ppm)
Pending - Expect
Nonattainment
(Severe)
Pending Nonattainment
2008
8-Hour Ozone4
8-Hour
(0.075 ppm)
Nonattainment
(Severe-15) 7/20/2027 -
1997
8-Hour Ozone4
8-Hour
(0.08 ppm)
Nonattainment
(Severe-15) 6/15/2019 -
CO
1-Hour (20 ppm)
8-hour (9.0 ppm) - - Attainment
1-Hour (35 ppm)
8-Hour (9 ppm)
Unclassifiable/
Attainment N/A (attained) -
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 32

Pollutant Averaging Time National
Standards1 Attainment Date2 California Standards2
NO27
1-hour (0.18 ppm) Annual
(0.03 ppm) - - Attainment
1-Hour (100 ppb)
Annual (0.053 ppm)
Unclassifiable/
Attainment N/A (attained) -
SO28
1-Hour (0.25 ppm)
24-Hour (0.04 ppm) - - Attainment
1-Hour (75 ppb) Designations Pending N/A
- 24-Hour (0.14 ppm)
Annual (0.03 ppm)
Unclassifiable/
Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
PM106
24-Hour (50 µg/m3) Annual
(20 50 µg/m3) - - Nonattainment
24-Hour
(150 µg/m3)
Nonattainment
(Serious) 12/31/2006 -
PM2.55
Annual (12.0 µg/m3) - - Attainment
24-Hour (35 µg/m3) Unclassifiable/
Attainment N/A (attained) -
Lead 3-Months Rolling
(0.15 µg/m3)
Unclassifiable/
Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment
Notes:
1 Obtained from 2016 AQMP, SCAQMD, 2016. EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclassified/Attainment or Unclassifiable.
2 A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog season prior to the attainment date is typically requir ed for attainment demonstration.
3 The 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective 6/15/05; the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management area, including the Coachella Valley, had not timely attained this standard by the 11/15/07 “severe -17” deadline, based on 2005-2007 data; on 8/25/14, U.S. EPA proposed a clean data finding based on 2011 -2013 data and a determination of attainment for the form er 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the Southeast Desert nonattainment area; this rule was finalized by U.S. EPA on 4/15/15, effective 5/15/15, and included preliminary 2014 data 4 The 2008 8 -hour ozone NAAQS (0.075 ppm) was revised to 0.070 ppm, effective 12/28/15 with classifications and implementation goals to be finalized by 10/1/17; the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.08 ppm) was revoked in the 2008 ozone NAAQS implementation rule, effective 4/6/15; there are continuing obligations under the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS until they are attained 5 The annual PM2.5 standard was revised on 1/15/13, effective 3/18/13, from 15 to 12 µg/m3 6 The annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective 12/18/06; the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS attainment deadline was 12/31/2006; the Coachella Valley Attainment Re-designation Request and PM10 Maintenance Plan was postponed by U.S. EPA pending additional monitoring a nd analysis in the southeastern Coachella Valley
7 New 1-hour NO2 NAAQS became effective 8/2/10; attainment designations 1/20/12; annual NO2 NAAQS retained 8 The 1971 Annual and 24 -hour SO2 NAAQS were revoked, effective 8/23/10; however, these 1971 standards will remain in effect until one year after U.S. EPA promulgates area designations for the 2010 SO2 1-hour standard; final area designations expected by 12/31/2020 with SSAB expected to be designated Unclassifiable/Attainment.

Table 5 Coachella Valley Portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin Attainment Status, Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024.

Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
Construction
Typical emission rates from construction activities were obtained from CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.21 CalEEMod is a computer model published by the SCAQMD for estimating air pollutant emissions. The CalEEMod program uses the EMFAC2017 computer program to calculate the emission rates specific for the southwestern portion of Riverside County for construction -related employee vehicle trips and the OFFROAD2011 computer program to calculate emission rates for heavy truck operations. EMFAC2017 and OFFROAD2011 are computer programs generated by CARB that calculates composite emission rates for vehicles. Emission rates are reported by the program in grams per trip and grams per mile or grams per running hour. Using CalEEMod, the peak daily air pollutant emissions were calculated and presented below. These emissions represent the highest level of emissions for each of the construction phases in terms of air pollutant emissions.

The analysis assesses the emissions associated with the construction of the proposed project. The project was analyzed to be operational in 2025 . Therefore, construction is estimated to start no sooner than 2024. The 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 33

phases of the construction activities which have been analyzed below are: 1) site preparation, 2) grading, 3) building, 4) paving, and 5) architectural coating. For details on construction modeling and construction equipment for each phase, please see Appendix A of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study done for the project by MD Acoustics. The project will be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for the reduction of fugitive dust emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 establishes these procedures. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard best management practices in construction and operation activities, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, managing haul road dust by application of water, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent, stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. In addition, projects that disturb 50 acres or more of soil or move 5,000 cubic yards of materials per day are required to submit a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or a Large Operation Notification Form to SCAQMD. Based on the size of the project area (approximately 7 acres) and the fact that the project won’t export more than 5,000 cubic yards of material a day a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or Large Operation Notification would not be required.

SCAQMD’s Rule 403 minimum requirements require that the application of the best available dust control measures are used for all grading operations and include the application of water or other soil stabilizers in sufficient quantity to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes. Compliance with Rule 403 would require the use of water trucks during all phases where earth -moving operations would occur. Compliance with Rule 403 is required.

Operations
Operational or long -term emissions will occur over the life of the project. Both mobile and area sources generate operational emissions. Area source emissions arise from consumer product usage, heaters that consume natural gas, gasoline -powered landscape equipment, and architectural coatings (painting). Mobile source emissions from motor vehicles are the largest single long -term source of air po llutants from the operation of the project. Small amounts of emissions would also occur from area sources such as the consumption of natural gas for heating, hearths, from landscaping emissions, and consumer product usage.

The operational emissions were estimated using the latest version of CalEEMod. Mobile Sources Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle miles generated from the proposed project. The vehicle trips associated with the proposed project are based upon the trip generation rates given in the Traffic Scoping Agreement (Integrated Engineering Group, 2023) which uses the ITE 10th Trip Generation Manual.

The program then applies the emission factors for each trip which is provided by the EMFAC2017 model to determine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions. The CalEEMod default trip lengths were used in this analysis. For details, please see CalEEMod output comments in Appendix A of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study done for the project by MD Acoustic.

Area Sources
Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural coatings.

Landscape maintenance includes fuel combustion emissions from equipment such as lawn mowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, a nd hedge trimmers, as well as air compressors, generators, and pumps. As specifics were not known about the landscaping equipment fleet, CalEEMod defaults were used to estimate emissions from landscaping equipment. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 34

Per SCAQMD Rule 1113 as amended on June 3, 2011, the architectural coatings that would be applied after January 1, 2014 will be limited to an average of 50 grams per liter or less for buildings and 100 grams per liter or less for parking lot striping; however, no changes were made to the CalEEMod architectural coating default values.

Energy Usage
2022.1.1.21 CalEEMod defaults were utilized.

Localized Construction Analysis
The SCAQMD has published a “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds” (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2011b). CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment.

In order to compare CalEEMod reported emissions against the localized significance threshold lookup tables, the CEQA document should contain in its project design features or its mitigation measure s the following parameters:

1. The off -road equipment list (including type of equipment, horsepower, and hours of operation) assumed for the day of construction activity with maximum emissions.

2. The maximum number of acres disturbed on the peak day.

3. Any emission control devices added onto off-road equipment.

4. Specific dust suppression techniques used on the day of construction activity with maximum emissions.

The construction equipment showing the equipment associated with the maximum area of disturbance is shown in Table 9.

Table 9 Construction Equipment Assumptions1
Activity Equipment Number Acres/8hr-day Total Acres
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 2 0.5 1.0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 0.5 1.0
Total Per Phase 2.0
Grading
Graders 1 0.5 0.5
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 0.5
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 0.5 1.5
Total Per Phase 2.5
Notes:

1. Source: CalEEMod output and South Coast AQMD, Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=2 Table 7 Construction Equipment Assumptions, Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024.

As shown in Table 9, the maximum number of acres disturbed in a day would be 2.5 acres during grading.

The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Localized Significant Threshold Tables and the methodology described in Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, prepared by SCAQMD, revised July 2008. The emission thresholds were based on the Coachella Valley source 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 35

receptor area (SRA 30) and a disturbance of 2.5 acres per day at a distance of 25 meters (82 feet). As there is no threshold for a 2.5-acre disturbance, interpolation can be used between the 2-acre and 5-acre thresholds.

Localized Operational Analysis
For operational emissions, the screening tables for a disturbance area of 2.5 acres per day and a distance of 25 meters were used to determine significance. The tables were compared to the project’s onsite operational emissions.

Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
CEQA Guidelines for Air Quality
The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine if a project would have a significant impact on air quality, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the project must be evaluated.

The following air quality significance thresholds are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A significant impact would occur if the project would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard; Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration . Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

While the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the Lead Agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, SCAQMD recommends that its quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. If the Lead Agency finds that the project has the potential to exceed these air polluti on thresholds, the project should be considered to have significant air quality impacts. There are daily emission thresholds for construction and operation of a proposed project in the basin.

Regional Significance Thresholds for Construction Emissions The following CEQA significance thresholds for construction emissions are established for the Basin:
• 75 pounds per day (lbs/day) of VOC
• 100 lbs/day of NOx
• 550 lbs/day of CO
• 150 lbs/day of PM10
• 55 lbs/day of PM2.5
• 150 lbs/day of SO2
Projects in the basin with construction -related emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds are considered to be significant under SCAQMD guidelines.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 36

Regional Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions The daily operational emissions significance thresholds for the basin are as follows:
• 55 pounds per day (lbs/day) of VOC
• 55 lbs/day of NOx
• 550 lbs/day of CO
• 150 lbs/day of PM10
• 55 lbs/day of PM2.5
• 150 lbs/day of SO

Local Microscale Concentration Standards The significance of localized project impacts under CEQA depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State and federal CO standards.

If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a si gnificant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, project emissions are considered significant if they inc rease 1-hour CO concentrations by

1.0 ppm or more or 8-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. The following are applicable local emission concentration standards for CO:
• California State 1-hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm
• California State 8-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm
Thresholds for Localized Significance
Project-related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Salton S ea Air Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project -related air emissions in the project vicinity. The SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), June 2003, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The Localized Significant Threshold Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

The emission thresholds were calculated based on the Coachella Valley source receptor area (SRA 30) and a disturbance of 4 acres per day at a distance of 25 meters (82 feet), for construction and 4 acres a day for screening of localized operational emissions. The 4 -acre thresholds are interpolated from the 2 -acre and 5 - acre thresholds.

The threshold for toxic air contaminants (TACs) has a maximum incremental cancer risk of 10 per million and a non-cancer (acute and chronic) hazard index of 1.0 or greater. An exceedance to these values would be considered a significant impact.
a) Less than Significant Impact - Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

The regional plan that applies to the proposed Project includes the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). A proposed Project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 37

policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:

• Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. • Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2016 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

This air quality analysis finds that neither short -term construction emissions nor long -term operational emissions would exceed any regional or local thresholds. The Project would also be consistent with the land use classification of Planned Community Commercial from the City of Cathedral City General Plan, which defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur.

The Uptown Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan; SP) is a policy document and will be amended to create Planning Unit Four (4) with an area of 7.16 acres from Planning Unit One leaving it with an area of 2.11 acres.

However, the proposed SP amendment would be a policy level document that also would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. There would be no impact. In accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mit igated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. The Project does not exceed any of the thresholds of significance and therefore is considered less than significant.

b) Less than Significant Impact - Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standards; Construction Air Quality Emissions Impact
The latest version of CalEEMod was used to estimate the onsite and offsite construction emissions. The emissions incorporate Rule 402 and 403. Rule 402 and 403 (fugitive dust) are not considered mitigation measures as the project by default is required to incorporate these rules during construction.

Regional Construction Emissions
The construction emissions for either Scenario of the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s daily emission thresholds at the regional level as demonstrated in Table 10, and therefore would be considered less than significant.

Table 10 Regional Significance – Unmitigated Construction Emissions (pounds/day)

Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Scenario 1
Site Preparation
On-Site2 2.35 23.20 20.70 0.03 6.14 3.58
Off-Site3 0.06 0.06 1.03 0.00 0.13 0.03
Total 2.41 23.26 21.73 0.03 6.27 3.61
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 38

Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Grading
On-Site2 1.90 18.20 18.80 0.03 3.61 2.11
Off-Site3 0.12 2.54 2.10 0.01 0.81 0.19
Total 2.02 20.74 20.90 0.04 4.42 2.30
Building Construction
On-Site2 1.20 11.20 13.10 0.02 0.50 0.45
Off-Site3 0.33 1.08 6.02 0.01 0.92 0.22
Total 1.53 12.28 19.12 0.03 1.42 0.67
Paving
On-Site2 1.43 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 0.32
Off-Site3 0.08 0.08 1.43 0.00 0.20 0.05
Total 1.51 7.53 11.41 0.01 0.55 0.37
Architectural Coating
On-Site2 56.33 0.88 1.14 0.00 0.03 0.03
Off-Site3 0.06 0.06 1.05 0.00 0.14 0.03
Total 56.39 0.94 2.19 0.00 0.17 0.06
Total of overlapping phases4 59.43 20.75 32.72 0.04 2.14 1.10 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No
Scenario 2
Site Preparation
On-Site2 2.35 23.20 20.70 0.03 6.14 3.58
Off-Site3 0.06 0.06 1.03 0.00 0.13 0.03
Total 2.41 23.26 21.73 0.03 6.27 3.61
Grading
On-Site2 1.90 18.20 18.80 0.03 3.61 2.11
Off-Site3 0.12 2.54 2.10 0.01 0.81 0.19
Total 2.02 20.74 20.90 0.04 4.42 2.30
Building Construction
On-Site2 1.20 11.20 13.10 0.02 0.50 0.45
Off-Site3 0.40 0.61 7.24 0.01 1.11 0.28
Total 1.60 11.81 20.34 0.03 1.61 0.73
Paving
On-Site2 1.43 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 0.32
Off-Site3 0.08 0.08 1.43 0.00 0.20 0.05
Total 1.51 7.53 11.41 0.01 0.55 0.37
Architectural Coating
On-Site2 56.33 0.88 1.14 0.00 0.03 0.03
Off-Site3 0.07 0.07 1.26 0.00 0.17 0.04
Total 56.40 0.95 2.40 0.00 0.20 0.07
Total of overlapping phases4 59.51 20.29 34.15 0.04 2.36 1.17 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1) 0.08 0.00 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.21
2 On-site emissions from equipment operated on-site that is not operated on public roads. 3 Off-site emissions from equipment operated on public roads. 4 Construction, architectural coatings and paving phases may overlap. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 39

Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Table 8 Regional Significance – Unmitigated Construction Emissions (pounds/day) , Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024.

Regional Operational Emissions
The operations-related criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through the use of CalEEMod model. The operating emissions were based on year 2025, which is the anticipated opening year for the project per the Traffic Scoping Agreement (Integrated Engineering Group). The summer and winter emissions created by the proposed project’s long-term operations were calculated and the highest emissions from either summer or winter are summarized in Table 11. Regional Significan ce - Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day)
Table 11 Regional Significance-Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day)

Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Scenario 1
Area Sources2 4.17 0.05 5.79 0.00 0.01 0.01
Energy Usage3 0.20 3.67 3.08 0.02 0.28 0.28
Mobile Sources4 6.70 6.00 53.50 0.12 9.34 2.42
Total Emissions 11.07 9.72 62.37 0.14 9.63 2.71
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Scenario 2
Area Sources2 5.31 0.06 7.38 0.00 0.01 0.01
Energy Usage3 0.04 0.68 0.57 0.00 0.05 0.05
Mobile Sources4 14.00 12.50 112.00 0.24 19.50 5.06
Total Emissions 19.35 13.24 119.95 0.24 19.56 5.12
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Difference (Scenario 2 -
Scenario 1) 8.28 3.52 57.58 0.10 9.93 2.41
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.21
2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from on-site natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.

Table 10 Regional Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day) , Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024.

Table 11 provides the project's unmitigated operational emissions. Table 11 shows that the project does not exceed the SCAQMD daily emission threshold and regional operational emissions are considered to be less than significant for both scenarios.

c) Less than Significant Impact - Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 40

Construction-Related Human Health Impacts
Regarding health effects related to criteria pollutant emissions, the applicable significance thresholds are established for regional compliance with the state and federal ambient air quality standards, which are intended to protect public health from both acute and long-term health impacts, depending on the potential effects of the pollutant. Because regional and local emissions of criteria pollutants during construction of the project would be below the applicable thresholds, it would not contribute to long-term health impacts related to nonattainment of the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, significant adverse acute health impacts as a result of project construction are not anticipated.

Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impact
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed project. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued the Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines and Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015 to provide a description of the algorithms, recommended exposure variates, cancer and noncancer health values, and the air modeling protocols needed to perform a health risk assessment (HRA) under the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Hazard identification includes identifying all substances that are evaluated for cancer risk and/or non-cancer acute, 8-hour, and chronic health impacts. In addition, identifying any multi -pathway substances that present a cancer risk or chronic non -cancer hazard via non -inhalation routes of exposure.

Given the relatively limited number of heavy -duty construction equipment and construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long -term substantial source of toxic air containment emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. Further more, construction -based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions) do not exceed any local or regional thresholds. Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project.

Operations-Related Human Health Impacts
As stated previously, regarding health effects related to criteria pollutant emissions, the applicable significance thresholds are established for regional compliance with the state and federal ambient air quality standards, which are intended to protect public health from both acute and long-term health impacts, depending on the potential effects of the pollutant. Because regional and local emissions of criteria pollutants during operation of the project would be below the applicable thresholds, it would n ot contribute to long-term health impacts related to nonattainment of the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, less than significant adverse acute health impacts as a result of project operation are anticipated.

The Project would not exceed construction or operational localized emissions thresholds set by the SCAQMD and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial localized emissions thresholds or odors, and therefore have a less than significant impact on sensitive receptors. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 41

Construction
Localized Construction Emissions
The data provided in Table 12 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors in either scenario. Therefore, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project.

Table 12 Localized Significance – Construction
Phase
On-Site P Emissions (pounds/day)1
Nox CO PM10 PM2.5
Scenario 1
Site Preparation 25.60 22.40 6.27 3.70
Grading 20.00 19.70 3.71 2.21
Building Construction 11.80 13.20 0.55 0.51
Paving 7.81 10.00 0.39 0.36
Architectural Coating 0.91 1.15 0.03 0.03
Total of overlapping phases 20.52 24.35 0.97 0.90
SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet) or less2 209.83 1,464.50 8.17 3.83 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Scenario 2
Site Preparation 25.60 22.40 6.27 3.70
Grading 20.00 19.70 3.71 2.21
Building Construction 11.80 13.20 0.55 0.51
Paving 7.81 10.00 0.39 0.36
Architectural Coating 0.91 1.15 0.03 0.03
Total of overlapping phases 20.52 24.35 0.97 0.90
SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet) or less2 209.83 1,464.50 8.17 3.83 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Difference (Scenario 2 – Scenario 1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Notes:

Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look -up Tables for 2.5 acres in Coachella Valley Source Receptor Area (SRA 30).

Project will disturb a maximum of 2.5 acres per day (see Table 7). 2 The nearest sensitive receptor is located 15 meters to the east; therefore, the 25-meter threshold has been used.

Table 9 Localized Significance - Construction, Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 42

Operations
Localized Operational Emissions
Table 13 shows the calculated emissions for the proposed operational activities compared with appropriate LSTs. The LST analysis only includes on-site sources; however, the CalEEMod software outputs do not separate on-site and off-site emissions for mobile sources. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 13 include all on -site project-related stationary sources and 10% of the project -related new mobile sources.1 This percentage is an estimate of the amount of project-related new vehicle traffic that will occur on- site.

Table 13 Localized Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions

Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
VOC Nox CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Scenario 1
Area Sources2 4.17 0.05 5.79 0.00 0.01 0.01
Energy Usage3 0.20 3.67 3.08 0.02 0.28 0.28
Mobile Sources4 6.70 6.00 53.50 0.12 9.34 2.42
Total Emissions 11.07 9.72 62.37 0.14 9.63 2.71
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Scenario 2
Area Sources2 5.31 0.06 7.38 0.00 0.01 0.01
Energy Usage3 0.04 0.68 0.57 0.00 0.05 0.05
Mobile Sources4 14.00 12.50 112.00 0.24 19.50 5.06
Total Emissions 19.35 13.24 119.95 0.24 19.56 5.12
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Difference (Scenario 2 – Scenario 1) 8.28 3.52 57.58 0.10 9.93 2.41 Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.21
2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from on-site natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.

Table 11 Localized Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions, Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024.

Table 13 indicates that the local operational emission would not exceed the LST thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors, located adjacent to the project. Therefore, the project will result in less than significant Localized Operational emissions.

CO Hot Spot Emissions
CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles.

For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway

1 The project site is approximately 0.2 miles in length at its longest point; therefore the on-site mobile source emissions represent approximately 1/34th of the shortest CalEEMod default distance of 6.9 miles. Therefore, to be conservative, 1/10th the distance (dividing the mobi le source emissions by 10) was used to represent the portion of the overall mobile source emissions that would occur on-site. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 43

network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the State and Federal CO standards.

To determine if the proposed project could cause emission levels in excess of the CO standards, a sensitivity analysis is typically conducted to determine the potential for CO “hot spots” at a number of intersections in the general project vicinity. Because of reduced speeds and vehicle queuing, “hot spots” potentially can occur at high traffic volume intersections with a Level of Service E or worse.

Micro-scale air quality emissions have traditionally been analyzed in environmental documents where the air basin was a non -attainment area for CO. However, the SCAQMD has demonstrated in the CO attainment redesignation request to EPA that there are no “hot spots” anywhere in the air basin, even at intersections with much higher volumes, much worse congestion, and much higher background CO levels than anywhere in Riverside County. If the worst-case intersections in the air basin have no “hot spot” potential, any local impacts will be below thresholds.

Traffic analysis from Integrated Engineering Group (2023) showed that the project would generate 1,500 average daily trips. The 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan) showed that an intersection which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day would not violate the CO standard. The volume of traffic at project buildout would be well below 100,000 vehicles and below the necessary volume to even get close to causing a violation of the CO standard. Therefore, no CO “hot spot” modeling was performed and less than significant long-term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality with the on-going use of the proposed project.

Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area. However, as with most developments, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which travel well out of the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered, would cover an even larger area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the project’s air quality must be generic by nature.

The project area is out of attainment for both ozone and PM10 particulate matter. Construction and operation of cumulative projects will further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the Salton Sea Air Basin. The greatest cumulative impact on the qua lity of regional air cell will be the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and industrial development and the use of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the construction of t hese projects. Air quality will be temporarily degraded during construction activities that occur separately or simultaneously. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria l evels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. The project does not exceed any of the thresholds of significance and therefore is considered less than significant.

The Uptown Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan; SP) is a policy document and will be amended to create Planning Unit Four with an area of 7.16 acres from Planning Unit One leaving it with an area of 2.11 acres. Therefore, the proposed SP amendment also would not, in itself, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, there would be no impact.
d) Less than Significant Impact - Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 44

Odors
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials such as asphalt pavement. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process are short- term in nature and the odor emissions are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor producing materials. Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during construction of the project, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project si te and therefore should not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors. Due to the short -term nature and limited amounts of odor producing materials being utilized, no significant impact related to odors would occur during construction of the proposed project.

The SCAQMD recommends that odor impacts be addressed in a qualitative manner. Such an analysis shall determine whether the project would result in excessive nuisance odors, as defined under the California Code of Regulations and Section 41700 of the California Health and Safety Code, and thus would constitute a public nuisance related to air quality.

Potential sources that may emit odors during the on -going operations of the proposed project would include odor emissions from vehicle emissions. Due to the distance of the nearest receptors from the project site and through compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 4 02 no significant impact related to odors would occur during the on-going operations of the proposed project.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 45

4.4 Biological Resources

4.4.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and W ildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two -phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate -controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading area and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate -controlled self -storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 46

4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include parking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part-time employees. The Project would also require an amendment to the City’s Uptown Village Specific Plan (SP 96-54) to create a new planning area.

A habitat assessment and Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Consistency Analysis for the proposed was completed by ELMT Consulting Inc. in January 2023 (Appendix B, Habitat Assessment CVMSHCP Project Consistency Analysis; 2023). ELMT Consulting Inc. biologist Jacob H. Lloyd Davies conducted a field survey and evaluated the condition of the habitat within the proposed Project on September 20, 2022 (Habitat Assessment CVMSHCP Consistency Analysis; 2022 ). It was determined th at the proposed Project site is within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP area, but is not located within any Conservation areas, Preserves, Cores, or Linkages and is not located within a federally designated Critical Habitat by United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS). The closest designated Critical Habitat to the site is located approximately

2.3 miles southwest for Casey’s June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi). Therefore, the loss or adverse modification of Critical Habitat will not occur as a result of the proposed Project and consultation with the USFWS will not be required for implementation of the proposed Project.

No special-status plants were observed on the proposed Project site during the field investigation . Based on habitat requirements for specific species, the availability and quality of on -site habitats, and isolation of the site, it was determined that the site has a low potential to support chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita), Coachella Valley milk -vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae), pointed dodder (Cuscuta californica var. apiculate), Arizona spurge (Euphorbia arizonica), flat-seeded spurge (Euphorbia platysperma), ribbed cryptantha (Johnstonella costata ), and winged cryptantha (Johnstonella holoptera ). It was further determined that the remaining special-status wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the site do not have potential to occur and are presumed to be absent.

Of the aforementioned special -status plant species, Coachella Valley milk -vetch is federally listed as endangered and is listed as a covered species under the CVMSHCP. None of the other species are federally or state listed as endangered or threatened. Consistency Analysis: “Coachella Valley milk-vetch was determined to have a low potential to occur on -site. Since Coachella Valley milk -vetch is a covered species under the CVMSHCP, no further surveys or additional mitigation measures will be required for impacts to this species, if present.

Burrowing Owls
The burrowing owl is currently listed as a California Species of Special Concern. It is a grassland specialist distributed throughout western North America where it occupies open areas with short vegetation and bare ground within shrub, desert, and grassland environments. Burrowing owls use a wide variety of arid and semi- arid environments with well-drained, level to gently-sloping areas characterized by sparse vegetation and bare ground (Haug and Didiuk 1993; Dechant et al. 1999). Burrowing owls are depend ent upon the presence of burrowing mammals (such as ground squirrels) whose burrows are used for roosting and nesting (Haug and Didiuk 1993). The presence or absence of colonial mammal burrows is often a major factor that limits the presence or absence of burrowing owls. Where mammal burrows are scarce, burrowing owls have been found occupying man-made cavities, such as buried and non -functioning drainpipes, stand -pipes, and dry culverts.

Burrowing mammals may burrow beneath rocks and debris or large, heavy objects such as abandoned cars, concrete blocks, or concrete pads. They also require open vegetation allowing line-of-sight observation of the surrounding habitat to forage as well as watch for predators.

4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 47

Despite a systematic search of the project site, no burrowing owls or sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) were observed during the field investigation. Several small mammal burrows that have the potential to provide suitable burrowing ow l nesting habitat (>4 inches in diameter) were observed within the boundaries of the site. Based on this information, and as a result of current and historic on -site disturbances, and surrounding development, it was determined that burrowing owls do not have potential to occur, and no focused surveys are recommended.

Special-Status Wildlife Species
No special-status species were observed onsite. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site habitats, it was determined that the proposed Project site has a high potential to support burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) , Costa ’s hummingbird (Calypte costae ), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus); and a low potential to support Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) , sharp -shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) , northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax) , pallid San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax pallidus) , desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelson), Cathedral City pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris bangsi), black-tailed gnatcatcher (Poloptila melanura), Le Conte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei), and Cathedral City round-tailed ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus treticaudus). It was further determined that all of the other special-status wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the site do not have potential to occur on-site and all are presumed absent.

The only special-status wildlife species observed during the field investigation was Costa’s hummingbird. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on -site habitats, it was determined that the project site has a low potential to support prairie falcon, loggerhead shrike, and Coachella giant sand treader cricket. It was further determined that all the other special-status wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the site do not have potential to occur and are presumed to be absent.

None of the aforementioned special -status wildlife species are federally or state listed as endangered or threatened and Costa’s hummingbird and Coachella giant sand treader cricket are covered under the CVMSHCP. Prairie falcon is only expected to occur on-site during foraging, as no suitable nesting opportunities for prairie falcon are present within or near the project site. Limited nesting habitat for Costa’s hummingbird and loggerhead shrike are present . Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migra tory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre -construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction.

In order to ensure impacts to special -status avian species do not occur from implementation of the proposed project, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -1, impacts to special -status avian species would be less than significant.

MM BIO-1: Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.3, 3511, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests o r eggs). In order to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds during the nesting season. Consequently, if avian nesting be haviors are disrupted, such as nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort, it is considered “take” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 48

clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction.

The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre - construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer. The size of the no-disturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity , type and duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers.

These factors will be evaluated on a case -by-case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor should be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur.

The Uptown Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan; SP) will be amended to remove the subject property from the Specific Plan and reduce the study area from 17.28 acres to 10.12 acres leaving 2.11 acres in commercial, 5.81 acres in multiple family residential, and 2.34 acres in single family residential as described in the project description. However, as a policy level document the proposed SP amendment would be a policy level document that would not, in itself, impact special status plant or wildlife species. There would be no impact. b) No Impact. There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) Regulatory Branch regulates discharge of dredge or fill materials into “waters of the United States” pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates alterations to streambed and bank under CDFW Code Sections 1600 et seq., and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates discharges into surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on or near the project site during the field investigation. Furthermore, no blueline streams have been recorded on the project site. Therefore, development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts to wetlands and inland streams; jurisdiction and regulatory approvals will not be required.

No sensitive habitats were identified within the site. Thus, no sensitive natural communities will be impacted from the proposed Project implementation.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not 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 CDFW or the USFWS. There would be no impact.

The Uptown Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan; SP) is a policy document and will be amended to create Planning Unit Four with an area of 7.16 acres from Planning Unit One leaving it with an area of 2.11 acres. However, as a policy level document that would not, in itself, impact wetlands, inland streams and riparian areas; no wetlands, inland streams and riparian areas are on the proposed Project site. There would be no impact. c) No Impact. No inundated areas, wetland features, or wetland plant species that would be considered wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act occur within the proposed Project area. As a result, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any impacts or have substantial adverse effects 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 49

on federally protected wetlands. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. There would be no impact.

The Uptown Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan; SP) is a policy document and will be amended to create Planning Unit Four with an area of 7.16 acres from Planning Unit One leaving it with an area of 2.11 acres. However, as a policy level document that would not, in itself, impact state or federally protected wetlands. In addition, no state or federally protected wetlands have been identified on the proposed Project site and therefore there would be no impact.
d) No Impact. Habitat linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas separated by development.

Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. Wildlife corridors are features that allow for the dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging of a variety of wildlife species. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width that allows for animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a habitat corridor to be adequate for one species yet still inadequate for others. Additionally, open space can provide a buffer against both human disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources.

The proposed Project site has not been identified as occurring in a wildlife corridor or linkage. The nearest open space to the site as mapped by the CVMSHCP, is the Willow Hole Conservation area, which occurs over approximately one and a half (1.77) miles to the northeast. In addition, there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within or connecting the site to a recognized wildlife corridor or linkage. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not impact wildlife movement opportunities. Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. There would be no impact.

The Uptown Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan; SP) is a policy document and will be amended to create Planning Unit Four with an area of 7.16 acres from Planning Unit One leaving it with an area of 2.11 acres. However, as a policy level document that would not, in itself, interfere with the movement of any native or migratory fish or wildlife species, impact any established wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

In addition, there are no wildlife corr idors or wildlife nursery sites on the Project site. There would be no impact.
e) No Impact. There are no local policies or ordinances that pertain to the proposed Project except for the City’s Design Guidelines (Amended May 19, 1997) . These guidelines contain requirements for the maintenance, installation and, and removal of street trees which must be done under the auspices of the City Engineer who would approve any pruning, removal, or trimming. Since these rules already exist there is no need for any further mitigation measures , Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; there would be no impact and no further action is needed.

The Uptown Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan; SP) is a policy document and will be amended to create Planning Unit Four with an area of 7.16 acres from Planning Unit One leaving it with an area of 2.11 acres. The proposed amendment would not amend any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. There would be no impact.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 50

f) No Impact. The project site is located within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP area, but is not located within any Conservation areas, Preserves, Cores, or Linkage areas. Although the proposed project is not listed as a planned “Covered Activity” under the published CVMSHCP, is still considered to be a current Covered Activity pursuant to Section 7.1 of the CVMSHCP. As a Covered Activity located outside designated conservation areas, construction of the proposed project is expected to be consistent with the applicable avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures described in Section 4.4 of the CVMSHCP. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan and there would be no impact.

Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will result in a Less than Significant Impact.

MM BIO-1: Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.3, 3511, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests o r eggs). In order to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds during the nesting season. Consequently, if avian nesting be haviors are disrupted, such as nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort, it is considered “take” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction.

The biologist con ducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre - construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer. The size of the no-disturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type a nd duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers.

4.5 Cultural Resources

4.5.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?

A Cultural Resources Inventory was conducted by PaleoWest, LLC (PaleoWest) in August 2023 to develop a Phase I cultural resource assessment for the proposed Project (Appendix C).

Ethnohistoric Setting
The Cahuilla Indians, who were the main tribal component of this area, belong to nonpolitical, nonterritorial patrimoieties that governed marriage patterns, as well as patrilineal clans and lineages. Each clan, “political - ritual-corporate areas” composed of three to 10 lineages, owned a large territory in which each lineage owned a village site with specific resource areas. Clans were apt to own land in the valley, foothill, and mountain areas, providing them with the resources of many different ecological niches.

In prehistoric times Cahuilla shelters are believed to have been dome shaped; after contact, they tended to be rectangular in shape. Cahuilla shelters were often made of brush, palm fronds, or arrow weed. Most of the Cahuilla domestic activities were performed outside the shelters within the shade of large, expansive ramadas.

The Cahuilla were, for the most part, hunting, collecting, harvesting, and proto agricultural peoples. As in most of California, acorns were a major staple, but the roots, leaves, seeds, and fruit of many other plants also were used. Fish, birds, insects, and large and small mammals were also available. The Cahuilla had an extensive inventory of equipment, including bows and arrows, traps, nets, disguises, blinds, spears, hooks and lines, poles for shaking down pine nuts and acorns, cactus pickers, seed beaters, digging sticks and weights, and pry bars.

In addition, the Cahuilla also had an extensive inventory of food processing equipment, including hammers and anvils, mortars and pestles, manos and metates, winnowing shells and baskets, strainers, leaching baskets and bowls, knives (made of stone, bone, wood, and Carrizo cane), bone saws, and drying racks made of wooden poles to dry fish.

Mountain tops, unusual rock formations, springs, and streams are held sacred to the Cahuilla, as are rock art sites and burial and cremation sites. Additionally, various birds are revered as sacred beings of great power and were sometimes killed ritually and mourned in mortuary ceremonies similar to those for important individuals. As such, bird cremation sites are considered sacred by the Cahuilla.

Historic Setting
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 52

Native American occupation of the Colorado Desert is typically divided into six cultural periods: Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,500–9500 years B.P.); Early Archaic (ca. 9500 –7000 B.P.); Middle Archaic (ca. 7000 –4000 B.P.); Late Archaic (ca. 4000–1500 B.P); Saratoga Springs (ca. 1500–750 B.P.); and the Late Prehistoric (ca. 750 –410 B.P.). These cultural periods exclude the controversial “Early Man” pre-projectile point materials from Calico.

Historical research into these periods reveal that that early occupants of Southern California are believed to have been nomadic large -game hunters who utilized various tools to procure, hunt and kill their food resources. While some tribes were nomadic, s ome sites contain evidence of fairly sedentary residential occupations and evidence that site reuse was anticipated, suggesting a predictable availability of water and other critical resources. As the cultural periods developed, most of the tools utilized remained the same although new tools were added, either as innovations or as “borrowed” cultural items, grinding tools, arrow points, fish traps and other hunting and gathering implements.

a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5 A cultural resource records search and literature review was conducted by PaleoWest at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS) on July 6, 2023. The records search indicated that no fewer than 13 previous studies have been conducted within 1 mile (mi) of the Project area. These studies ha ve resulted in the documentation of four cultural resources within 1 mile of the Project area, all of which are historic period isolated finds composed of sanitary cans. None of these previously documented resources are mapped within the Project area. The Study found that there were no historic structures on site the with the exception of sanitary cans. Using Section 15064.5 (a)(3) which lists the criterion for a historic structure as a basis the structure or property would have to fall into three categories such as the following from the CEQA Statute:
“Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code, § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
(B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” PaleoWest determined that there were no historic built-environment resources were identified in the Project area during the survey, impacts to historical resources will be less than significant. b-c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. On July 6, 2023, a literature review and records search were conducted by PaleoWest, at the EIC, housed at the University of California, Riverside. This inventory effort included the Project area and a 1-mi radius around the Project area, collectively termed the Project study area.

The objective of this records search was to identify prehistoric or historical cultural resources that have been previously recorded within the study area during prior cultural resource investigations. As part of the cultural resources inventory, PaleoWest staff also examined historical maps and aerial images t o characterize the developmental history of the Project. The records search results indicate that no fewer than 13 previous investigations have been conducted and documented within the Project study area since 1977 (Table 14). None of the studies encompassed any portion of the Project area. As such, it appears that none of the Project area has been previously inventoried for cultural resources. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 53

Table 14 Previous Cultural Investigations within the Project Study Area Report No. Year Author(s) Title
RI-00181 1978 Jennifer Taschek-Ball San Diego State University Foundation, San Diego State
University.

RI-00284 1977 Richard A. Weaver Cultural Resource Identification-Sundesert Nuclear Project.

RI-01129 1979 Stanley R. Berryman and
Mary Lou Heuett
Final Report: Results of the Palm Springs Archaeological Survey
Section 10, Township 4 South, Range 5 East.

RI-02210 1986 J. Underwood, J. Cleland,
C.M. Wood, and R. Apple
Preliminary Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Us Telecom Fiber Optic Cable Project, From San Timoteo
Canyon
to Socorro, Texas: The California Segment.

RI-02719

1990

Robert S. White
An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract 25550, A 70 Acre Parcel Located Adjacent to Da Vall Drive Between Cathedral City and Rancho Mirage, Riverside
County,
California.

RI-05563 2003 Greig Parker and
Christopher Drover
Archaeological Survey for Cathedral City Heritage Park
L.P.

Parcel No. 670-110-034, Cathedral City, California.

RI-05950

2003
Michael Hogan, Bai “Tom”
Tang, Josh Smallwood,
Laura
Hensley Shaker, and
Daniel Ballester
Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties, APNs 673- 020-006, 673-030-004, 673-030-021, and 673-030-022, Dinah
Shore Drive and Da Valle Drive, City of Cathedral City, Riverside County, California.

RI-06293 2004 Bai Tang, Michael Hogan, and
Matthew Wetherbee
Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties,
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 670-060-017, and -025,
Cathedral City,
Riverside County, California.

RI-07758 2008 Bai “Tom” Tang Historic and Archaeological Property Survey Report (District:
08, RIV-CTH/ PLHL, PM 5430, EA: Ramon Road).

RI-09172 2014 Bai “Tom” Tang and
Michael Hogan
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report;
North
Gate Community Church; Assessor’s Parcel No. 670-110-042.

RI-09367

2015
Bai “Tom” Tang, Michael
Hogan, Deirdre Encarnacion,
and Nina
Gallardo
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Ramon 14 Project City of Cathedral City Riverside County, California.

RI-09886 2016 Cheri Flores Addendum to Historical and Archaeological Resources Survey.

RI-10838

2010

Diane F. Bonner
Cultural Resources Record Search and Archaeological Survey Results for the proposed Royal Street Communications,
California, LLC, Site LA3615A (Cathedral City Soccer Park) located at 69400 30th Avenue, Cathedral City,
Riverside
County, California 92234.

Table 4-1 Previous Cultural Investigations Within the Project Study Area, Appendix C, PaleoWest Cultural Resource Investigation, Marc h 2024 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 54

The records search indicated that no fewer than four cultural resources have been previously documented within the Project study area. These resources were all historic period isolated finds composed of sanitary cans.

None of these resources are within the Project area. These resources are listed in Table 15.

Table 15 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Project Study Area Primary No. Trinomial Age Type Description
P-33-010953 – Historic Isolate Two sanitary cans
P-33-010954 – Historical Isolate Sanitary can
P-33-010956 – Historic Isolate Sanitary can
P-33-010957 – Historic Isolate Six sanitary cans, possibly a single “6-pack” Tabel 4-2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Project Study Area, Appendix C, PaleoWest Cultural Resource Investigation, March 2024

Additional sources consulted during the cultural resource literature and data review include the National Register of Historic Places, the Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory. There are no listed cultural resources recorded within the Project area or within 1 mi of the Project area.

Archival research conducted on the Project site includes a review of BLM GLO records, historic topographic maps, and aerial images. The GLO records indicate that the Project area was part of a land patent that was issued in June 1905 to the Southern Pacific (SP) Railroad Company (BLM 2023); the patent included the entirety of Section 15, T4S, R5E, SBBM.

Historical topographic maps were consulted, and historical aerials from NETROnline dated to 1959, 1972, 1977, 1979, 1996, 2005, 2012, and 2020 were reviewed. The only notable feature present on any of the topographic maps is Date Palm Drive, which first ap pears in the 1972 Cathedral City 7.5 -minute map following its present alignment. Although areas within the vicinity have been subject to development over the years, aerial photographs indicate that the Project area has never been developed, except for the addition of an unnamed asphalt road in the southern portion of the Project area that first appears in 2005 aerial imagery.

Buried Site Sensitivity Assessment
PaleoWest examined geological and geomorphic information to assess the potential of the Project area to contain significant buried archaeological deposits. Deposits underlying the Project area are generally fine-to- gravelly valley fills derived from flooding and debris flows down marginal alluvial fans (Lancaster et al. 2012).

During wetter periods of the Holocene, this area would have been subject to periodic overbank floods of the Whitewater River. Subsequently, the area was covered by aeolian deposits. I n general, deposits in this area consist of a series of interbedded alluvial and aeolian strata (Soil Survey Staff 2023). The area as a whole is moderately sensitive to buried sites. If present, buried sites will have a high degree of preservation due to low energy deposit. Depth of deposits could be significant.

Field Methods
A cultural resource survey of the Project area was completed by PaleoWest Archaeologist Darlene Deppe, M.A., on July 17, 2023. The fieldwork effort included an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project area, totaling 7.1 acres. The intensive pedestrian survey was conducted by walking a series of parallel north -south transects 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 55

spaced at 10–15-m (33–49-ft) intervals. The archaeologist carefully inspected all areas within the Project area likely to contain or exhibit sensitive cultural resources to ensure discovery and documentation of any visible, potentially significant cultural resources within the Project area.

Field Results
The Project area is a vacant, flat parcel within a mostly developed area of Cathedral City. Vegetation within the Project area is very sparse and includes scattered creosote bushes. Ground visibility in the Project area is excellent (90–100%). Surface soils within the parcel are composed of soft sand. Noted disturbances include an asphalt road remnant running east -west through the southern portion of the Project area, and modern glass and refuse distributed throughout. No archaeological or built -environment resources were identified in the Project area during the survey.

The Cultural Resources records searches and surveys did not identify any archeological or historic resources within the proposed Project area. Since background research as well as geological and geomorphic information indicates that the Project area has moderate potential to contain significant buried archaeological remains, there is a potential to unearth historic and archeological resources as well as human remains, during site excavation and construction activities. As such, the Project area appears to be moderately sensitive to buried cultural resources. Therefore, potential Project related construction actions undertaken outside the currently defined Project area may have the potential for additional subsurface disturbance and further cultural resource management may be required. With the incorporation of mitigation measures CUL -1 and CUL -2, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation
CUL-1: Prior to grading disturbance activities, the City of Cathedral City Planning Department shall inform field personnel of the possibilities of a buried cultural resource find. A qualified archaeologist shall be made available by the applicant during all grou nd disturbing activities should any unknown cultural resource be uncovered. In addition, because the site is located within the boundaries of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Tribe’s Traditional Use Area, all ground disturbing activities shall be monitored by a qualified Native American monitor as requested by the ACBCI THPO. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and the qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist/Tribal monitor shall have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources found meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register, plans for the treatment, evaluation and mitigation of impacts to the find shall be developed.

If it has been determined that the find, with concurrence of the archaeologist, and tribal monitor/THPO in the case of cultural resources, has significance, the final disposition of the find shall be determined with concurrence between the archaeologist, T HPO (in the case of tribal cultural resources) and the City Planner.

Once the mitigation and disposition for the find has been determined, work in the vicinity of the find shall resume at the direction of the archaeologist.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 56

CUL-2: Should human remains be discovered on site during any ground disturbance activities, further ground disturbance activities shall be halted until processes governing an accidental discovery of any human remains have been initiated in accordance with Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code 5097.98
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 57

4.6 Energy

4.6.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ENERGY – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?

a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two-phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two ( 2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate -controlled self -storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include p arking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part-time employees. The Project would also require an amendment to the City’s Uptown Village Specific Plan (SP 96-54) to create a new planning area.

Construction equipment used over the approximately 15 -month construction phase would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards and is evidence of related fuel efficiencies. In addition, the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure limits id ling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby minimizing unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Furthermore, the project has been designed in compliance with California ’s Energy Efficiency Standards and 2022 CALGreen Standards.

Construction of the proposed commercial development would require the typical use of energy resources.

There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in construction of the project would therefore not result in inefficient , wasteful, or unnecessary cons umption of fuel and a less than significant impact.

Table 16 Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage Estimates Scenario 1
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 58

Power Cost (per 1,000 square
foot of building per month of
construction)
Total Building
Size (1,000
Square Foot)1
Construction
Duration
(months)
Total Project
Construction
Power Cost
$2.32 133.243 15 $4,636.86

Cost per kWh
Total Project Construction Electricity
Usage (kWh)
$0.06 84,306
* Assumes the project will be under the GS-1 General Service rate under SCE.

Scenario 2
Power Cost (per 1,000 square
foot of building per month of
construction)
Total Building
Size (1,000
Square Foot)1
Construction
Duration
(months)
Total Project
Construction
Power Cost
$2.32 169.779 15 $5,908.31

Cost per kWh
Total Project Construction
Electricity Usage (kWh)
$0.06 107,424
* Assumes the project will be under the GS-1 General Service rate under SCE.

Table 17 Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage, Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024.

The project’s construction phase would consume electricity and fossil fuels as a single energy demand, that is, once construction is completed their use would cease. CARB’s 201 7 Emissions Factors Tables show that on average aggregate fuel consumption (gasoline and diesel fuel) would be approximately 18.5 hp -hr-gal.2 As presented in Table 1 7 below, project construction activities would consume an estimated 32,044 gallons of diesel fuel. Both Scenarios are anticipated to have the same construction schedule and equipment usage.

Table 17 Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates Phase
Number
of Days Offroad Equipment Type Amount
Usage
Hours
Horse
Power
Load
Factor
HP
hrs/
day
Total Fuel
Consumption
(gal diesel
fuel)1,2
Site
Preparation
20 Rubber Tired Dozers 2 6 367 0.4 1,762 1,904
20 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37 497 538
Grading
20 Excavators 1 8 36 0.38 109 118
20 Graders 1 8 148 0.41 485 525
20 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 1,174 1,270
20 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 746 806
230 Cranes 1 7 367 0.29 745 9,262

2 Aggregate fuel consumption rate for all equipment was estimated at 18.5 hp-hr/day (from CARB’s 2017 Emissions Factors Tables and fuel consumption rate factors as shown in Table D-21 of the Moyer Guidelines: (https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf).

4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 59

Building
Construction
230 Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2 394 4,893
230 Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 83 1,030
230 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37 653 8,114
230 Welders 1 8 46 0.45 166 2,059
Paving
20 Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 544 588
20 Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 513 554
20 Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 219 237
Architectural
Coating 25 Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48 107 144
CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (gallons of diesel fuel) 32,044 Notes:
1Using Carl Moyer Guidelines Table D -21 Fuel consumption rate factors (bhp -hr/gal) for engines less than 750 hp. (Source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf) Table 18 Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates, Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024.

Trip generation generated by the proposed Project are consistent with other similar commercial uses of similar scale and configuration as reflected in the Transportation Analysis (Integrated Engineering Group, 2023). That is, the proposed Project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently resul t in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Therefore, proposed Project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Furthermore, the increase in both electricity and natural gas demand from the proposed Project is insignificant compared to the County’s 2021 demand. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

The annual natural gas and electricity demands were provided per the CalEEMod output and are provided in Table 18.

Table 18 Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary1

Scenario 1
Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail 2,196,632
Strip Mall 66,086
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 801,834
Total 3,064,552
Electricity Demand kWh/year
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail 529,519
Strip Mall 108,894
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 246,858
Parking Lot 183,161
Total 1,068,432
Scenario 2
Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail 2,196,632
Regional Shopping Center 324,091
Total 2,520,723
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1) -543,829
Electricity Demand kWh/year
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 60

Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail 529,519
Strip Mall 50,139
Parking Lot 183,161
Total 1,364,778
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1) 178,276
Notes:
1Taken from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.21 annual output.

Table 23 Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary, Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024.

As shown in Table 18, the estimated electricity demand for the proposed project is approximately 1,068,432 kWh per year in Scenario 1 and 1,364,778 kWh per year in Scenario 2. In 2021, the nonresidential sector of the County of Riverside consumed approximately 8,257 million kWh of electricity. In addition, the estimated natural gas consumption for the proposed project is approximately 3,064,552 kBTU per year in Scenario 1 and 2,520,723 kBTU per year in Scenario 2. In 2021, the nonresidential sector of the C ounty of Riverside consumed approximately 144 million therms of gas. Therefore, the increase in both electricity and natural gas demand from either scenario of the proposed project is insignificant compared to the County’s 2021 demand.

Regarding the State’s Energy Plan and compliance with Title 24 CCR energy efficiency standards, the applicant is required to comply with the California Green Building Standard Code requirements for energy efficient buildings and appliances as well as utili ty energy efficiency programs implemented by the SCE and Southern California Gas Company.

Regarding the State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, the Project would be required to meet or exceed the energy standards established in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen).

CalGreen Standards require that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting finish materials.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and would therefore have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 61

No mitigation is required.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 62

4.7 Geology and Soils

4.7.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

a-i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.

a-ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
a-iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
a-iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic area or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two-phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two ( 2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate -controlled self -storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include p arking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site. The propo sed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part-time employees. The Project would also require an amendment to the City’s Uptown Village Specific Plan (SP 96-54) to create a new planning area. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 63

The proposed Project site is located over approximately two (2) miles southwest of the Garnet Hill Fault and about four southwest of the Banning Branch Fault of the S an Andreas Fault Zone. The site is generally vacant with a slight slope from the northwest. Since the site is not located on or near a mountain or sloped area, there is little potential for landslides at the site. Although not located in a City Fault Hazard Management Zone, the proposed Project would have to conform to all applicable General Plan policies under the City’s Safety Element (City of Cathedral City General Plan Update; 2021) and to the Alquist -Priolo Act and potential damage from earthquake generated ground shaking and other seismic hazards. Impacts from potential earthquake, ground shaking, landslides and liquefaction would be less than significant. No Geotechnical Investigation was determined to be needed given the distance to any known fault. As part of the normal procedure for a building permit the project will need to comply with the California Building Code and complete a Soils Study for the Building Pads. Given that this is covered in existing regulations no further action is needed.

b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site consists of vacant, generally flat parcels with very little vegetation or elevation variation. Located within a primarily developed portion of the city of Cathedra l City, the site is surrounded by residential and commercial uses to the east and south and with limited small-scale commercial uses to the north and west. Any current soil erosion on the site may be due to wind erosion and is minimal and seasonal. Although site preparation and construction activities would have the potential to result in minor erosion or toss of existing topsoil, the proposed Project would be required to apply for State General Construction National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as well as to comply with all of the City’s grading and building permit regulations that would ensure that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures are imposed during construction activities.

Therefore, impacts from soil erosion or th e loss of topsoil would be less than significant. No Geotechnical Investigation was determined to be needed given the type of soils in this part of Cathedral City. As part of the normal procedure for a building permit the project will need to comply with the California Building Code and complete a Soils Study for the Building Pads. Given that this is covered in existing regulations no further action is needed.

The Uptown Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan; SP) is a policy document and will be amended to create Planning Unit Four with an area of 7.16 acres from Planning Unit One leaving it with an area of 2.11 acres. However, the proposed SP amendment would be a policy level document that would not, in itself, result in soil erosion and there would be no impact.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is primarily flat and is located on soils that typically have a 0 to 5 percent slope. The site has a general slope from northwest to south and is located approximately two (2) miles to the southwest of the Little San Bernardino Mountains and about four (4) miles to the west of the San Jacinto Mountains. According to the Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update EIR (City of Cathedral City; 2021), the Project site is located in an area with low to very low susceptibility of liquefaction and is not located on a geologic area or soil that is unstable, nor is it located on an area with the potential for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence or collapse. Impacts would be less than significant. The Uptown Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan; SP) is a policy document and will be amended to create Planning Unit Four with an area of 7.16 acres from Planning area One leaving it with an area of 2.11 acres. The proposed SP amendment would be a policy level documen t that would not, in itself, impact soil due to landslides, lateral spreading, liquefaction, subsidence or collapse, and there would be no impact . According to the City’s General Plan ( City of Cathedral City 2040 General Plan; 2021) there is no occurrence of the above conditions and the City’s Building Code will ensure that all soils issues and risks are covered. No further action is needed.

d) Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils typically soil with clay as a primary component. This causes the soil to expand as it draws in moisture and to shrink, as it dries out. The soil at the proposed Project site is 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 64

primarily MaB Myoma Fine Sands with high soil infiltration rates (USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey; accessed July 2023). Since the Project site primarily consists of clay soils with limited expansive capabilities, there is low potential for impacts to life or pro perty and impacts would be less than significant. The City General Plan () does not identify any expansive soil in this area and the Building Code will ensure that all soils issues and risks are covered, and no further action is needed.

The Uptown Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan; SP) is a policy document and will be amended to create Planning Unit Four with an area of 7.16 acres from Planning Unit One leaving it with an area of 2.11 acres. The SP would not amend City Ordinance 572 that prohibits the installation of new septic tanks within city limits. Moreover, the proposed SP amendment would be a policy level document that would not, in itself, impact soils from the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems at the Project site. There would be no impact. f) No Impact. A Paleontological Study was completed by Paleo West in August of 2023 which determined that there was a low impact of Paleontological Resources . Based on the literature review and museum records search results, the paleontological sensitivity of the Project area was determined in accordance with the SVP’s (2010) sensitivity scale and in consultation with the County of Riverside Paleontological Sensitivity Map (2015).

Surficial Quaternary deposits in the Project area consist of sediments deposited as dunes of loose, fine sand (Qs), which have a low potential to bear fossils and a low paleontological resource sensitivity. These sediments may be underlain at an unknown depth by older Pleistocene deposits that have proven to yield significant vertebrate fossils in the vicinity of the Project area and elsewhere (Stoneburg, 2023). The Project will most likely involve construction-related ground disturbing activities in Holocene sediments and no vertebrate fossils from Holocene or Pleistocene sediments ha ve been found in the surrounding Project area. As a result, the potential for encountering significant fossil resources during Project development is low; therefore, impacts to paleontological resources are not anticipated and no further paleontological mi tigation is recommended currently.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 65

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.8.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two-phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate -controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include p arking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part-time employees. The Project would also require an amendment to the City’s Uptown Village Specific Plan (SP 96-54) to create a new planning area.

Greenhouse Gas Setting
Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG), play a critical role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate.

Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these gre enhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gas es that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agricultur al, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses. Transportation is responsible for 41 percent of the State’s greenhouse gas emis sions, followed by electricity generation.

Emissions of CO 2 and nitrous oxide (NO 2) are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean. Table 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 66

19 provides a description of each of the greenhouse gases and their global warming potential.

Additional information is available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm Table 19 Description of Greenhouse Gases

Greenhouse Gas Description and Physical Properties Sources Nitrous oxide
Nitrous oxide (N20),also known as laughing gas is a
colorless gas. It has a lifetime of 114 years. Its global warming potential is 298.

Microbial processes in soil and water,
fuel combustion, and industrial
processes. In addition to agricultural
sources, some industrial processes
(nylon production, nitric acid
production) also emit N20.

Methane
Methane (CH4) is a flammable gas and is the main
component of natural gas. It has a lifetime of 12
years. Its global warming potential is 25.

A natural source of CH4 is from the
decay of organic matter. Methane is
extracted from geological deposits
(natural gas fields). Other sources are
from the decay of organic material in
landfills, fermentation of manure,
and cattle farming.

Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless, colorless,
natural greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide’s global
warming potential is 1. The concentration in 2005
was 379 parts per million (ppm), which is an
increase of about 1.4 ppm per year since 1960.

Natural sources include
decomposition of dead organic
matter; respiration of bacteria,
plants, animals, and fungus;
evaporation from oceans; and
volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic
sources are from burning coal, oil,
natural gas, and wood.

Chlorofluorocarbons
CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and
chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level
of air at the earth’s surface). They are gases formed
synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in
methane or methane with chlorine and/or fluorine
atoms. Global warming potentials range from 3,800
to 8,100.

Chlorofluorocarbons were
synthesized in 1928 for use as
refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and
cleaning solvents. They destroy
stratospheric ozone, therefore their
production was stopped as required
by the Montreal Protocol.

Hydrofluorocarbons
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are a group of
greenhouse gases containing carbon, chlorine, and
at least one hydrogen atom. Global warming
potentials range from 140 to 11,700.

Hydrofluorocarbons are synthetic
manmade chemicals used as a
substitute for chlorofluorocarbons in
applications such as automobile air
conditioners and refrigerants.

Perfluorocarbons
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular
structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays
about 60 kilometers above the Earth's surface. They
have a lifetime 10,000 to 50,000 years. They have a
global warming potential range of 6,200 to 9,500.

Two main sources of
perfluorocarbons are primary
aluminum production and
semiconductor manufacturing.

Sulfur
hexafluoride
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless,
colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a
lifetime of 3,200 years. It has a high global warming
potential, 23,900.

This gas is manmade and used for
insulation in electric power
transmission equipment, in the
magnesium industry, in
semiconductor manufacturing, and as
a tracer gas for leak detection.

Notes:
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 67

Sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014a and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014b. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html Table 6 Description of Greenhouse Gases, Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024.

a) Less than Significant Impact. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Since currently neither the CEQA statutes, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidelines, nor the draft proposed changes to the CEQA Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or a particular methodology for performing an impact analysis; as with most environmental topics, significance criteria are left to the judgment and discretion of the Lead Agency. SCAQMD has drafted interim Greenhouse Gas (GHG) thresholds, and the County of Riverside (Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update has adopted a GHG threshold and screening tables. The County of Riverside CAP Update screening tables were
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The greenhouse gas emissions from project construction equipment and worker vehicles are shown in Table

20. The emissions are from all phases of construction. The total construction emissions amortized over a period of 30 years are estimated at 16.93 metric tons of CO 2e per year for Scenario 1 and 18.17 metric tons of CO 2e per year for Scenario 2 . Annual CalEEMod output calculations are provided in Appendix A of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study done for the project by MD Acoustics.

Table 20 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Scenario
Emissions (MTCO2e)1
Onsite
Scenario 1 508.00
Scenario 2 545.00
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1) 37.00
Scenario 1 Averaged over 30 years2 16.93
Scenario 2 Averaged over 30 years2 18.17
Notes:

1. MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide).

2. The emissions are averaged over 30 years because the average is added to the operational emissions, pursuant to SCAQMD.
* CalEEMod output (Appendix A)
Table 12 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024.

Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the life of the project. As shown in Table 21, the project’s total emissions (with incorporation of construction related GHG emissions) would be 3,004.38 metric tons of CO2e per year in Scenario 1 and 4,476.96 metric tons of CO2e per year in Scenario 2. These emissions exceed the County of Riverside CAP Update and SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Therefore, the 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 68

project's GHG emissions impact must be compared to the County of Riverside GHG Screening Tables for both scenarios. Scenario 2 would generate 1,472.57 metric tons of CO2e per year more than Scenario 1.

Table 21 Opening Year Unmitigated Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)1
Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Scenario 1
Area Sources2 0.00 1.95 1.95 0.00 0.00 1.95
Energy Usage3 0.00 982.00 982.00 0.00 0.00 985.00
Mobile Sources4 0.00 1,830.00 1,830.00 0.08 0.09 1,863.00 Solid Waste5 17.90 0.00 17.90 1.79 0.00 62.70
Water6 9.38 34.40 43.78 0.96 0.02 74.80
Construction7 0.00 16.70 16.70 0.00 0.00 16.93
Total Emissions 27.28 2,865.05 2,892.33 2.83 0.11 3,004.38 County of Riverside CAP and SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? Yes
Scenario 2
Area Sources2 0.00 2.48 2.48 0.00 0.00 2.49
Energy Usage3 0.00 435.00 435.00 0.03 0.00 436.00
Mobile Sources4 0.00 3,823.00 3,823.00 0.17 0.19 3,891.00 Solid Waste5 14.80 0.00 14.80 1.48 0.00 51.70
Water6 9.73 35.70 45.43 1.00 0.02 77.60
Construction7 0.00 17.90 17.90 0.00 0.00 18.17
Total Emissions 24.53 4,314.08 4,338.61 2.68 0.21 4,476.96 County of Riverside CAP and SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? Yes
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1) 1,472.57
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.21
2 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment. 3 Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 5 Solid waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 6 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 7 Construction GHG emissions based on a 30 year amortization rate.

Table 13 Opening Year Unmitigated Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024.

Combined Project emissions from construction and operation would exceed the County of Riverside CAP Update and SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO 2e per year. Therefore, the impact has been determined through the County of Riverside GHG Screening Tables in Appendix A, which show the Project's GHG emissions impact with inclusion of the stated design features would achieve the minimum required points of 100 and be considered less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The proposed project would not have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. As stated previously, the County of Riverside has adopted a Climate Action Plan; therefore, the project and its GHG emissions have been compared to the goals of the County of Riverside CAP Update.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 69

Consistency with the County of Riverside CAP Update
Per the County’s CAP Update, the County adopted its first CAP in 2015 which set a target to reduce emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020 as recommended in the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Furthermore, the goals and supporting measures within the County’s CAP Update are proposed to reflect and ensure compliance with changes in the local and State policies and regulations such as SB 32 and California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Therefore, compliance with the County’s CAP in turn reflects consistency w ith the goals of the CARB Scoping Plan, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 32.

Appendix D of the Riverside County CAP Update also states that project's that do not exceed the CAP's screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year are considered to have less than significant GHG emissions and are in compliance with the County's CAP Update . According to the County's CAP Update, projects that do not exceed emissions of 3,000 MTCO2e per year are also required to include the following efficiency measures:

• Energy efficiency matching or exceeding the Title 24 requirements in effect as of January 2017, and
• Water conservation measures that matches the California Green Building Code in effect as of January 2017.

Projects that exceed emissions of 3,000 MTCO2e per year are also required to use Screening Tables. Projects that garner at least 100 points will be consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the County’s CAP Update. Consistent with CEQA Guidel ines, such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. Those projects that do not garner 100 points using the Screening Tables will need to provide additional analysis to determine the significance of GHG emissions.

As stated above, the GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would exceed the County of Riverside CAP Update screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year of CO2e. Therefore, a completed screening table has been included in Appendix A, which shows the project design features that would allow the project to achieve 100 points. With implementation of the stated features, the project would be consistent with the County of Riverside CAP Update and have a less than significant impact.

City of Cathedral City Climate Action Plan
The City of Cathedral City CAP was adopted in May of 2013. The City of Cathedral City CAP was set in place to guide the City in decisions that lead to the largest and most cost‐effective emissions reductions. This plan sets forth goals to reduce emissions to achieve the targets of AB 32. In order to achieve these targets, the CAP presents a number of GHG emissions‐reducing programs and policies that are to be implemented by the City.

These emissions‐reducing measures have been provided for different sectors of the community including transportation, residential buildings, commercial buildin gs, government incentives, renewable energy, cross‐ cutting initiatives, solid waste, and water. As specified in the CAP, these measures are to be implemented in a series of three phases over a course of eight years beginning in 2013. The proposed project would be expected to comply with all applicable emissions‐reducing measures identified within the CAP.

Project consistency with applicable measures in the CAP has been assessed. As shown in Table 22, the project is consistent with the applicable measures identified in the CAP. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the GHG inventory and forecast prepared for the CAP as both the existing and the projected GHG inventories were derived based on the land use designations and associated densities defined in the City’s General Plan, and the proposed project is consistent with the existing General Pla n land use designations . 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 70

Therefore, since the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and CAP, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Table 22 City of Cathedral City CAP Applicable Measures Project Comparison Sector CAP Measures to
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Measure Sphere - "Where We Live"
Solid Waste
Solid Waste Diversion: Increase solid waste
diversion rate by 55% to 68.1% by 2015
potentially through use of tiered rate
structure.

Consistent. The project will be required to comply with AB 341 which includes recycling programs that reduces waste to landfills by up to 75% by 2020.

Sphere - "Where We Work"
Commercial
Buildings
Peak Demand Reduction: Collaborate with
SCE and encourage 200 businesses to enroll
in Energy Efficiency and Demand Response
programs such as the Summer Discount
Program.

Consistent. This is a city -based measure. If the project is mandated by the City to be one of the 200 businesses that are to enroll in an Energy Efficiency and Demand Response program then the project will comply as needed.

Commercial
Buildings
Energy‐Efficient, Commercial‐Sector
Lighting: Promote and leverage existing
incentives for efficient lighting and educate
and locally incent building owners to
eliminate any remaining T‐12 lamps in
commercial/industrial buildings.

Consistent. The project will comply with current 2022 Title 24 requirements for installation of energy -efficient
lighting.

Water
Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance:

Build on and exceed current Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance in the
commercial/industrial sector by 20%
community‐wide by 2020.

Consistent. The project’s landscape design complies with the City’s landscaping standards as well as the Mission Springs Water District's water efficient landscaping
guidelines (which encourages drought tolerant
groundcover).

Sphere - " How We Build"
Commercial
Buildings
"Cool Roofs": Promote the installation of
reflective roofing on commercial/industrial
properties in the community with
recognition for first ten early adopters.

Consistent. The project will comply with current 2022 Title 24 prescriptive cool roof requirements to meet energy
compliance.

Government
Initiatives
Green Building Program: Promote the
voluntary Green Building Program to
prepare for enhanced Title 24 requirements
and green building standards.

Consistent. The California Green Building Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code in the CCR. Part 11
establishes voluntary standards, that became mandatory
in the 2010 edition of the Code, on planning and design for sustainable site development, energy efficiency ( in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water
conservation, material conservation, and internal air
contaminants. The Proposed Project would be subject to
these mandatory standards. The 2014 Title 24 Code
contained regulations that would be 25% more efficient
than the 2010 edition of the Code, and the 2016 Title 24 Code is 5% more efficient than the 2014 edition of the
Code in terms of nonresidential buildings. The 2022 Title 24 Code builds on the 2016 Code.

Notes: Source: City of Cathedral City Climate Action Plan (2013).

4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 71

Table 14 City of Cathedral City CAP Applicable Measures Project Comparsion, Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024.

CARB Scoping Plan Consistency
The ARB Board approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan in December 2008. The Scoping Plan outlines the State’s strategy to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions limit. The Scoping Plan “proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall g reenhouse gas emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health” (California Air Resources Board 2008). The measures in the Scoping Plan hav e been in place since 2012.

In November 2017, CARB release the 2017 Scoping Plan. This Scoping Plan incorporates, coordinates, and leverages many existing and ongoing efforts and identifies new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s climate goals, and includes a description o f a suite of specific actions to meet the State’s 2030 GHG limit. In addition, Chapter 4 provides a broader description of the many actions and proposals being explored across the sectors, including the natural resources sector, to achieve the State’s mid and long-term climate goals.

Guided by legislative direction, the actions identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan reduce overall GHG emissions in California and deliver policy signals that will continue to drive investment and certainty in a low carbon economy. The 2017 Scoping Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible, and cost -effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Plan includes policies to require direct GHG reductions at some of the State’s largest stationary sources and mobile sources. These policies include the use of lower GHG fuels, effi ciency regulations, and the Cap-and Trade Program, which constrains and reduces emissions at covered sources.

The 2022 Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB in November 2022 and expands upon earlier plans with a target of reducing GHG emissions to 85% below 1990 levels by 2045. As the latest 2022 Scoping Plan builds upon previous versions, project consistency with applicable strategies of both the 2008 and 2017 Plan are assessed in Table 23. As shown in Table 23, the project is consistent with the applicable strategies and would result in a less than significant impact.

Table 23 Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures1

2008 Scoping Plan Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Measure California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards – Implement adopted standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with long-term climate change goals.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced
standards; vehicles that access the project that
are required to comply with the standards will
comply with the strategy.

Energy Efficiency – Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards; pursue additional efficiency including new technologies, policy, and implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California.

Consistent. The project will be compliant with
the current Title 24 standards.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 72

Low Carbon Fuel Standard – Develop and adopt the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced
standards; vehicles that access the project that
are required to comply with the standards will
comply with the strategy.

Vehicle Efficiency Measures – Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced
standards; vehicles that access the project that
are required to comply with the standards will
comply with the strategy.

Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Adopt medium and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency measures.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced
standards; vehicles that access the project that
are required to comply with the standards will
comply with the strategy.

Green Building Strategy – Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings.

High Global Warming Potential Gases – Adopt measures to reduce high global warming potential gases.

Consistent. CARB identified five measures that
reduce HFC emissions from vehicular and
commercial refrigeration systems; vehicles that
access the project that are required to comply
with the measures will comply with the
strategy.

Recycling and Waste – Reduce methane emissions at landfills.

Increase waste diversion, composting, and commercial recycling.

Move toward zero-waste.

Consistent. The state is currently developing a
regulation to reduce methane emissions from
municipal solid waste landfills. The project will
be required to comply with City programs,
such as any City recycling and waste reduction
programs, which comply, with the 75 percent
reduction required by 2020 per AB 341.

Water – Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water.

Consistent. The project will comply with all
applicable City ordinances and CAL Green
requirements.
2017 Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Compliance with Recommended
Action
Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Further increase GHG
stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean Car regulations.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced
standards; vehicles that access the project that
are required to comply with the standards will
comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2025 and at least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2030.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced
standards; vehicles that access the project that
are required to comply with the standards will
comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Innovative Clean Transit:

Transition to a suite of to-be-determined innovative clean transit Consistent. These are CARB enforced
standards; vehicles that access the project that
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 73

options. Assumed 20 percent of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission technology ramped up to 100 percent of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty low- NOX standard.
are required to comply with the standards will
comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero- emission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California. This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5 percent of new Class 3–7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10 percent in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced
standards; vehicles that access the project that
are required to comply with the standards will
comply with the strategy.

Implement SB 350 by 2030: Establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030.

Consistent. The project will be compliant with
the current Title 24 standards.

By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support organic waste landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.

Consistent. The project will be required to
comply with City programs, such as any City
recycling and waste reduction programs, which
comply, with the 75 percent reduction
required by 2020 per AB 341.

2022 Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Compliance with Recommended
Action
Deploy ZEVs and reduce driving demand Consistent. The project will be in an urbanized area within a quarter mile of transit.

Coordinate supply of liquid fossil fuels with declining California fuel demand
Consistent. The project will be compliant with
the current Title 24 standards.

Generate clean electricity Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards and would not
interfere with clean energy generation.

Decarbonize industrial energy supply Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards and would be
commercial, therefore would not interfere
with this goal.

Decarbonize buildings Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards.

Reduce non-combustion emissions Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards.

Notes:
1 Source: CARB Scoping Plan (2008, 2017, and 2022)
Table 15 Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures, Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House G as, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024.

Consistency with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
At the regional level, the 2020-2045 RTP and Sustainable Communities Strategy represent the region’s Climate Action Plan that defines strategies for reducing GHGs. In order to assess the project’s potential to conflict with the RTP/SCS, this section analyzes the project’s land use profile fo r consistency with those in the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Generally, projects are considered consistent with the provisions and general policies of applicable City and regional land use plans and regulations, such as SCAG’s Sustainable Communities 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 74

Strategy, if they are compatible with the general intent of the plans and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals.

Table 24 demonstrates the project’s consistency with the Actions and Strategies set forth in the 20 20-2045 RTP/SCS. As shown in Table 24, the project would be consistent with the GHG reduction related actions and strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Table 24 Project Consistency with SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS1 Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Consistency Analysis
Land Use Strategies
Reflect the changing population and demands,
including combating gentrification and
displacement, by increasing housing supply at a
variety of affordability levels.

Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project is a
commercial development on a currently
vacant site; therefore, it will not displace
existing housing.

Focus new growth around transit. Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project is a
commercial development that would be
consistent with the 2020 RTP/SCS focus on
growing near transit facilities.

Plan for growth around livable corridors,
including growth on the Livable Corridors
network.

SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project is a
commercial development that would be
consistent with the 2020 RTP/SCS focus on
growing along the 2,980 miles of Livable
Corridors in the region.

Provide more options for short trips through
Neighborhood Mobility Areas and Complete
Communities.

SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project would help
further jobs/housing balance objectives. The
proposed project is also consistent with the
Complete Communities initiative that focuses
on creation of mixed-use districts in growth
areas.

Support local sustainability planning, including
developing sustainable planning and design
policies, sustainable zoning codes, and Climate
Action Plans.

Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on local
governments to adopt General Plan updates,
zoning codes, and Climate Action Plans to
further sustainable communities. The
proposed project would not interfere with
such policymaking and would be consistent
with those policy objectives.

Protect natural and farmlands, including
developing conservation strategies.

SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project is a
commercial development in an existing urban
community that would help reduce demand
for growth in urbanizing areas that threaten
green fields and open spaces.

Transportation Strategies
Preserve our existing transportation system.

SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on investing
in the maintenance of our existing
transportation system. The proposed project
would not interfere with such policymaking.

Manage congestion through programs like the
Congestion Management Program,
County
Transportation
Commissions,
Consistent. The proposed project is a
commercial development that will minimize
congestion impacts on the region because of
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 75

Transportation Demand Management, and
Transportation Systems Management strategies.

Local
Jurisdictions
its proximity to public transit and general
density of population and jobs.

Promote safety and security in the transportation
system.

SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy aims to improve
the safety of the transportation system and
protect users from security threats. The
proposed project would not interfere with
such policymaking.

Complete our transit, passenger rail, active
transportation, highways and arterials, regional
express lanes goods movement, and airport
ground transportation systems.

SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls for
transportation planning partners to implement
major capital and operational projects that are
designed to address regional growth. The
proposed project would not interfere with this
larger goal of investing in the transportation
system.

Technological Innovation and 21st Century Transportation Promote zero-emissions vehicles. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. While this action/strategy is not
necessarily applicable on a project-specific
basis, the project will follow electric vehicle
charging guidance per the City's Building Code.

Promote neighborhood electric vehicles. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. While this action/strategy is not
necessarily applicable on a project-specific
basis, the project will follow electric vehicle
charging guidance per the City's Building Code.

Implement shared mobility programs. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy is designed to
integrate new technologies for last-mile and
alternative transportation programs. The
proposed project would not interfere with
these emerging programs.

Notes:
1 Source: Southern California Association of Governments; 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, May 2020.

Table 16 Project Consistency with SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, Appendix A, MDAcoustics Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Impact Study, March 2024.

Appendix D of the Riverside County CAP Update states that Project's that do not exceed the CAP's screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year or achieve a minimum of 100 points in the County of Riverside GHG Screening Tables are considered to have less tha n significant GHG emissions and are in compliance with the County's CAP Update. As stated above, the proposed Project would achieve 100 points in the GHG Screening Tables with inclusion of the design features stated in Appendix A. Therefore, the Project wo uld be consistent with the CAP and would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 76

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.9.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and
accident condition involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?

e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area?

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

a - b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two -phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate -controlled self- storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. Both Scenarios would include parking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part-time employees. The Project 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 77

would also require an amendment to the City’s Uptown Village Specific Plan (SP 96-54) to create a new planning area.

Potentially hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, and solvents may be used by heavy machinery during construction of the proposed Project. However, the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during construction of the proposed Project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable State and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the California Hazardous Material Management Act (CA HMMA), and the Calif ornia Code of Regulations, Title 22 (CCR Title 22). Also, all transport of hazardous materials would be required to be made along I-10, located approximately three (3) miles to the east of the site, since I -10 is a designated National Hazardous Material Ro ute (United States Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; 2022). The usage of potential hazardous materials during proposed Project operation would be limited to paints and cleaning solvents utilized during site maintenan ce under the various non -residential uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment materials associated with routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Impacts would be less than significant.

The Uptown Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan; SP) is a policy document and will be amended to create Planning Unit Four with an area of 7.16 acres from Planning Unit One leaving it with an area of 2.11 acres. This proposed SP amendment would be a policy level document that would not, in itself, cause the use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials such that there would be any accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, there would be no impact.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The are approximately six (6) schools within a five (5) mile radius of the proposed Project site, including: James Workman Middle School, located approximately a little over two (2.3) miles to the northeast; Sunny Sands Elementary School, the First School Childcare facility, and the Rancho Mirage High School, all located to the southeast at distances of approximately 3,000 feet, one and a half miles (1.5), and a little over one (1) mile respectively; Cathedral City High School approximately three (3) miles to the south; and, the Cathedral City Elementary School located approximately two (2) miles to the south. (Google Maps; April 2023). However, there are no proposed or existing schools located within one -quarter (0.25) of a mile of the Project site. Since the proposed Project may include potentially hazardous materials utilized during construction, such as oil or fuel utilized by heavy -duty construction equipment, use of such chemicals would be required to comply with local, Sta te, and federal policies for handling such materials and equipment properly. Proposed Project operations would have limited use of potentially hazardous materials which would be limited mainly to painting, cleaning and maintenance of the non -residential si te facilities. Impacts associated with potential hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous substances within one quarter mile (0.25) of a school would be less than significant.

Neither is the site listed on the California Department of Toxic and Substance Control Envirostor Database as a hazardous site of any kind (California Department of Toxic and Substance Control Envirostor Database; March 2023). However, there are five (5) sites within the City that are listed on the Envirostar Database, three (3) of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 78

which are within a one (1) mile radius of the Project site, Of these three (3) sites, the Riverside County Office of Education School District had a site within the Project boundaries that had been identified by Envirostor as a site that had been investiga ted with no contaminants found on site. Therefore, while a portion of the proposed Project site is listed under the Envirostor Database and is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, since no contaminants were found on the site, this would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and impacts would be less than significant.

The Uptown Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan; SP) is a policy document and will be amended to create Planning Unit Four with an area of 7.16 acres from Planning area One leaving it with an area of 2.11 acres. This proposed SP amendment would be a policy level document that would not, in itself, cause any impacts from contaminated hazardous sites. Therefore, there would be no impact. e) Less than Significant Impact. Palm Springs International Airport is located approximately three (3) miles to the west-southwest of the proposed Project site and in Zone e ( Other Airport Environs) according to the Local Airport Land Use Plan for Palm Springs Airport. The Guidelines have no specific r equirements except that a structure cannot be over 100 -feet. (Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission; 2022) . Since no part of this proposal is over 100 -feetand there are no land use restrictions there is no review from ALUC or further action needed.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 79

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.10.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
Project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or Area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:

c.i.) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off- site;
c.ii.) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;

c.iii.) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or

c.iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two-phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store /Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include parking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part-time employees. The Project would also require an amendment to the City’s Uptown Village Specific Plan (SP 96-54) to create a new planning area. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 80

The California Department of Water Resources (CA DWR) defines all of the State of California’s hydrologic regions, groundwater basins and groundwater subbasin boundaries. The Project site is located in the Whitewater River Subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Basin (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report; 2021). The City of Cathedral City receives its water supply from the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). According to the City’s Imagine 2 040 General Plan Update, potential development in the city of Cathedral City is subject to the CVWD’s and DWA’s (Desert Water Authority) water use and conservation restrictions which mandate that new development projects protect water quality through site design and drainage, storm water treatment, and use of best management practices to reduce runoff from the installation of impervious surfaces. The proposed Project would be required to adhere to all City, CVWD and DWA established standards for water quality and waste discharge requirements. Under post development conditions, storm runoff generated on-site will be directed to and collected in concrete swales, gutters, and storm drain inlets where runoff can be conveyed by an underground storm drain system toward an underground retention basin centrally located within the project site. Flows exceeding the storage capacity of the retention basin will exit onto Rosemount Road, flow southeasterly over public surface streets until reaching the Whitewater Storm Channel.

Based on requirements listed in the City of Cathedral City Drainage Ordinance, developments disturbing over one acre are required to retain 100% of the runoff generated during the 100 year 3 hour duration (design) storm event. In the absence of tested on -site percolation rate data, an assumed value of 1 in/hr will be assumed fo r basin sizing purposes as recommended by City of Cathedral City Public Works Department. This report will quantify the volume of runoff generated on -site during the design storm event in the developed condition using Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD) Shortcut Unit Hydrograph Method software and the proposed on- site surface retention basin will be sized accordingly.

DESIGN CRITERIA
The following parameters were used in the preparation of the analyses:

• Antecedent Moisture Condition – 100 year 2
• 100 year – 3 hour Precipitation 2” (City of Cathedral City Mun. Code Ch 8.24) • Hydrologic Soil Type “A” RCFCD Plate C-1.36 • Runoff Index 32 (RCFCD Plate D-5.5)
• Infiltration Rate (assumed) 1 in/hr

This project implements Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address the Pollutants of Concern that may potentially be generated from the use of the project site. These BMPs have been selected and implemented to comply with Section 3.5 of the WQMP Guidance document, and consist of Site Design BMP concepts, Source Control, LID/Site Design and, if/where necessary, Treatment Control BMPs as described herein.

Project runoff stored in the underground on -site retention basin system will be designed to infiltrate into the soil to eliminate the presence of standing water and risk of vector control issues within a period of 72 hours in accordance with the City of Cathedral City Vector Control Requirements.

Therefore, the proposed Project would have less than significant impact to surface or ground water quality.

b) Less th an Significant Impact. Groundwater in the Coachella Valley is extracted from deep wells and replenished by the Colorado River water flow into alluvial basins , the Indio Subbasin and the Mission Creek subbasin. The two subbasins are managed by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). CVWD prepared a Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for 2020 that determined the long -term regional demand for potable water is expected to increase from its current demand of 99,842 volume to 137,629 volume by 2035 . With the implementation and ongoing water conservation measures and replenishment of groundwater, sufficient supplies would be available to meet the projected demand. Currently water demand for commercial uses is 4,242. Projected water use demand for commercial use is projected to be 7,438 by 2035 (Coachella Valley Regional WQMP, 2020). Therefore, the water demands have already been accounted for within the 2020 UWMP and sufficient water supplies exist to serve the proposed Project.

The proposed Project will be required to comply with the CVWD’s water-efficiency requirements, such as using drought tolerant plants and materials that require minimal landscaping irrigation, as well as CVWD’s drought restrictions and water reduction measures as applicable . Compliance and implementation of CVWD requirements would ensure that the proposed Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, no mitigation is required. Impacts would be less than significant.
c.i) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is currently vacant with no natural or artificial water bodies on or near the site. The proposed Project would, however, provide for a groundwater detention pond on a northeast portion of the site. While the Project has the potential to result in short-term erosion or siltation due to project construction and related site watering activities, such activities would be temporary, and all construction activities would be required to comply wit h the City’s regulations related to runoff control and on-site stormwater retention. The proposed Project would also have to comply with the City’s grading, earthwork, and construction activities, as required under the City’s Imagine 2040 General Plan Update. Impacts to erosion or siltation on- or off-site would therefore be less than significant.

Currently drainage from the proposed Project flows to the east off site on to the residential community where there is an existing emergency overflow. The proposed Project will raise the elevation of the north east corner of the site to allow for gravity to divert water flow to the south west onto the public right of way on Date Palm Dr. for emergency overflow. Therefore, impacts from surface runoffs resulting in flooding would be less than significant.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 82

c.iii) Less than Significant Impact. As the proposed Project site is currently undeveloped, construction of the proposed Project would result in paving of majority of the site which would impact existing site drainage patterns and may add to the City’s existing sources of polluted runoffs. The proposed Project, however, would include an above ground retention pond that would assist in minimizing surface runoff. The proposed Project would also have to connect to the City’s existing stormwater drainage syste ms and would have to adhere to the City’s applicable Imagine 2040 General Plan Update policies and implementation programs for the generation, quality and drainage impacts from stormwater runoff and drainage. Impacts would therefore be less than significant.

The proposed Project site is not situated within a floodplain, being located between the San Bernardino Mountains to the north, the Joshua Tree National Par k to the east, San Jacinto Mountains to the south, Santa Rosa Mountains and San Gorgonio Pass to the west to the west. The closest water bodies to the Project site is the Whitewater, over one and a half (1.5) miles to the west. There ar e no other rivers or floodplains in the vicinity of the Project site. The proposed Project would incorporate water retention basins and reservoirs that would capture water runoff and would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area.

While the proposed Project would add impervious surfaces on an otherwise undeveloped parcel, it would not impede or redirect flood flows; therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on flood flows.

C6 groundwater supply, and C7 Impacts, these are given a score that determines the management priority of water supply for the basins. The total score given to the Indio subbasin is medium 20 priority points (California Department of Water Resources, accessed March 2024) . The threshold value for medium priority is greater than 14 points , a medium priority rating indicates that the water level for the subbasin are adequate at this time to support . The data shows that groundwater supply is currently at 57% and there has not been documented groun dwater level declines. This coincides with the projected determinations of groundwater demand availability by 2035 that was determined in the Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) were it was determined that the projected water demand will be 137,629 volume by 2035 for all uses, projected water demand for commercial uses to be 7,438 volume by 2035 (Coachella Valley Regional UWMP, 2020).

Per the SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard Water quality data showed 1 point indicating a very low priority rating on water quality meaning, that the quality of the water in the Indio subbasin does not exceed levels of pollution, minerals or salinity that would make the groundwater unsafe for use as drinking water (California Department of Water Resources, accessed March 2024) . Of course, water from the subbasin is filtered and purified before entering the city domestic water system to be used as drinking water. With the implementation and ongoing water conservation measures and replenishment of groundwater, sufficient supplies would be available to meet the projected demand. Compliance and implementation of CVWD requirements would ensure that the proposed Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplie s or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, (California Department of Water Resources, accessed March 2024).

Mitigation is not required. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 84

4.11 Land Use and Planning

4.11.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoi ding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

a) No Impact. The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two-phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self -storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store /Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include parking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part-time employees. The Project would also require an amendment to the City’s Uptown Village Specific Plan (SP 96-54) to create a new planning area.

The Project site is currently vacant, with the nearest established community located approximately 50 to 450 feet to the east of the site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not divide an established community and there would be no impact.

The Uptown Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan; SP) is a policy document and will be amended to create Planning Unit Four with an area of 7.16 acres from Planning Unit One leaving it with an area of 2.11 acres . The amendment is a policy document that would not, in itself, physically divide an established community. There would be no impact.
b) Less than Significant Impact. According to the City ’s General Plan Land Use Map, the Project site is designated General Commercial. According to the City’s Zoning Map, the site is zoned PCC Planned Community Commercial (City of Cathedral City, 2023). Since the proposed Project includes the development of retail and commercial structures, it would not conflict with any City of Cathedral City applicable land use plan, policies, or regulations. There would be no impact.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 85

c) The proposed Project would require an amendment to the City’s existing Uptown Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan; SP) in order to remove the property from the Specific Plan as explained in the project description and would return to the PCC (Planned Community Commercial) District and the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 86

4.12 Mineral Resources

4.12.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

a-b) No Impact. Mineral resources are land areas or deposits deemed significant by the California Department of Conservation (CA DOC) (California Department of Conservation; 1975). Mineral resources include oil, natural gas, and metallic and nonmetallic deposits, including aggregate resources. The CA DOC Geological Survey, and the California State Mining and Geology Board (CA SMGB) are required by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1974 (SMARA ) to categorize lands into four Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), described below. These MRZs classify lands that contain significant statewide or regional mineral deposits based on a site’s geologic factors without regard to existing land use and land ownership. SMARA has established MRZs using the following classifications (California Department of Conservation, 1975). • MRZ-1: Areas where adequate geologic information indicates no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-2a: Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data show that significant measured or indicated resources are present.
• MRZ-2b: Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic information indicates that significant inferred resources are present.
• MRZ-3a: Areas containing known mineral deposits that may qualify as mineral resources. Further exploration work within these areas could result in the reclassification of specific localities into the MRZ-2a or MRZ-2b categories.
• MRZ-3b: Areas that may have inferred mineral deposits which may qualify as mineral resources.

Further exploration work could result in the reclassification of all or part of these areas into the MRZ-3a category or specific localities into the MRZ-2a or MRZ-2b categories. • MRZ-4: Areas where there is not enough geologic information available to determine the presence or absence of mineral resources.

Typically, land classified as MRZ‐2 are of the greatest importance and are designated by the State Mining and Geology Board as being “regionally significant.” Such designation requires that a Lead Agency make land use decisions based upon its mineral resou rce management policies, and that the Lead Agency consider the importance of the mineral resource to the region or the State as a whole, and not just to the Lead Agency’s jurisdiction or proposed project area.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 87

The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two-phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include p arking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part-time employees. The Project would also require an amendment to the City’s Uptown Village Specific Plan (SP 96-54) to create a new planning area.

While the CA DOC has designated the entire city as an MRZ -3 zone, there are no known or mapped mineral resources located within the city of Cathedral City or its Sphere of Influence (SOI) areas nor is there currently mineral production on or near the proposed Project site (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report; 2021). The proposed Project would therefore not result in the loss of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, nor would it 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. There would be no impact.

Additionally, there are no known mineral resources sites located in the city or on the proposed Project site; therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 88

4.13 Noise

4.13.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in th e project area to
excessive noise levels?

The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two-phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two (2) retail buildings wit h an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include p arking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part-time employees. The Project would also require an amendment to the City’s Uptown Village Specific Plan (SP 96-54) to create a new planning area.

A Noise Impact Study was completed by MD Acoustics LLC in July 2023, for the proposed Project and is included in Appendix D of this ISMND.

Sound, Noise, and Acoustics
Sound is a disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source and is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a moving object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to a human ear. For traffic or stationary noise, the medium of concern is air. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or unwanted. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 89

Frequency and Hertz
A continuous sound is described by its frequency (pitch) and its amplitude (loudness). Frequency relates to the number of pressure oscillations per second. Low-frequency sounds are low in pitch (bass sounding) and high - frequency sounds are high in pitch (squeak). These oscillations per second (cycles) are commonly referred to as Hertz (Hz). The human ear can hear from the bass pitch starting at 20 Hz to the high pitch of 20,000 Hz.

Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of a sound determines its loudness. The loudness of sound increases or decreases as the amplitude increases or decreases. Sound pressure amplitude is measured in units of micro-Newton per square inch meter (N/m2), also called micro -Pascal (μPa). One μPa is approximately one hundred billionths (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. Sound pressure level (SPL or Lp) is used to describe in logarithmic units the ratio of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared These units ar e called decibels abbreviated dB. Exhibit C illustrates references sound levels for different noise sources.

Ground-Borne Vibration Fundamentals
Vibration Descriptors
Ground-borne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. The effects of ground -borne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at extreme vibration levels, damage to buildings may occur. Although ground -borne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. Ground-borne noise is an effect of ground-borne vibration and only exists indoors since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves.

Several different methods are used to quantify vibration amplitude:
• PPV – Known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) which is the maximum instantaneous peak in vibration velocity, typically given in inches per second.
• RMS – Known as root mean squared (RMS) can be used to denote vibration amplitude. • VdB – A commonly used abbreviation to describe the vibration level (VdB) for a vibration source.

Vibration Perception Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower. These continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65 VdB. Outdoor sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible ground borne noise or vibration. To counter the effects of ground -borne vibration, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published guidance relative to vibration impacts. According to the FTA, fragile buildings can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels of 0.3 inches per second without experiencing structural damage. Although ground borne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors; therefore, the vibration level threshold is assessed at occupied structures.

Therefore, all vibration impacts are assessed at the structure of an affected property. There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression, and shear waves. Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the grou nd’s surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wavefront, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. P-waves, or compression waves, 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 90

are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wavefront. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a “push-pull” fashion). P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. S-waves or shear waves are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wavefront. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse, or side -to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation.

As vibration waves propagate from a source, the vi bration energy decrease s in a logarithmic nature and the vibration levels typically decrease by 6 VdB per doubling of the distance from the vibration source. As stated above, this drop-off rate can vary greatly depending on the soil but has been shown to be effective enough for screening purposes to identify potential vibration impacts that may need to be studied through actual field tests.

Chapter 9.86 of the City of Cathedral City Municipal Code states vibration standards as follows: All uses shall be so operated as not to generate vibration discernible without instruments by the average person while on or beyond the lot upon which the source is located or within an adjoining enclosed space if mor e than one establishment occupies a structure. Vibration caused by motor vehicles, trains, and temporary construction or demolition work is exempt from this standard.

Existing Noise Environment
One 24 -hour noise measurement was conducted at the project site to document the existing noise environment. The measurements include the 1 -hour Leq, Lmin, Lmax, and other statistical data (e.g. L2, L8).

The results of the noise measurement are presented in Table 25. Noise measurement field sheets are provided in Appendix A.

Table 25 Long-Term Noise Measurement Data for (LT1) (dBA)1

Date Time 1-Hour dB(A)
LEQ LMAX LMIN L2 L8 L25 L50 L90
3/8/2023 10PM-11PM 58.3 78.0 45.3 65.6 60.5 58.1 56.1 53.0 3/8/2023 11PM-12AM 57.2 81.5 43.8 52.7 58.9 56.7 55.2 52.2 3/9/2023 12AM-1AM 54.7 69.4 41.0 58.7 58.4 55.5 53.6 51.1 3/9/2023 1AM-2AM 53.7 65.4 41.5 57.0 55.8 54.5 53.5 51.1 3/9/2023 2AM-3AM 52.4 70.4 41.3 56.6 55.3 52.9 51.4 48.1 3/9/2023 3AM-4AM 53.0 69.8 41.5 57.6 56.1 53.4 51.5 48.0 3/9/2023 4AM-5AM 54.8 69.7 42.0 59.7 58.0 56.2 53.4 50.1 3/9/2023 5AM-6AM 56.7 72.5 43.0 61.5 60.0 58.1 55.6 51.5 3/9/2023 6AM-7AM 60.7 76.0 48.2 64.5 62.4 61.4 60.3 57.4 3/9/2023 7AM-8AM 61.0 76.2 48.9 64.5 63.8 61.8 60.5 57.7 3/9/2023 8AM-9AM 60.0 80.1 42.2 63.7 62.0 60.7 59.5 54.8 3/9/2023 9AM-10AM 57.5 77.6 42.5 62.2 60.2 58.3 56.7 53.3 3/9/2023 10AM-11AM 56.3 71.4 40.6 60.8 59.8 57.2 55.5 51.6 3/9/2023 11AM-12PM 54.4 68.2 41.3 59.1 57.2 55.1 53.5 50.7 3/9/2023 12PM-1PM 53.7 69.2 42.0 57.4 56.2 54.1 52.6 50.4 3/9/2023 1PM-2PM 53.8 66.0 41.6 57.5 56.4 55.0 53.2 50.0 3/9/2023 2PM-3PM 54.9 76.0 39.9 59.5 57.2 55.1 53.2 50.4 3/9/2023 3PM-4PM 56.2 76.0 39.8 62.8 59.1 56.4 54.5 50.5 3/9/2023 4PM-5PM 57.0 71.6 42.0 61.8 59.8 58.2 56.3 52.8 3/9/2023 5PM-6PM 59.6 81.9 41.9 63.4 61.5 59.4 57.3 54.3 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 91

Date Time 1-Hour dB(A)
LEQ LMAX LMIN L2 L8 L25 L50 L90
3/9/2023 6PM-7PM 60.0 85.2 43.7 64.8 62.6 60.0 56.6 53.6 3/9/2023 7PM-8PM 59.4 83.5 41.1 64.2 59.8 58.4 56.5 53.6 3/9/2023 8PM-9PM 60.0 81.5 44.6 67.5 64.4 59.7 57.5 54.6 3/9/2023 9PM-10PM 57.7 82.5 43.9 61.1 59.7 58.3 57.0 54.1 CNEL 62.7
Notes:

1.Long-term noise monitoring location (LT1) is illustrated in Exhibit E.

2.Quietest ambient noise level during operational hours highlighted in orange.

Table 5 Long Term Noise Measurement Data for (LT1) (dbA), Appendix D, MDAcoustics Noise Impact Study, March 2024.

The data presented in Table 25 and the field notes provided in Appendix D, indicate that ambient noise levels in the project vicinity range between 54 and 61 dBA Leq during operational hours. The overall CNEL was 62.7 dBA CNEL. The field data indicates that Date Palm Road is the dominant noise source. The quietest ambient noise level during operational hours is highlighted in orange.

Regulatory Setting
The proposed project is located in the City of Cathedral City, California, and noise regulations are addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, and local government agencies. The agencies responsible for regulating noise are discussed below.

Federal Regulations
The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act of 1972, which serves three purposes:
• Publicize noise emission standards for interstate commerce • Assist state and local abatement efforts
• Promote noise education and research
The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) originally was tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act. However, it was eventually eliminated, leaving other federal agencies and committees to develop noise policies and programs. Some examples of these agencies are as follows: The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed a significant role in noise control through its various agencies. The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) is responsible for regulating noise from aircraft and airports. The Fede ral Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible for regulating noise from the interstate highway system. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for the prohibition of excessive noise exposure to workers. The United States Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is responsible for establishing noise regulations as it relates to exterior/interior noise levels for new HUD-assisted housing developments near high noise areas. The federal government advocates that local jurisdictions use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new developments in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being constructed adjacent to a highway or that the developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are minimized. Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by the transportation source, the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 92

State Regulations
Established in 1973, the California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control (ONC) was instrumental in developing regularity tools to control and abate noise for use by local agencies. One significant model is the “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix.” The matrix allows the local jurisdiction to delineate the compatibility of sensitive uses with various incremental levels of noise. The State of California has established noise insulation standards as outlined in Title 24 and the Unifor Building Code (UBC) which in some cases requires acoustical analyses to outline exterior noise levels and to ensure interior noise levels do not exceed the interior threshold. The State mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State.

Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable as illustrated in Exhibit D of Appendix D of this ISMND. City of Cathedral City Noise Regulations the City of Cathedral City outlines their noise regulations and standards within the City Safety and The City of Cathedral City outlines their noise regulations and standards within the Municipal Code and the Noise Element of the City of Cathedral City General Plan Chapter V Section C.

City of Cathedral City General Plan
The Noise Element outlined in Chapter V Environmental Hazards coordinates the community’s land uses with the existing and future noise environment and designs measures intended to minimize or avoid community exposure to excessive noise levels. The implementation of the policies and programs contained in the Noise Element is meant to reduce or avoid current and future noise impacts. The Noise Element identifies the major source of continuous, excessive noise in the city. Those sources are traffic noise propa gating from main roadways and also freight rail service along the Southern Pacific Railroad, parallel to the I-10 highway. Airport noise can impact occasionally the noise environment.

Sensitive receptors are identified as schools, libraries, and medical facilities. The City of Cathedral City has adopted their ordinance to address the State requirement outlined by the California Government Code Section 65032, subsection (f) and section 21083.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Applicable noise ordinance for the City of Cathedral City is in place through Chapter 11.96 of the City Municipal Code. The Noise Element also describes the noise contours projected for major roadways, and the data is presented in Table V-

3. In addition to the noise standards, the City has outlined goals, policies, and programs to reduce potential noise impacts and are presented below:

Goals, Policies, and Programs Policies, goals, and programs measures from the Noise Element that would mitigate potential impacts on noise include the following:
• Goal: A noise environment that complements the City’s low density residential character and its various land uses.
o Policy 1: Protect noise sensitive land uses, including residential neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, libraries, churches, resorts, and community open space, as well as land uses proposed in the vicinity of the railway, Interstate 10, the Mid-Valley Parkway, and Da Vall Drive from high noise levels generated by existing and future noise sources. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 93

• Program 1.A: Develop and maintain an inventory of existing noise sources and areas of incompatibility and establish procedures to reduce the noise levels in these areas, where economically and aesthetically feasible.
• Program 1.B: Require building setbacks, the installation of wall and window insulation, soundwalls, earthen berms, and/or other mitigation measures in areas exceeding the City’s noise limit standards for private development projects as they occur.
• Program 1.C: Maintain and enforce a Noise Control ordinance that establishes community-wide noise standards and identifies measures designed to resolve noise complaints. • Program 1.D: Use Specific Plans and the development review process to encourage the use of buffers between noise sensitive land uses and incompatible land uses. • Program 1.E: Parking lots, loading zones, and large trash bins shall be located at a sufficient distance from adjacent residential properties to reduce associated noise impacts. • Policy 2: The relationship between land use designations in the Land Use Element and changes in the circulation pattern of the City, as well as individual developments shall be monitored and mitigated. • Program 2.A: The City zoning ordinance and development review standards shall be used to limit land use patterns and project designs to those that are noise compatible. • Program 2.B: Develop guidelines and minimal criteria requirements for noise analyses for future development projects. Studies shall evaluate project impacts and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.
• Program 2.C: Periodically review and amend the Land Use map as appropriate to assure reasonable land use/noise level compatibility.
• Policy 3: Private sector project proposals shall include measures that assure that noise exposures levels comply with State of California noise insulation standards as defined in Title 25 (California Noise Insulation Standards).
• Policy 4: Maintain a circulation map which maintains low levels of traffic within neighborhoods and assigns truck routes to major roadways only.
• Program 4.A: Designate primary truck routes and ensure that they are clearly marked throughout the community. Except for traffic providing location-specific services and deliveries, construction trucks and delivery trucks shall be limited to East Palm Canyon Drive, Interstate-10, Date Palm Drive, Palm Drive, Varner Road, Edom Hill Road, Dinah Shore Drive, Ramon Road, and Vista Chino. • Program 4.B: Development projects which result in through-traffic in residential neighborhoods shall be discouraged through the development review process.
• Policy 5: Maintain an ongoing contact with the Palm Springs Airport to ensure that flight paths and airport improvements do not impact or extend noise contours into the City. • Policy 6: Coordinate with adjoining municipalities to assure noise-compatible land uses across jurisdictional boundaries.
• Policy 7: The City shall restrict grading and construction activities that may impact residential neighborhoods to specified days of the week and times of day.

City of Cathedral City Noise Ordinance Section 11.96.030 “Prohibited acts” from the noise ordinance outlines the City’s exterior noise limits as it relates to stationary noise sources. (A) It is unlawful for any person to engage in the following activities : (6) To produce, suffer or allow to be produced noise or sounds that exceeds the dB(A) levels in the table below. Exterior noise shall be measured at the lot line of the lot where the noise or sounds are emanating. If the measurement location is on the bo undary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. Interior noise shall be measured at least four feet from the wall, floor, or ceiling nearest to the noise source and with all windows, doors, and other openings to the exterior closed. Noises caused by motor vehicles or trains are exempt from these standards. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 94

In the event the ambient noise level exceeds these levels, no person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced noise or sounds in excess of the ambient noise level.

Section 11.96.030 “Prohibited acts” from the noise ordinance outlines the City’s exterior noise limits as it relates to stationary noise sources.

It is unlawful for any person to engage in the following activities:
• To produce, suffer or allow to be produced noise or sounds that exceed the dB(A) levels in the table below. Exterior noise shall be measured at the lot line of the lot where the noise or sounds are emanating. If the measurement location is on the boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. Interior noise shall be measured at least four feet from the wall, floor, or ceiling nearest to the noise source and with all windows, doors and other openings to the exterior closed.
• Noises caused by motor vehicles or trains are exempt from these standards.

In the event the ambient noise level exceeds these levels, no person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced noise or sounds in excess of the ambient noise level. Please see table 26 for allowable exterior noise levels.

Table 26 Allowable Exterior Noise Level

Zone Time dB(A) Level
Residential – Exterior Noise 7 a.m. – 10 p.m. 65
10 p.m. - 7 a.m. 50
Residential – Interior Noise 7 a.m. – 10 p.m. 50
10 p.m. - 7 a.m. 40
Commercial Industrial – Exterior Noise 7 a.m. – 10 p.m. 85 10 p.m. – 7 a.m. 55
Table 2 Allowable Exterior Noise Level, Appendix D, MDAcoustics Noise Impact Study, March 2024.

Construction Regulations
Chapter 11.96 outlines the permitted hours for construction work in Section 11.96.070 limiting the time for construction work as stated in Subsection B of this Section.

1. 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: No permissible hours
State holidays: No permissible hours
Appendix D, MDAcoustics Noise Impact Study, March 2024.

2. 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: No permissible hours
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 95

State holidays: No permissible hours
Appendix D, MDAcoustics Noise Impact Study, March 2024.

a) Less than Significant Impact - Would the project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise Code, or applicable standards of other agencies? Transportation Noise
The FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA -RD-77-108) was utilized to model future traffic noise levels on the project site and existing and existing plus project traffic noise volumes along roadways affected by project generated vehicle traffic. The FH WA model arrives at the predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL).

Project-generated vehicle traffic will result in an incremental increase in ambient noise levels. To determine the project’s noise impact to the surrounding land uses, MD generated noise contours for existing ADT, and existing plus project conditions. Table 27 indicates the roadway parameters and vehicle distribution utilized for the modeling. Noise contours are used to provide a characterization of sound levels experienced at a set distance from the centerline of a subject roadway. They are intended to rep resent a worst-case scenario and do not take into account structures, sound walls, topography, and/or other sound attenuating features that may further reduce the actual noise level. Noise contours are developed for comparative purposes and are used to demonstrate potential increases/decreases along subject roadways as a result of a project.

• Roadway classification – (e.g., freeway, major arterial, arterial, secondary, collector, etc.), • Roadway Active Width – (distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway)
• Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT), Speeds, Percentages of autos, medium and heavy trucks • Roadway grade and angle of view
• Site Conditions (e.g., soft vs. hard)
• Percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period

Table 27 Roadway Parameters and Vehicle Distribution

Roadway Segment Existing ADT
Existing Plus
Project ADT
(Alternative 1)
Existing Plus
Project ADT
(Alternative 2)
Speed
(MPH)
Site
Conditions

Date Palm Dr McCallum Way to 30th
Ave 21,246 24,903 24,522 45 Soft
Major Arterial Vehicle Distribution (Truck Mix)2
Motor-Vehicle Type
Daytime %
(7AM to 7
PM)
Evening %
(7 PM to 10
PM)
Night %
(10 PM to 7 AM)
Total % of
Traffic
Flow

Automobiles 75.5 14.0 10.4 92.00
Medium Trucks 48.0 2.0 50.0 3.00
Heavy Trucks 48.0 2.0 50.0 5.00
Secondary and Collector Vehicle Distribution (Truck Mix)2 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 96

Motor-Vehicle Type
Daytime %
(7AM to 7
PM)
Evening %
(7 PM to 10
PM)
Night %
(10 PM to 7 AM)
Total % of
Traffic
Flow

Automobiles 75.5 14.0 10.5 97.42
Medium Trucks 48.9 2.2 48.9 1.84
Heavy Trucks 47.3 5.4 47.3 0.74
Notes:
1 Existing ADT from Coachella Valley Traffic counts, Project ADT provided by GIE Transportation Planning and Engineering. 2 Vehicle distribution data is based on Cathedral City traffic counts Table 4 Roadway Parameters and Vehicle Distribution, Appendix D, MDAcoustics Noise Impact Study, March 2024.

The potential off-site noise impacts caused by the increase in vehicular traffic as a result of the project were calculated at a distance of 50 feet from affected road segments. The noise levels at 50 feet both with and without project-generated vehicle traffic were compared and the increase was calculated. The distance to the 70, 65, 60, and 55 dBA CNEL noise contours are also provided for reference (Appendix D). Noise contours were calculated for the following scenarios and conditions:

• Existing Condition: This scenario refers to the existing year traffic noise condition and is demonstrated in Table 28 and Table 29.

• Existing + Project Condition: This scenario refers to the existing year plus project traffic noise condition and is demonstrated in Table 28: Alternative 1 and Table 29: Alternative 2.

As shown in Table 28, the addition of project -generated vehicle traffic to Date Palm Road due to Alternative 1would result in negligible increases in ambient noise levels and would not be significant.

Table 28 Alternative 1 Existing Scenario - Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL) Existing Without Project Exterior Noise Levels
CNEL
at 50 Ft
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Ft)
Roadway Segment 70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Date Palm Dr McCallum Way to 30th Ave 72.1 69 149 321 691 Existing With Project Exterior Noise Levels
CNEL
at 50 Ft
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Ft)
Roadway Segment 70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Date Palm Dr McCallum Way to 30th Ave 72.8 77 165 356 768 Change in Existing Noise Levels as a Result of Project
CNEL at 50 Feet dBA2
Roadway1 Segment
Existing
Without
Project
Existing
With
Project
Change in
Noise Level
Potential
Significant
Impact
Date Palm Dr McCallum Way to 30th Ave 72.1 72.8 0.7 No
Notes:
1 Exterior noise levels calculated at 5 feet above ground level. 2 Noise levels calculated from centerline of subject roadway.

Table 6 Alternative 1 Existing Scenario – Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL), Appendix D, MDAcoustics Noise Impact Study, March 2024.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 97

Table 29 Alternative 2 Existing Scenario - Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL) Existing Without Project Exterior Noise Levels
CNEL
at 50 Ft
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Ft)
Roadway Segment 70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Date Palm Dr McCallum Way to 30th Ave 72.1 69 149 321 691 Existing With Project Exterior Noise Levels
CNEL
at 50 Ft
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Ft)
Roadway Segment 70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Date Palm Dr McCallum Way to 30th Ave 72.7 76 164 353 760 Change in Existing Noise Levels as a Result of Project
CNEL at 50 Feet dBA2
Roadway1 Segment
Existing
Without
Project
Existing
With
Project
Change in
Noise Level
Potential
Significant
Impact
Date Palm Dr McCallum Way to 30th Ave 72.1 72.7 0.6 No
Notes:
1 Exterior noise levels calculated at 5 feet above ground level. 2 Noise levels calculated from centerline of subject roadway.

Table 7 Alternative 2 Existing Scenario – Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL) , Appendix D, MDAcoustics Noise Impact Study, March 2024.

Transportation noise impacts would be considered significant if the existing plus project levels are expected to increase by more than 3 dB. Compared to existing traffic noise levels, future traffic volumes for Scenario 1 are expected to increase 0.7 dBA CNEL at existing land uses. Future traffic volumes for Scenario 2 are expected to increase 0.6 dBA CNEL at the existing land uses. The impact is therefore less than significant.

On-Site Traffic Noise Impacts
Future noise levels associated with traffic were modeled using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model calculations in order to evaluate the project in light of the City’s exterior standards presented in Table 30 and 31, as they apply to future traffic noise impacts to the proposed project. The Project is currently within the conditionally acceptable range at 74 dBA CNEL. It will not change due to the increase in traffic levels due to the project.

There are no outdoor uses for this Project.

Stationary Noise Sources
Stationary noise impacts would be considered significant if they result in exceedances of Section 11.96.030 of the Municipal Code. Implementation of the proposed Project may result in stationary noise related to drive through speakers, parking, idling cars, idling heavy trucks, and rooftop HVAC areas. All equipment would be required to meet the stationary noise limits of 65 dBA at the adjacent sensitive receptors. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 98

Table 30 Alternative 1 Operational Noise Levels (dBA, Leq) Receptor1 Floor
Existing
Ambient Noise
Level
(dBA, Leq)2
Project
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)3
Total
Combined
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)
Daytime
(7AM - 10PM)
Stationary Noise
Limit (dBA, Leq)
Change in Noise
Level as Result of
Project
1 1

53.7 46 54

65.0 1
2 1 46 54 1
3 1 47 55 1
4 1 48 55 1
5 1 48 55 1
6 1 50 55 2
7 1 45 54 1
8 1 42 54 0
Notes:

1.Receptor1- 8 represent residential uses.

2.Appendix A measured ambient noise data.

3.See Exhibit G for the operational noise level projections at said receptors.

4.Daytime noise ordinance Section 11.96.030 of the Cathedral City Municipal code.

Table 8 Alternative 1 Operational Noise Levels (dBA, Leq) , Appendix D, MDAcoustics Noise Impact Study, March 2024.

Table 31 Alternative 2 Operational Noise Levels (dBA, Leq)

Receptor1 Floor
Existing
Ambient Noise
Level
(dBA, Leq)2
Project
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)3
Total
Combined
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)
Daytime
(7AM - 10PM)
Stationary Noise
Limit (dBA, Leq)
Change in Noise
Level as Result of
Project
1 1

53.7 47 55

65.0 1
2 1 48 55 1
3 1 49 55 1
4 1 50 55 2
5 1 50 55 2
6 1 50 55 2
7 1 45 54 1
8 1 43 54 0
Notes:

1.Receptor1- 8 represent residential uses.

2.Appendix A measured ambient noise data.

3.See Exhibit G for the operational noise level projections at said receptors.

4.Daytime noise ordinance Section 11.96.030 of the Cathedral City Municipal code.

Table 9 Alternative 2 Operational Noise Levels (dBA, Leq), Appendix D, MDAcoustics Noise Impact Study, March 2024.

Operational noise levels for Scenario 1 are expected to reach 42 to 50 dBA Leq at the residential receptors.

Operational noise levels for Scenario 2 are expected to reach 43 to 50 dBA Leq. These noise levels for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 do not exceed the City’s daytime noise standard of 65 dBA. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Construction Noise
Construction noise associated with the proposed Project was calculated utilizing methodology presented in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 99

together with several key construction parameters including distance to each sensitive receiver, equipment usage, percent usage factor, and baseline parameters for the project site. Construction activities are anticipated to include four phases: site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving.

Construction noise levels were calculated for each phase based on the CalEEMod Air Quality Model assumptions. All equipment was assumed to be situated at the center of the proposed Project site.

Construction noise will be significant if construction activities occur outside of the permitted construction hours specified in Section 11.96.070 of the City of Cathedral City Municipal Code.

1. 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: No permissible hours
State holidays: No permissible hours
Appendix D, MDAcoustics Noise Impact Study, March 2024.

2. 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: No permissible hours
State holidays: No permissible hours
Appendix D, MDAcoustics Noise Impact Study, March 2024.

Noise due to construction will result in short-term noise impacts associated with construction activities.

Table 32 Construction Noise Level by Phase (dBA, Leq)
Activity Noise Levels at Nearest Sensitive Receptor
Leq Lmax
Site Preparation 73 79
Grading 70 80
Building Construction 72 79
Paving 68 78
Architectural Coating 59 73
Notes:

Construction Modeling Worksheets are provided in Appendix D.

Table 11 Construction Noise Level by Phase (dBA, Leq), Appendix D, MDAcoustics Noise Impact Study, March 2024.

As shown in Table 32, project construction noise will range between 59 to 73 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors, which are the residential uses at the eastern property line.

The Project will be required to adhere to Section 11.96.070 of the City of Cathedral City Municipal Code which outlines the allowed times for construction. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 100

In addition to complying with Section 11.96.070 of the City of Cathedral City Municipal Code, the following best practices are recommended to reduce construction noise:

1. During construction, the contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices.

2. The contractor should locate equipment staging areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise/vibration sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.

3. Idling equipment should be turned off when not in use.

4. Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.

The site preparation and building phases of on-site construction activities will generate the highest temporary noise levels. The loudest construction equipment on the site will be tractors, graders, scrapers, and dozers.

Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. Project construction noise will range between 59 to 79 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors, which are the residential uses at the eastern property line.

Thresholds from the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual in Table 33 provides general thresholds and guidelines as to the vibration damage potential from vibratory impacts.

Table 33 Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Source: Table 19, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Caltrans, Sept. 2013.

Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 101

Table 12 Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria, Appendix D, MDAcoustics Noise Impact Study, March 2024.

Table 34 gives approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities. This data provides a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions.

Table 34 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity Approximate Vibration Level
(inches/second) at 25 feet LV (dVB) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112

0.644 (typical) 104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 105

0.170 typical 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill 0.008 in soil 66
(slurry wall) 0.017 in rock 75
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2018.

Table 13 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, Appendix D, MDAcoustics Noise Impact Study, March 2024.

The nearest existing building is 50 feet east of the project site. At this distance, a large bulldozer would yield a worst-case 0.042 PPV (in/sec) which is not perceptible and will not result in architectural damage. The impact is not significant.

Construction vibration associated with the proposed Project would be significant if vibrations were to exceed levels that would result in structural damage to existing buildings. While there are existing buildings within 50 feet of the Project site and the re is the possibility of construction vibration and noise affecting these surrounding uses, a large bulldozer at the proposed Project site would typically yield a worst -case 0.042 peak particle velocity (PPV) per second. This would be below the threshold o f any risk of structural damage as defined by the Federal Transportation Agency (FTA). The FTA defines daytime residential annoyance as 78 velocity decibels. Also, construction noise and associated construction vibration levels would be restricted to daytime (only) hours of operation established by the City and Project applicant.

In addition to the Construction Noise the City has requirements for Vibrations:

Chapter 9.86 of the Cathedral City Municipal Code states vibration standards as follows: All uses shall be so operated as not to generate vibration discernible without instruments by the average person while on or beyond the lot upon which the source is located or within an adjoining enclosed space if mo re than one establishment occupies a structure. Vibration caused by motor vehicles, trains, and temporary construction or demolition work is exempt from this standard.

4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 102

Construction vibration will be significant if vibration exceeds levels that would result in structural damage to existing buildings. Construction activity is not anticipated to occur within 50 feet of sensitive receptors. At a distance of 50 feet, the nearest residential building to the project property line, a large bulldozer would yield a worst-case 0.042 PPV (in/sec) which is below the threshold of any risk of damage. The project may result in temporary daytime residential annoyance. Construction activit y is not expected to fall within the limits of structural damage, and therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Since the proposed Project would consist of self -storage and general commercial uses related to fast -food restaurants, and a retail, none of these uses would create a significant source of vibration during Project operation, impacts from operational uses would also be remain less than significant.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 103

4.14 Population and Housing

4.14.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two -phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate -controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,0 00 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include parking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part-time employees. The Project would also require an amendment to the City’s Uptown Village Specific Plan (SP 96-54) to create a new planning area.

According to the US Bureau of Census, the city has an existing population of approximately 52,220 people and 18,827 households (US Census Bureau, 2021). The City’s Imagine 2040 General Plan EIR estimated that the city has the potential to add approximately 105,000 new residents and 33,000 additional housing areas by the General Plan Update buildout year of 2040 (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report; 2021). Should employees under the proposed Project be drawn from outside the city or County, this potential population growth has already been factored under the City’s General Plan buildout. Further, the proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth since the Project does not include any development of new homes or extending existing infrastructure that would directly or indirectly induce population growth. Impacts would therefore be less than significant.

b) No Impact. Since the Project site is currently a vacant parcel with no housing areas, the proposed Project would not displace any existing people or housing, nor would it require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, there would be no impact.

There would be no impact.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 105

4.15 Public Services

4.15.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new of 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:

i. Fire Protection?
ii. Police Protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?

a.i) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two-phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate -controlled self -storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include p arking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part-time employees. The Project would also require an amendment to the City’s Uptown Village Specific Plan (SP 96-54) to create a new planning area.

According to the City’s Imagine 2040 GPU EIR, the city is primarily served by the City of Cathedral City’s Fire Department and supplemented for fire protection services under a mutual aid agreement on an as needed basis, by the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), and by the City of Palm Springs Fire Department. The city is served by three (3) fire stations, Stations 411, 412, and 413, located at Date Palm Drive, Desert Vista Road, and Landau Boulevard, respectively. The city’s three (3) fire department s can therefore provide fire services at a rate of 0.77 firefighters to every 1,000 residents, with a typical response time of six (6) minutes 21 seconds within the city limits (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report; 2021).

The proposed Project site would be served by Fire Station Number 412 (which also serve as the City of Cathedral City Fire Department headquarters) which is located at 32100 Desert Vista Road, approximately over half a mile (0.67 miles) to the southwest of the proposed Project site (Google Maps; 2023). Fire Station 412 is a full-service public safety department which provides fire suppression, and emergency medical services with a battalion 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 106

chief, one (1) fire captain, one (1) fire engineer, and one (1) firefighter/paramedic. This fire station houses (1) ladder truck (Truck 412) along with the one (1) reserve fire truck, one (1) rehab area, and one (1) reserve ambulance Since the City’s Fire Department is headquartered at Station 412, this facility houses the city’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) as well as the Fire Department’s Fire Chief, one (1) fire inspector and two (2) administrative staff (Cathedral City Fire Department 2019-2023 Strategic Plan; 2023).

While the proposed Project would add new uses on a currently vacant parcel within the City, given the proximity of the site to Fire Station 412, the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts in relation to the provision of new or physically altered fire station facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire services.

The development of this project will be offset by the payment of the City of Cathedral City’s Development Impact Fee for Fire Facilities which will support the determination of “No Significant Impact” and no further action is needed.
a.ii) Less than Significant Impact. Police protection for the city is provided by the Cathedral City Police Department (CCPD), located at 68700 Avendia Lalo Guerrero. The CCPD staff consists of 52 sworn officers, 35 non -sworn support and administrative personnel, and six (6) reserve officer s. Police vehicles include 38 marked and approximately 22 unmarked cars. The CCPD provides a variety of services including around-the clock patrol and dispatch services, a records unit, Detective Bureau, the Coachella Valley Narcotics Task Force, a Homeless Liaison Team, a Gang investigation unit, , a crime scene forensics unit, a highly trained Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams, a K -9 team, a real estate fraud task force, a School Resource Officer (SEO), post release community supervision accountability team, and an Auto Theft Task Force The Police Department provides approximately 0.90 officers to every 1,000 residents , with a typical response time of seven (7) minutes or less within the city limits (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report; 2021).

While the proposed Project would add new uses on a currently vacant parcel within the city, given the availability of police services in the city, the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts in relation to the provision of new or physically altered police facilities and services in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police services.

There would be no impact.

The development of this project will be offset by the payment of the City of Cathedral City’s Development Impact Fee for Police Facilities which will support the determination of “No Significant Impact” and no further action is needed.
a.iii) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is located within the Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD) which provides kindergarten through 12th grade public educational services and facilities in its service area, which includes the City of Cathedral City. PSUSD enrolls approximately 21,680 students throughout 28 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 107

schools and independent study programs (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report; 2021).

There are approximately nine (9) public schools that are within a five (5) mile radius of the proposed Project site (Google Maps; 2023). These include:
• Landau Elementary School located approximately one (1) mile to the northwest; • Agua Caliente Elementary School located less than two (2) miles to the west; • Sunny Sands Elementary School less than one (1) mile to the southeast; • Cathedral City Elementary School approximately two and half (2.5) miles to the south; • Rio Vista Elementary School, located over two (2) miles to the northwest; • James Workman Middle School which is located less than one (1) mile to the northweast; • Nellie N Coffman Middle School approximately over two (2) miles to the southeast; • Cathedral City High School, approximately one and a half (1.5) miles to the southeast; and, • Mt San Jacinto High School, about one (1) mile to the southwest.

In addition, there are two (2) private schools (kindergarten through high school) within a half (0.5) radius of the Project site. These include:
• Palm Valley School, located approximately two and a half (2.5) 4.5 miles to the southeast; and, • Kings School, about two and a quarter (2.75) miles to the southwest.

A number of private day-care facilities, art studios and other technical institutions are located within a five (5) radius of the Project site.

Although the proposed Project would add new land uses and employment opportunities to the city, there is no housing associated with the Project. It is anticipated that future Project employees would reside in the city of Cathedral City or in other areas of Riverside County and utilize the existing schools in the city and county.

Therefore, the Project would not result in the need for new or altered schools, the construction of which would cause environmental impacts. Proposed Project impacts would therefore be less than significant.

The development of this project will be offset by the payment of the Palm Springs Unified School District’s Development Impact Fee for School Facilities which will support the determination of “No Significant Impact” and no further action is needed.
a.iv) No Impact. See Section 4.16, Recreation for discussion on Parks. a-v) Less than Significant Impact. While there is no housing proposed at the Project site, the proposed Project would add 150 new employment opportunities to the city. This could result in the need for additional services to the area hospitals, post offices, libraries, and other similar public facilities. The Desert Regional Medical Center located over five (5) miles to the west, and the Eisenhower Medical Center approximately nine (9) miles to the northeast; an US Post Office and the Cathedral City Public Library are located about two (2) miles to the south. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 108

Therefore, the proposed Project would not require additional new or physically altered governmental facilities and the impacts would be less than significant.

The development of this project will be offset by the payment of the City of Cathedral City’s Development Impact Fee for Other Facilities which will support the determination of “No Significant Impact” and no further action is needed.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 109

4.16 Recreation

4.16.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

RECREATION
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?

a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two-phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate -controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store /Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include parking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part-time employees. The Project would also require an amendment to the City’s Uptown Village Specific Plan (SP 96-54) to create a new planning area.

Since the proposed Project does not include any residential development, the potential to increase the use of existing parks near the Project site would be on an infrequent basis. All construction and operation level employees would have access to other recreational facilities near the Project site, which include the Dennis Keat Soccer Park loc ated approximately 1,300 feet to the northeast, Century Park, approximately two (2) miles to the east and Desert Memorial Park, approximately 4,000 feet to the southeast of the site (Google Maps, 2023).

Therefore, the proposed Project would not increase th e use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, and impacts would be less than significant.

b) No impact. As a commercial and retail development, the proposed Project would not include any residential development. While the Project would employ approximately 150 people, these new employees would 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 110

potentially be local to the immediate surrounding area and community, city of Cathedral City, or Riverside County. Employees would therefore tend to utilize recreational services closer to their residences. Therefore, the potential to increase the use of existing parks near the Project site would be minimal and on an infrequ ent basis. Nor would the proposed Project require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment; thus, there would be no impact.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 111

4.17 Transportation and Traffic

4.17.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Background

The project is being analyzed with two scenarios so that all outcomes are covered, and the applicant will not have to do additional CEQA studies and could do a Finding of Consistence per Section 15063 of CEQA. The scenarios are as follow:

Scenario One
• An approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) (at 57,527 sf per floor) storage facility with retail and office area as well as associated loading and utility storage area; • One (1) retail buildings with an area of 4,725 sf;
• Two (2) retail buildings with 3,217 sf each (total 6,434 sf) • Two (2) drive-thru restaurants with an area of 4,617 and 2,413 square feet; • The proposed Project would include associated parking, trash enclosures, landscaping, and internal circulation system;
• The on-site landscaping for the site will amount to approximately 68,666 sf or 21% of the site; • A monument sign for the overall facility will be located on both sides of the main entryway from Date Palm Drive.

Scenario 2
• An approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) (at 57,527 sf per floor) storage facility with retail and office Unit as well as associated loading and utility storage Units; • One Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 square feet; • One (1) retail building with an area of 4,617 square feet; 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 112

• The proposed Project would include associated parking, trash enclosures, landscaping, and internal circulation system;
• The on-site landscaping for the site will amount to approximately 68,666 sf or 21% of the site; • A monument sign for the overall facility will be located on both sides of the main entryway from Date Palm Drive.

Integrated Engineering Group (IEG) evaluated the potential traffic deficiencies related to the Project in conformance with the analysis requirements per the City of Cathedral City Guidelines for Level of Service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the purposes of compliance with the City of Cathedral City’s General Plan and determined that the impact would be less than significant. A transportation analysis was conducted and completed for the proposed Project in December 2023 was revised in June 2024 and is included in this ISMND as Appendix F.

a) Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated . The proposed Project will not c onflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Traffic study conducted by IEG in December 2023 and revised June 2024, determined the following:

Existing Conditions Year 2023
Rosemount Road does not currently extend to Date Palm Drive. The proposed Project will be conditioned to construct half-width roadway improvement along the property frontage on Rosemount Road including curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving. Therefore, this report will take into consideration the following in addressing the proposed Project phases:
• Phase 1 – Rosemount Road extension not constructed prior to opening year 2025. Access would be limited to one proposed driveway along Date Palm Drive and one existing driveway along McCallum Way.
• Phase 2 - Rosemount Road extension is in place prior to opening year 2027. Access to the project site will be provided via o ne proposed driveway along Date Palm Drive , one proposed driveway along Rosemount Road that is aligned with the main access point to the Wren Residential development located at the northeast corner of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road, and one existing driveway along McCallum Way. Additionally, the Project will construct a traffic signal at the new intersection of Rosemount Road and Date Palm Drive.

ROADWAY NETWORK
A Locally significant roadway located within the study area of the proposed project contains Date Palm Drive functions as a divided 6-lane roadway within the study area from McCallum Way to Tachevah Drive. The posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour (mph) north of 30th Avenue and 45 mph south of 30th Avenue. Per the City of Cathedral City Comprehensive General Plan Circulation & Mobility Element, Date Palm Drive is at its buildout roadway classification of an arterial highway.

The SunLine Transit Agency (STA) is the main transit agency servicing Cathedral City. Currently, STA operates Route 4 within the vicinity of the project. Route 4 operates seven days a week and connects to Palm Springs west of the site and Palm Desert to th e south. Weekday and weekend service frequency is 60 minutes. Bus stops for Route 4 are currently located within 350 ft of the site at the northeast corner of the Date Palm Drive and McCallum Way intersection for northbound service and at the southwest cor ner for southbound service. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 113

Pedestrian accessibility and connectivity from the project site to these bus stops is provided along the frontage (east side of Date Palm Drive) with signalized crossings at the intersection where the bus stops are located.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Pedestrian facilities are provided within the study area of the project. Pedestrian crosswalks are generally provided at signalized intersections along Date Palm Drive with sidewalks on the west side from McCallum Way to Tachevah Drive and on the east side from the Project limits to McCallum Way. There are no existing bicycle facilities along Date Palm Drive. However, the City of Cathedral City Comprehensive General Plan Circulation & Mobility Element proposes a Class I off-road shared bike and pedestrian trail along Date Palm Drive.

Existing Plus Project (Phase 1 and 2) Conditions
Scenario 1: Is anticipated to generate approximately 1,696 total daily trips, 192 AM peak hour trips and 137 PM peak hour trips.

Scenario 2: Would be anticipated to generate approximately 3,542 total daily trips, 243 AM peak hour trips and 340 PM peak hour trips. This results in an increase of 1,846 daily trips, an increase of 51 AM peak hour trips, and an increase of 203 PM peak hour trips when compared to Scenario 1. However, Scenario 1 would result in 13 additional AM peak hour outbound trips. Scenario 2 will be the governing scenario for analysis and only the intersection AM peak hour will be analyzed for Scenario 1 as supplemental analysis.

Table 35 analysis the existing conditions of intersection operation in 2023. All analyzed intersections are operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS) under Existing Year 2023 Conditions.

Table 35 Existing Conditions 2023 Intersection Operation Analysis Intersection Intersection Control
Existing Conditions
Delay (a) LOS (b)
AM/PM Peak

1. Date Palm Drive and McCallum Way Signalized 11.9/11.3 B/B

3. Date Palm Drive and 30th Avenue Signalized 23.2/21.6 C/C

4. Date Palm Drive and Tachevah Drive SSSC 24.8/20.9 C/C Notes:
(a) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection and control delay for the worst movement for SSSC intersections, measured in seconds per vehicle. (b) LOS calculations are based on the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition and performed using Synchro 11.

Table 3-1 Existing Conditions 2023 Intersection Operation Analysis, Appendix F, IEG VMT Analysis June 2024.

Per the analysis results shown in Table 36, all analyzed roadway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS under Existing Year 2023 Conditions.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 114

Table 36 Existing Year 2023 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Roadway Segment Classification LOS E
Capacity
Existing Year 2023

ADT V/C LOS
Date Palm Drive
McCallum Way to Project Driveway 6-lane Arterial Highway 59,000 21,195 0.359 B Project Driveway to 30th Avenue 6-lane Arterial Highway 59,000 21,246 0.360 B 30th Avenue to Tachevah Drive 6-lane Arterial Highway 59,000 24,031 0.407 B Table 3-2 Existing Year 2023 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis, Appendix F, IEG VMT Analysis June 2024.

Project Completion Year 2025 (Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Phase 1) Since Phase 1 of the project is expected to be built and operational in 2025, a 3% annual growth factor for two years was applied to the existing counts . Project Phase 1 traffic volumes are then added to the se volumes to develop Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions traffic volumes, and documents potential operational deficiencies on the existing local and regional circulation network.

Table 37 Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions Intersection Operation Analysis Intersection Intersection Control
Project Completion Year 2025
Delay (a) LOS (b)
AM/PM Peak

1. Date Palm Drive and McCallum Way Signalized 12.6/11.9 B/B

3. Date Palm Drive and 30th Avenue Signalized 23.7/23.7 C/C

4. Date Palm Drive and Tachevah Drive SSSC 29.0/23.5 D/C

5. Date Palm Drive and Project Driveway SSSC 11.1/14.6 B/B

6. Existing Driveway and McCallum Way SSSC 12.0/10.9 B/B Notes:
(a) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection, measured in seconds/vehicle. At unsignalized intersections, delay refers to the worst movement. (b) LOS calculations are based on the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition and performed using Synchro 11.

Table 4-1 Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions Intersection Operation Analysis, Appendix F, IEG VMT Analysis June 2024.

Per the analysis results shown in Table 37, all analyzed intersections are operating at an acceptable LOS under Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 115

Table 38 Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Roadway Segment Classification LOS E
Capacity
Project Completion Year 2025

ADT V/C LOS
Date Palm Drive
McCallum Way to Project Driveway Arterial Highway 59,000 22,561 0.382 B Project Driveway to 30th Avenue Arterial Highway 59,000 22,624 0.383 B 30th Avenue to Tachevah Drive Arterial Highway 59,000 25,533 0.433 B Table 4-2 Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis, Appendix F, IEG VMT Analysis June 2024.

Per the analysis results shown in Table 38, all analyzed roadway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS under Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions.

Project Completion Year 2027 (Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Phases 1 and 2) The Rosemount Road extension is anticipated to be in place prior to opening year 2027. Therefore, this analysis assumes the construction of traffic signal at the new intersection of Rosemount Road and Date Palm Drive by the Project. Signal warrant worksheets are provided in Appendix F. It is understood that existing traffic patterns would change due to these improvements. Existing Year 2023 intersection peak hour traffic volumes for Intersection 2 were developed by redistributing forecast traffic from RIVCO M 3 Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) to the intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road.

The TAZ adjacent to the west side of Date Palm Drive loads approximately one-third of its base year 2018 daily traffic onto Date Palm Drive. The TAZ that the project is located within also loads approximately one -third of its 2018 daily traffic volume onto the intersection of Santoro Drive and 30th Avenue. Since both TAZs include similar residential and commercial retail components, the unadjusted zone connector volumes applied to the intersection of Santoro Drive and 30th Avenue were also applied at the in tersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road.

An annual growth factor based on the growth from Base Year 2018 to Forecast Year 2045 was applied to 2018 TAZ AM and PM peak hour volumes to calculate the redistributed volumes that would be applied to Existing Year 2023 counts. The turning movement distri bution percentages for the westbound approach at the intersection of Date Palm Drive and 30th Avenue was applied to the intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road to calculate adjusted Year 2023 turning movement volumes. RIVCOM 3 model plots, annua l growth calculation, Date Palm Drive and 30th Avenue distribution, and adjusted Year 2023 volumes are included in Appendix F.

Since Phase 2 of the project is expected to be built and operational in 2027, a 3% annual growth factor for four years was applied to the existing counts. Scenario 2 Phases 1 & 2 traffic volumes were then added to these adjusted Year 2023 volumes to develop Project Completion Year 2027 Conditions traffic volumes. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 116

Table 39 Project Completion Year 2027 Conditions Intersection Operation Analysis Intersection Intersection Control
Project Completion Year 2027
Delay (a) LOS (b)
AM/PM Peak

1. Date Palm Drive and McCallum Way Signalized 13.6/13.0 B/B

2. Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road Signalized 8.4/17.7 A/B

3. Date Palm Drive and 30th Avenue Signalized 25.2/20.0 C/B

4. Date Palm Drive and Tachevah Drive SSSC 38.4/29.3 E/D

5. Date Palm Drive and Project Driveway SSSC 11.6/19.3 B/C

6. Existing Driveway and McCallum Way SSSC 11.8/11.9 B/B Notes:

Bold indicates deficient LOS E or F
(a) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection, measured in seconds/vehicle. At unsignalized intersections, delay refers to the worst movement. (b) LOS calculations are based on the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition and performed using Synchro 11.

Table 5-1 Project Completion Year 2027 Conditions Intersection Operation Analysis, Appendix F, IEG VMT Analysis June 2024.

Per the analysis results shown in Table 39 all analyzed intersections are operating at an acceptable LOS under Project Completion Year 2027 Conditions except for the following:
• Date Palm Drive and Tachevah Drive - Installation of a traffic signal.

It should be noted that Date Palm Drive and Tachevah Drive intersection will experience poor LOS under AM peak hour due to the East Bound Left lane (EBL) movement which the project will not contribute to. The Project will only contribute trips to the North Bound left l ane (NBL) and East Bound Right lane (EBR) vehicular movements at the subject intersection. The delays and degradation in the EBL LOS are due to the increase in background vehicular volumes along Date Palm Drive related to the increase in developments throughout the City that are consistent with t he buildout land use intensities anticipated in the Cathedral City General Plan.

The increase of northbound and southbound through volumes on Date Palm Drive will reduce the number of gaps available for left turn vehicular movements out of Tachevah Drive.

Table 40 Project Completion Year 2027 With Improvements Intersection Operation Analysis Intersection
Project Completion Year 2027
Project Completion Year 2027
With Improvements
Delay (a) LOS (b) Delay (a) LOS (b)
AM/PM Peak

4. Date Palm Drive and Tachevah Drive 38.4/29.3 E/D 6.4/5.7 A/A Notes:

Table 5-2 Project Completion Year 2027 With Improvements Intersection Operation Analysis, Appendix F, IEG VMT Analysis June 2024. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 117

Table 41 Project Completion Year 2027 Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Roadway Segment Classification LOS E
Capacity
Project Completion Year 2027

ADT V/C LOS
Date Palm Drive
McCallum Way to Project Driveway Arterial Highway 59,000 24,391 0.413 B Project Driveway to Rosemount Drive Arterial Highway 59,000 24,540 0.416 B Rosemount Drive to 30th Avenue Arterial Highway 59,000 25,514 0.432 B 30th Avenue to Tachevah Drive Arterial Highway 59,000 27,758 0.470 C Table 5-3 Project Completion Year 2027 Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis, Appendix F, IEG VMT Analysis June 2024.

The results of Table 41 show all analyzed roadway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS under Project Completion Year 2027 Conditions.

Cumulative Year 2027 Conditions
This section analysis the circulation system conditions within the study area of the Project under Scenario 2 Cumulative Year 2027 (Existing Plus Ambient Plus Cumulative Plus Scenario 2 Phases 1 & 2) Conditions. The Cumulative Conditions traffic volumes were developed by adding cumulative project trips to the Project Completion 2027 Conditions traffic volumes. These cumulative projects are listed in Table 42 and the cumulative project trip volumes assigned to the study intersections are shown in Figure 6-1 of Appendix F.

Locations and trip distribution for these cumulative projects are included in Appendix F.

Table 42 Cumulative Projects
ID1 Project Land Use Quantity Units2
1 Kroger Gas Station Service Station 10 VFP
2 Wren Project Residential 204 DU
3 Vallarta Shopping Center Shopping Plaza 134 TSF
4 Canyon Springs Villas Residential 58 DU
5 Mountain View Estates Residential 110 DU
6 Tower Market Service Station with Convenience
Market 12 VFP
7 Cathedral Cove Center
Residential 200 DU
Retail 6.65 TSF
Fast-Food Restaurant 14.025 TSF
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 118

ID1 Project Land Use Quantity Units2
Service Station with Convenience
Market 12 VFP
C1 Ecoplex Park Phases 1 & 2 Cannabis Cultivation 93.44 TSF C2 Horizon Gardens Senior Living 80 OB
C3 CCBC Restaurant Restaurant 2.5 TSF
C4 Quick Quack Carwash Carwash 3.5 TSF
C5 7‐Eleven Gas Station 8 VFP
C6 Ramon 19
Cannabis (Cultivation) Facility 486 TSF
Dispensary 3 TSF
C7 District East Residential 43 DU
C8 Greenscape Engineering (67587 Canyon Plaza) Cannabis Cultivation 40 TSF C9 Agua Caliente Casino
Casino 40 TSF
Shopping Center 24 TSF
High‐Turnover Sit‐Down Restaurant 14 TSF
Quality Restaurant 14 TSF
Fast Casual Restaurant 6 TSF
Coffee Shop w/o Drive‐Thru 2 TSF
C10 Nirvana Estates Residential 103 DU
C11 Silver Torch Motel Motel 6 Rooms
C12 Cree Gas Station Convenience Store w/ Gas Station 8 VFP C13 Cathedral City Events Center (35900 Date Palm Dr) Event Center 80.0 TSF C14 Amazon Hub Center (35780 Date Palm Dr) Warehouse 94.0 TSF C15 Medicinal Healing (36555 Bankside Dr) Cannabis Cultivation Facility 11.0 TSF C16 Horizon Hotel (67670 Carey Rd) Hotel 68 Rooms
C17 MoGenCo (67555/67575 East Palm Canyon Drive) Cannabis Cultivation Facility 111.0 TSF C18 Desert Lexus (67855 East Palm Canyon Drive) Automobile Dealership 41.0 TSF 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 119

ID1 Project Land Use Quantity Units2
C19 Cathedral City Community Amphitheater Amphitheater 2,909 Seats P1 Canyon View / Summit Project by EHOF Canyon View,
LLC Residential 80 DU
P2 Palm Springs Surf Club Water Park 7.746 TSF
P3 Parker Hotel Expansion Hotel 32 Rooms
P4 Vibrante Condominium 41 DU
RM1 RM 38 JV LLC Residential 82 DU
RM2 Carefield Senior Living Residential 84 DU
RM3 ECHO at Rancho Mirage Residential 9 DU
RM4 Santa Barbara Cove Estates Residential 20 DU
RM5 Pulte Homes/ Del Webb Residential 1,200 DU
RM6 Veneto Residential 34 DU
RM7 Revelle Residential 32 DU
RM8 Bella Clancy Residential 20 DU
RM9 Mirada Villas Residential 46 DU
RM10 Estilo Residential 39 DU
RM11 RM Five‐1 LLC/Kilani Residential 4 DU
RM12 Heinrich/Steinberg Residential 4 DU
RM13 Rancho Mirage LLC Residential 4 DU
RM14 La Paloma Homes, Inc. Residential 13 DU
RM15 Monterey Medical Center Medical Office 75.164 TSF
RM16 38 JV, LLC c/o Meriwether Companies Residential 10 DU RM17 38 JV, LLC c/o Meriwether Companies Residential 97 DU RM18 38 JV, LLC c/o Meriwether Companies Residential 10 DU RM19 GRV Mirage, LLC (ECHO) Residential 9 DU
RM20 Ken Catanzarite Residential 20 DU
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 120

ID1 Project Land Use Quantity Units2
RM21 Mirage Dunes Properties Residential 9 DU
RM22 AMS Development Group (Bellavia) Residential 18 DU RM23 IN‐N‐OUT Burgers Commercial 3.995 TSF
RM24 DHO Medical Office Building Medical Office 13.80 TSF RM25 Chase Bank Bank 3.47 TSF
RM26
Section 31 Specific Plan Project
Hotel 400 Rooms
Commercial 175.00 TSF
Residential 1,932 DU
RM27 Tower Energy Group Commercial 5.565 TSF
RM28 Oasis Ranch LLC
Hotel 60 Rooms
Residential 108 DU
RM29 Horizon Pacific Rancho Cove MSA Consulting
Commercial 20.00 TSF
Hotel 100 Rooms
Residential 35 DU
RM30 Ritz‐Carlton Residences
Residential 106 DU
Commercial 6.966 TSF
RM31 Hazelden Betty Ford Center
Office 6.399 TSF
Drug/Alcohol Treatment Ctr. 56 Beds
RM32 Rancho Mirage Highway 111 Dealerships
Auto Sales (New) 58 TSF
Auto Care Center 56 TSF
Notes:
1 Projects with C, P, or RM designation are based on Cathedral Cove Center Traffic Analysis dated April 8, 2022, and prepared by Urban Crossroads.

Volumes distributed north of Intersection 17 Date Palm Drive and Ramon Road were applied to study intersections as northbound and southbound through volumes.
2 DU = Dwelling Units, TSF = Thousand Square Feet, VFP = Vehicle Fueling Positions, and OB = Occupied Beds Table 6-1 Cumulative Projects, Appendix F, IEG VMT Analysis June 2024.

Potential Cumulative Conditions operational deficiencies on the circulation network have been analyzed under the understanding the Rosemount Road extension is anticipated to be in place prior to opening year 2027. The following analysis assumes a traffic signal at the new intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 121

Analysis Results and recommended improvements
The analysis results shown in Table 43 and 44 below, show Cumulative Conditions intersection operation and roadway segment analysis results.

Table 43 Cumulative Year 2027 Conditions Intersection Operation Analysis Intersection Intersection Control
Cumulative Conditions
Delay (a) LOS (b)
AM/PM Peak

1. Date Palm Drive and McCallum Way Signalized 15.3/17.7 B/B

2. Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road Signalized 22.7/41.0 C/D

3. Date Palm Drive and 30th Avenue Signalized 29.0/25.5 C/C

4. Date Palm Drive and Tachevah Drive SSSC 61.0/59.0 F/F

5. Date Palm Drive and Project Driveway SSSC 13.0/23.5 B/C

6. Existing Driveway and McCallum Way SSSC 12.3/12.5 B/B Notes:

Table 6-2 Cumulative Year 2027 Conditions Intersection Operation Analysis, Appendix F, IEG VMT Analysis June 2024.

Per the analysis provided in Table 43, all analyzed roadway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS under Cumulative Year 2027 Conditions except for the following:
• Date Palm Drive and Tachevah Drive – Installation of a traffic signal.

It should be noted that Date Palm Drive and Tachevah Drive intersection will experience poor LOS under AM and PM peak hours due to the EBL movement which the project will not contribute to. The Project will only contribute trips to the NBL and EBR vehicular movements at the subject intersection. The delays and degradation in the EBL LOS are due to the increase in background vehicular volumes along Date Palm Drive related to the increase in developments throughout the City that are consistent with the buildout land use intensities anticipated in the Cathedral City General Plan. The increase of northbound and southbound through volumes on Date Palm Drive will reduce the number of gaps available for left turn vehicular movements out of Tachevah Drive.

Table 44 Cumulative Year 2027 With Improvements Intersection Operation Analysis Intersection
Cumulative Year 2027
Cumulative Year 2027
With Improvements
Delay (a) LOS (b) Delay (a) LOS (b)
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 122

AM/PM Peak

4. Date Palm Drive and Tachevah Drive 61.0/59.0 F/F 6.4/5.7 A/A Notes:

Table 6-3 Cumulative Year 2027 With Improvements Intersection Operation Analysis, Appendix F, IEG VMT Analysis June 2024.

Table 45 Cumulative Year 2027 Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Roadway Segment Classification LOS E
Capacity
Cumulative Year 2027

ADT V/C LOS
Date Palm Drive
McCallum Way to Project Driveway Arterial Highway 59,000 28,431 0.482 C Project Driveway to Rosemount Drive Arterial Highway 59,000 28,580 0.484 C Rosemount Drive to 30th Avenue Arterial Highway 59,000 29,054 0.492 C Tortuga Road to Tachevah Drive Arterial Highway 59,000 30,648 0.519 C Table 6-4 Cumulative Year 2027 Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis, Appendix F, IEG VMT Analysis June 2024.

The analysis results shown in Table 45, all analyzed roadway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS under Cumulative Year 2027 Conditions.

Scenario 1
This section analyzes the circulation system conditions within the study area of the project during the AM peak hour under Project (Scenario 1) Completion Year 2027 and Cumulative Year 2027 (Scenario 1) Conditions .

Rosemount Road does not currently extend to Date Palm Drive. The Rosemount Road extension is anticipated to be in place prior to opening year, 2027. Therefore, the following analysis assumes a traffic signal at the new intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road.

Table 46 Project Completion Year 2027 (Scenario 1) Conditions AM Peak Hour Intersection Operation Analysis
Intersection Intersection
Control
Cumulative Year 2027 (Scenario 1)
Delay (a) LOS (b)

1. Date Palm Drive and McCallum Way Signalized 15.2 B

2. Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road Signalized 24.1 C

3. Date Palm Drive and 30th Avenue Signalized 29.0 C

4. Date Palm Drive and Tachevah Drive SSSC 61.0 F
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 123

5. Date Palm Drive and Project Driveway SSSC 13.5 B

6. Existing Driveway and McCallum Way SSSC 12.6 B
Notes:
(a) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection, measured in seconds/vehicle. At unsignalized intersections, delay refers to the worst movement. (b) LOS calculations are based on the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition and performed using Synchro 11.

Table 7-1 Project Completion Year 2027 (Scenario 1) Conditions AM Peak Hour Intersection Operation Analysis Appendix F, IEG VMT Analysis June 2024.

Per the analysis results shown in Table 47, all analyzed intersections are operating at an acceptable LOS under Cumulative Year 2027 (Scenario 1) Conditions except for the following:
• Date Palm Drive and Tachevah Drive - as shown in Table 47, the addition of the project trips at this location would result in a delay lower than Scenario 2. Therefore, no additional improvements are recommended at this location when compared to Scenario 2.

Table 47 Cumulative Year 2027 (Scenario 1) Conditions AM Peak Hour Intersection Operation Analysis
Intersection Intersection
Control
Cumulative Year 2027 (Scenario 1)
Delay (a) LOS (b)

7. Date Palm Drive and McCallum Way Signalized 15.2 B

8. Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road Signalized 24.1 C

9. Date Palm Drive and 30th Avenue Signalized 29.0 C

10. Date Palm Drive and Tachevah Drive SSSC 61.0 F

11. Date Palm Drive and Project Driveway SSSC 13.5 B

12. Existing Driveway and McCallum Way SSSC 12.6 B
Notes:
(c) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection, measured in seconds/vehicle. At unsignalized intersections, delay refers to the worst movement. (d) LOS calculations are based on the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition and performed using Synchro 11.

Table 7-2 Cumulative Year 2027 (Scenario 1) Conditions AM Peak Hour Intersection Operation Analysis, Appendix F, IEG VMT Analysis June 2024.

Per the analysis results shown in Table 48, all analyzed intersections are operating at an acceptable LOS under Cumulative Year 2027 (Scenario 1) Conditions except for the following:
• Date Palm Drive and Tachevah Drive - as shown in Table 48, the addition of the project trips at this location would result in a delay lower than Scenario 2. Therefore, no additional improvements are recommended at this location when compared to Scenario 2.

Recommended Improvements
New development projects within the City of Cathedral City are required to provide needed infrastructure improvements to meet the demand created by the development and provide off-site improvements designed to ensure construction of the local and regional transportation networks to their ultimate classifications. This 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 124

section summarizes the project feature improvements and recommended improvements at deficient locations under all analyzed scenarios discussed in this report.

The proposed traffic signal at the new intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road will be constructed by whichever project is constructed first between Date Palm Drive Mixed Use, the Wren Project, and the Vallarta Shopping Center. All three projects w ill contribute to the funding of the transportation improvement based on their portion of total ADT generated. It should be noted that through the course of the subject project entitlement process, it has been determined that Vallarta will no longer be interested in acquiring phase 2 parcel to construct a supermarket but instead the supermarket will be built on the vacant site at the southwest corner of Date Plam and Rosemount Road intersection; therefore, the Project fair share contribution of 16.29% toward the signalization of Date Plam and Rosemount Road intersection is calculated based on the project scenario 1 land use intensity, as shown in Table 49. Wren Project and Vallarta Shopping Center project Trip generation is shown in Appendix F.

Table 48 Project Feature Contributions
Project Project ADT
(Scenario 1)
Project ADT
(Scenario 2)
Project Share %
(Scenario 1)
Project Share %
(Scenario2)
Date Palm Drive Mixed Use 1,668 3,542 16.29% 29.23%
Wren Project 1,375 1,375 13.43% 11.35%
Vallarta Shopping Center 7,199 7,199 70.29% 59.42%
Total 10,242 12,116 100% 100%
Table 8-1 Project Feature Contributions, Appendix F, IEG VMT Analysis June 2024.

Additionally, the ultimate turn lane lengths were determined by analyzing queues under Horizon Year 2045 Plus Projects Conditions. An annual growth factor based on the growth from RIVCOM 4.01 Base Year 2018 with 3 Projects to Forecast Year 2045 with 3 Proj ects was applied to Adjusted Existing Year 2023 counts (from Section 5.0) Plus 3 Projects volumes. The calculated growth factors, developed Horizon Year Plus Projects volumes, and queue analysis worksheets are included in Appendix F.

Table 49 Horizon Year 2045 Plus Projects Intersection Queue Analysis Intersection Movement Analyzed Turn
Lane Length (ft)
Recommended
Minimum
Taper Length
(ft)
Queue (ft) Excess
Demand Recommended
Turn Lane
Length (ft) AM PM AM PM
Date Palm Drive and
Rosemount Road
NBL 180 90 101 185 -- -- 200
NBR 100 90 53 103 -- -- 120
SBL 280 90 171 281 -- -- 300
SBR 140 90 136 75 -- -- 140
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 125

WBL 140 60 74 147 -- -- 160
Table 8-2 Horizon Year 2045 Plus Projects Intersection Queue Analysis, Appendix F, IEG VMT Analysis June 2024.

In cases where this study identified that the Project would contribute additional traffic volumes to cumulative traffic deficiencies, Project fair share costs of improvements necessary to mitigate deficient conditions have been calculated. The Project’s 8.7% fair share cost of improvements shown in Table 50 is determined based on the following equation, which is the ratio of Project traffic to new traffic. New traffic is total future traffic less existing baseline traffic:

Project Fair Share % = Project Traffic / (Cumulative Year 2027 Traffic – Existing Baseline Traffic) Table 50 Project Fair Share Contributions
# Intersection Existing
Baseline Traffic
Project
Traffic
Cumulative Year
2027 Traffic
Project Fair
Share % Funding Mechanism
4 Date Palm Drive and Tachevah Drive
AM 1,927 41 2,527 6.8% Project fair share towards
intersection signalization PM 1,999 68 2,784 8.7%
Table 8-3 Project Fair Share Contributions, Appendix F, IEG VMT Analysis June 2024.

With the widening of Rosemount Road, signalization at the new intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road, as well as complying with the City of Cathedral City’s Project Fair Share Contribution, impacts to transportation by the proposed Project are reduced to less than significant with mitigation with the implementation of mitigation measure TRAN-1.

TRAN-1 The Project will be conditioned to construct half -width roadway improvement along the property frontage on Rosemount Road including curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving . The proposed traffic signal at the new intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road will be constructed by whichever project is constructed first between Date Palm Drive Mixed Use, the Wren Project, and the Vallarta Shopping Center.

b) Less than Significant Impact . A traffic analysis conducted by IEG in 202 4 (Appendix F) provided Project screening project screening criteria to determine if a detailed VMT analysis is necessary. Per the Guidelines screening criteria for development projects, Scenarios 1 and 2 are screened out from VMT analysis since the mini warehouse component satisfies the Small Project screening criterion, and the strip retail plaza, fast -food restaurant, and shopping plaza components meet the Local-serving retail screening criterion.

On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into State law and started a process intended to fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of the CEQA compliance. The California Natural Resource Agency updated the CEQA transportation analysis guidelines in 2018. In this update automobile delay and LOS metrics are no longer to be used in determining transportation impacts. Instead VMT metrics will serve as the basis in determining impacts. Furthermore, the guidelines stated that after July 1, 2020, transportation analysis under CEQA must use VMT to determine impacts for land use projects. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 126

The City of Cathedral City has not adopted guidance on evaluating VMT for transportation impacts under CEQA.

Therefore, the County of Riverside Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), December 2020, hereafter referred to as Guidelines, will be used for this analysis

ANALYSIS METHODOLGY
The Guidelines outline 5 major-steps1 for CEQA assessment and VMT analysis:
• Evaluation of land use type
• Screening criteria under which projects are not required to submit a detailed VMT analysis • Significance thresholds
• VMT analysis methodologies
• Mitigation measures for significant and unavoidable impacts The Guidelines recognize that certain projects based on type, location, size and other contexts could lead to a presumption of less than significance (i.e. the project’s VMT would not cause a transportation impact under CEQA) and would not need additional VMT analysis. The Guidelines provide the following screening criteria:

1. Small Projects –
a. Single Family Housing projects less than or equal to 110 Dwelling Units; or b. Multi Family (low rise) Housing projects less than or equal to 147 Dwelling Units; or c. Multi Family (mid-rise) Housing projects less than or equal to 194 Dwelling Units; or d. General Office Building with area less than or equal to 165,000 SF; or e. Retail buildings with area less than or equal to 60,000 SF; or f. Warehouse (unrefrigerated) buildings with area less than or equal to 208,000 SF; or g. General Light Industrial buildings with area less than or equal to 179,000 SF Project GHG emissions less than 3,000 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e) as determined by a methodology acceptable to the Transportation Department; or h. Unless specified above, project trip generation is less than 110 trips per day per the ITE Manual or other acceptable source determined by Riverside County.

2. Projects near high quality transit – The project is located within half mile of an existing major transit stop and maintains a service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

3. Local-serving retail – No single store on -site exceeds 50,000 SF and project is local -serving as determined by the Transportation Department

4. Affordable Housing – A high percentage of affordable housing is provided as determined by the Riverside County Planning and Transportation Departments.

5. Local Essential Services –
a. Project is local serving as determined by the Transportation Department; and b. Local-serving and Day care center; or
c. Police or Fire facility; or
d. Medical/Dental office building under 50,000 square feet; or e. Government offices (in-person services such as post office, library, and utilities); or f. Local or Community Parks

6. Map-based Screening – Area of development is under threshold as shown on screening map as allowed by the Transportation Department.

7. Redevelopment projects – Project replaces an existing VMT-generating land use and does not result in a net overall increase in VMT.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 127

VMT THRESHOLDS
A land use project should determine the appropriate VMT measure and threshold of significance to apply. The thresholds3 as defined by the Guidelines are as follows:
• Residential Projects: Existing county-wide average 15.2 VMT per capita • Office: Existing county-wide average 14.2 VMT per employee • Retail: No net increase in total regional VMT
• Other Employment: Existing county-wide average 14.2 VMT per employee • Other Customer: No net increase in total regional VMT • Mixed-Use Projects: Respective VMT threshold for its multiple distinct land uses

SCREENING CRITERIA ASSESSMENT

1. Small Project:

Project Phase 1 proposes 115,054 SF of mini warehouse. This land use component is a warehouse building with area less than or equal to 208,000 SF. Therefore, the mini warehouse component of the Project would cause a less than significant impact based on this criterion.

2. Projects Near High Quality Transit:

The Project is not located within half mile of an existing major transit stop and it’s the nearest transit stop does not maintain a service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Therefore, the Project does not qualify for this criterion.

3. Local-serving Retail:

Scenario 1 Phase 2 proposes 11,159 SF of strip retail plaza and 7,030 SF of fast-food restaurant with drive-through. Additionally, Scenario 2 Phase 2 proposes 50,000 SF of supermarket and 4,725 SF of retail. Each of these single retail uses in Scenarios 1 and 2 do not exceed 50,000 SF and are local serving . Therefore, the retail plaza, fast -food restaurant, and supermarket components of the Project would be presumed to cause a less than significant impact based on this criterion.

4. Affordable Housing:

Scenarios 1 & 2 are not affordable housing projects and therefore do not qualify for this criterion.

5. Local Essential Service:

The Project proposes mini warehouse, strip retail, shopping plaza, and fast-food restaurant land uses. Scenarios 1 and 2 do not include local essential service land use components and therefore, do not qualify for this criterion.

6. Map-Based Screening:

The Project proposes mini warehouse, strip retail, shopping plaza, and fast-food restaurant land uses. Scenarios 1 and 2 do not include residential and office land use components and therefore, do not qualify for this criterion.

7. Redevelopment Project:
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 128

The Project is proposed on a vacant lot and does not replace an existing VMT-generating land use. Therefore, the Project does not qualify for this criterion.

The proposed project screens out from VMT analysis since the mini warehouse component satisfies the Small Project screening criterion, and the strip retail plaza, shopping plaza, and fast -food restaurant components meet the Local-serving retail screening criterion. The proposed Project will construct half-width of Rosemount Road along the property frontage including travel lanes, curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The addition of travel lanes is in compliant with the Cathedral City Circulation Element and are not expected to induce demand since the VMT is not a newly generated VMT; instead, it is the existing residential neighborhood traffic that will redistribute throughout the local roadway network that residents currently travel to and from each day. The roadway extension will provide the existing residential neighborhood direct access to Date Palm Drive and to newly built commercial retail services within close proximity that will essentially reduc e overall VMT.

Therefore, the extension of Rosemount Road and all proposed land uses are presumed to cause less than significant VMT impacts. It is our recommendation that the project be approved with no additional project - level VMT analysis.

Currently, the City has not adopted guidance on evaluating VMT for transportation impacts under CEQA.

In coordination with City staff, the t ransportation analysis will identify LOS deficiencies for compliance with City of Cathedral City Comprehensive General Plan goals. Cathedral City has established LOS “D” as the minimum allowable level of service at intersections and roadway segments . Therefore, any intersection or roadway segment resulting in an LOS worse than this minimum will be considered deficient for the purposes of this analysis.

Since the City has not adopted guidance on evaluating VMT for transportation impacts under CEQA , and additional VMT analysis is not required based on the County of Riverside Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), December 2020, impacts from all Scenarios 1 and 2 land use components will be less than significant.
c) Less than Significant Impact. Rosemount Road does not currently extend to Date Palm Drive. It is anticipated that the appropriate dedications and easements will be in place prior to project opening.

The proposed Project would involve the development of a currently vacant site with both scenarios described above within a developed portion of the City of Cathedral City. Although both scenarios would add an internal circulation system, the proposed Project does not include sharp curves or intersection designs that would modify existing streets such as Date Palm Drive, Rosemount Road or McCallum Way. Land uses to the east and south of the Project site are built up with residential and commercial uses. Although vacant properties exist to the north and west of the site, none of these parcels are in use for agriculture or similar uses that would be incompatible with the proposed uses at the Project site. The proposed Project would not create hazards on the sit e’s internal circulation, nor would it increase hazards on any of the surrounding existing streets.

Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur.

Rosemount Road extension proceeds, along with future development, appropriate infrastructure improvements such as a traffic signal will be funded through project fair share contributions that are commensurate with the demand generated by the construction of developments within the vicinity of the 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 129

intersection. Therefore, the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact and mitigation is not required.
d) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would obtain the necessary permits and comply with all permit requirements from Caltrans for the safe transport of construction equipment. Furthermore, construction of the proposed Project would not include any temporary lane closures on Date Palm Drive but may involve temporary lane closures along Rosemount Road and McCallum Way. Emergency vehicles would be able to access the Project site and the proposed Project would not substantially alter site access. Therefore, the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact and mitigation is not required.

Mitigation
TRAN-1 The Project will be conditioned to construct half -width roadway improvement along the property frontage on Rosemount Road including curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving. The proposed traffic signal at the new intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Roa d will be constructed by whichever project is constructed first between Date Palm Drive Mixed Use, the Wren Project, and the Vallarta Shopping Center. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 130

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

4.18.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRIBL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope
of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or

ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.

ai-ii) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two -phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 and 4,617 respec tively, and two (2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self -storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf.

Both scenarios would include p arking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on t he site. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part- time employees. The Project would also require an amendment to the City’s Uptown Village Specific Plan (SP 96-54) to create a new planning area.

A Cultural Resources Inventory was conducted by PaleoWest, LLC (PaleoWest) in August 2023 to develop a Phase I cultural resource assessment for the proposed Project (Appendix C). The investigation included background research and communication with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as well as other interested Native American tribal groups, and a pedestrian survey of the Project area. The purpose of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 131

the investigation was to determine the potential for the Project to impact archaeological and historical resources under CEQA.

As part of the cultural resource assessment of the Project area, PaleoWest had requested a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) from the NAHC on February 28, 2023. The objective of the SLF search was to determine if the NAHC had any knowledge of Native American cultural resources (e.g., traditional use or gathering area, place of religious or sacred activity, etc.) within the immediate vicinity of the Project area. The NAHC responded on March 2, 2023, stating that the SLF was completed with negative result s and that there are no known Native American cultural resources within the immediate Project area. The NAHC also suggested contacting 18 individuals representing 12 Native American tribal groups to find out if they have additional information about the Project area. PaleoWest sent informal outreach letters pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18; to the recommended tribal groups on July 19, 2023. These letters were followed up by phone calls on August 2, 2023.

Below are the responses received from tribes:
• The Quechan Historic Preservation Department sent an email indicating the Tribe does not wish to comment on the Project, stating they defer to more local tribes. • The Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians sent an email indicating that the tribe is unaware of any specific resources that might be impacted by the Project and requesting contact if any resources are discovered during the Project.
• The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) sent an email indicating that the Project is within the Traditional Use area of the tribe and requesting: 1) a copy of the records search, with associated survey reports from the information center; 2) copies of all cultural resource documentation generated by the Project; 3) the presence of an ACBCI -approved monitor during all gro und disturbing activities; and 4) contacting the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Officer before future surveys in the area, as the tribe is interested in participating.
• The Morongo Band of Mission Indians representative reached by phone stated that they need to confer further with staff and will send an official response. Did not wish for consultation, recommended contacting closer tribes.
• The Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians representative reached by phone indicated that, if Chair Redner had not responded to the emailed letter, that the tribe has no comment on the Project. • The Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians representative reached by phone requested that the original emailed letter be forwarded to facilitate future comment.

On January 17, 2024 formal NAHC Letters pursuant to SB 18; and February 07, 2024 pursuant to AB 52; required the City of Cathedral City to consult with the following Tribes:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
• Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians
• La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
• Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians
• Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation
• Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 132

• Morongo Band of Mission Indians, responded but did not request consultation • Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
• 29 Palms of Mission Indians also responded to the letter but did not request consultation. • Ramona Band of Cahuilla
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
• Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
The 29 Palms of Mission Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians did not express an interest in consultation. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians did request that there be an on-site Tribal Monitor during any excavation. They recommended that the following Mitigation Measure be used:

CUL-1 Prior to grading disturbance activities, the City of Cathedral City Planning Department shall inform field personnel of the possibilities of a buried cultural resource find. A qualified archaeologist shall be made available by the applicant during all gro und disturbing activities should any unknown cultural resource be uncovered. In addition, because the site is located within the boundaries of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Tribe’s Traditional Use Area, all ground disturbing activ ities shall be monitored by a qualified Native American monitor as requested by the ACBCI THPO. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and the qualified archaeologist sh all be retained by the applicant to assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist/Tribal monitor shall have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources found meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register, plans for the treatment, evaluation and mitigation of impacts to the find shall be developed.

Once the mitigation and disposition for the find has been determined, work in the vicinity of the find shall resume at the direction of the archaeologist.

CUL-2 Should human remains be discovered on site during any ground disturbance activities, further ground disturbance activities shall be halted until processes governing an accidental discovery of any human remains have been initiated in accordance with Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code 5097.98.

As discussed in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, PaleoWest examined geological and geomorphic information to assess the potential of the Project area to contain significant buried archaeological deposits. In general, deposits in this area consist of a series of interbedded alluvial and aeolian strata (Soil Survey Staff 2023). The area is moderately sensitive to buried sites. If present, buried sites will have a high degree of preservation due to low energy deposit. Depth of deposits could be significant. A cultural resource survey of the Project area was completed by PaleoWest Archaeologist Darlene Deppe, M.A., on July 17, 2023. No archaeological or built- environment resources were identified in the Project area during the survey. The Cultural Resources records searches and surveys also did not identify any archeological or historic resources within the proposed Project area. However, based on geological and geomorphic information the proposed Project area has potential to contain significant buried archaeological remains and buried cultural resources. Therefore, there is a potential to disturb potential tribal cultural resources during site excavation and construction activities. Therefore, potential Project related construction actions have the potential to disturb tribal resources. However, with the 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 133

incorporation of mitigation measures CUL -1 and CUL -2, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation
CUL-1 Prior to grading disturbance activities, the City of Cathedral City Planning Department shall inform field personnel of the possibilities of a buried cultural resource find. A qualified archaeologist shall be made available by the applicant during all ground disturbing activities should any unknown cultural resource be uncovered. In addition, because the site is located within the boundaries of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Tribe’s Traditional Use Area, all ground disturbing activities shall be monitored by a qualified Native American monitor as requested by the ACBCI THPO. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and the qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to assess the significance of the find . The qualified archaeologist/Tribal monitor shall have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources found meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register, plans for the treatment, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to the find shall be developed.

Once the mitigation and disposition for the find has been determined, work in the vicinity of the find shall resume at the direction of the archaeologist.

4.19 Utilities and Services

4.19.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?

e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two-phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store /Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with an area of 4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include parking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site.

The proposed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part -time employees. The Project would also require an amendment to the City’s Uptown Village Specific Plan (SP 96-54) to create a new planning area. Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electric services to the city and would be the electric service provider to the proposed uses at the Project site. SCE currently has the capacity to serve the city and the Project site (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update Environm ental Impact Report; 2021).

Southern California Gas (SCE) is the natural gas service provider for the city and would therefore also service 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 135

the proposed Project site. All electric and gas services would connect to existing service lines to the east of the site.

The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) would serve the proposed Project site for its water , wastewater, and stormwater needs. The CVWD has six (6) wastewater reclamation plants in its service area and receives 17 million gallons per day which is funded by the payment of Development Impact Fees which will ensure service is provided and there is no significant impact (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report; 2021). The stormwater infrastructure is expansive enough to handle this small project which would not generate enough stormwater to impact the local or regional system.

The proposed construction will disturb the majority of the project site. Under post development conditions, storm runoff generated on-site will be directed and gathered in concrete swales, gutters, and storm drain. The site will have storm runoff directed to a retention basin centrally located within the project site. Flows exceeding the storage capacity of the retention basin will exit onto Rosemount Road, flow southeas terly over public surface streets until reaching the Whitewater Storm Channel. The Site was designed to retain 100% of the 100 Year Storm on site and therefore meet the Cathedral City Standard for Development and not have a significant impact on the Regional Stormwater System.

Frontier Communications and Spectrum provide telephone, television, and internet services to the city and would also service the Project site utilizing existing utility lines or by adding extensions to the existing lines (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 Genera l Plan Update Environmental Impact Report; 2021). Since the proposed Project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas facilities, impacts would be less than significant.

c) Less than Significant Impact. The CVWD and the DWA both serve wastewater treatment needs for the city; with CVWD serving areas to the north and east of the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel and DWA serving areas to the south and west of the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel. Since the proposed Project site is located to the north and east of the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel, wastewater treatment at the Project site would be served by the CVWD which currently has the required infrastructure and lines in place in the city and has the capacity to serve the City under its Imagine 2040 GPU buildout (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report; 2021).

To calculate wastewater generated from the proposed Project site The United States standards for Wastewater Generation was used:

Office Building:
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 136

• Employee Toilet Room: Range 1-2 gallons per day, Typical 2 gallons per day.

Shopping Center:
• Employee Toilet Room: Range 7-13 gallons per day, Typical 10 gallons per day. • Customer Toilet Room: Range 7-16 gallons per day, Typical 13 gallons per day.

Restaurant:
• Employee Toilet Room: Range 2-4 gallons per day, Typical 3 gallons per day. • Employee Meal: Range 7-13 gallons per day, Typical 10 gallons per day.

The total combined average daily use is approximately 7.6 gallons per day, based on the United States standards for Wastewater Generation.

CVWD operates six (6) wastewater treatment plants, of which Wastewater Reclamation Plant (WRP) #10, located in the city of Palm Desert, serves the city of Cathedral City. Currently CVWD’s treatment plants operate with treatment capacities of approximately 0.03 to 24 million gallons per day, and receives a combined average of 18 millions gallons of waste water per day, which is about 6.3 billion gallons treated yearly (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report; 2021). CVWD also has its own long -range plans to accommodate any future increases in wastewater treatment, both in the city and in its overall service area (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report; 2021). CVWD’s long range plans are funded by the payment of Development Impact Fees to increase the capacity of the sewer systems and this project will pay the required fees to ensure that the capacity of the sewer is not exceeded .

Based on the US Standards on Wastewater Generation rates of an combined average of 7.6 gallons per day which is well below the average capacity of 0.03 and 24 million gallons per day and a combined average of 18 million gallons actually received by CVWD it is anticipated that the Coachella Valley Water District and the City of Cathedral City would have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected wastewater demands in addition to its existing commitments impacts will be less than significant.

d) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site would be serviced by Burrtec Waste Industries that currently collects solid waste from the city for disposal at the Edom Hill Transfer Station, located in the City of Cathedral City. The Edom Hill Transfer Station receive s up to 3,500 tons of waste per day . That waste gets sorted and transferred to one of three (3) landfills Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill in the city of Beaumont, Badlands Landfill in the city of Moreno Valley, and the El Sobrante Landfi ll in the city of Corona, all of which have a combined remaining capacity of approximately 179 million cubic yards (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report; 2021). As calculated under the City’s Imagine 2040 GPU EIR, City residents and services are estimated to generate approximately 90,017 tons of solid waste per year, which would be served under the remaining capacities of the three (3) above mentioned landfills. Using the CalRecycle Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates table, t he proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 218 tons per year during operation which will not substantially decrease the capacity of the landfills. The proposed Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. Nor would the proposed Project impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and impacts would therefore be less than significant.

e) Less than Significant Impact. The City currently contracts with Burrtec Waste Industries for solid waste collection and disposal at transfer stations and landfill sites in Riverside County (Cathedral City Imagine 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report; 2021). Since all of these collection and disposal sites are 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 137

required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, particularly Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939), which requires each jurisdiction in the State to divert at least 50% of its waste stream away from landfills either through waste reduction, recycling or other means. Therefore, the proposed Project impacts would be required to comply with all management, reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste; impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 138

4.20 Wildfire

4.20.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

a-d) No Impact. The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) designates three specific land use classifications to identify the agency with the responsibility of preventing and suppressing wildfires.

These include:
• Federal Responsibility Area (FRA);
• State Responsibility Area (SRA); and,
• Local Responsibility Area (LRA) (California Natural Resources Agency; 2023).

A FRA is primarily under the responsibility of a federal government agency, such as the US Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM); a SRA falls under the primary responsibility of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ( CAL FIRE) for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires; and a LRA is the primarily the responsibility of a local jurisdiction such as local fire departments. LRAs are typically incorporated cities, urban regions, agriculture lands, and portions of the desert where the local government is responsible for wildfire protection. This is usually provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, county fire departments, and by the Office of the State Fire Marshall (Office of the State Fire Marshall; 2022).

CAL FIRE provides emergency fire prevention and protection services to 36 of the State’s 58 counties under SRA and LRA designations.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 139

Under the California Public Resources Code 4201 -4204, California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 1280 and California Government Code 51175 -89, the California State Fire Marshall is authorized to classify lands within SRAs into Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) for LRAs.

VHFHSZ are located based on an areas anticipated fire behavior and expected burn probabilities over a 30 -50 year period (CAL FIRE; 2023). FHSZ determines the appropriate application of various mitigation strategies to reduce risk associated with wildland fires, and these areas typically fall into Moderate, High or Very High fire hazard areas. FHSZ maps assess “fire hazards” and not “fire risks”. “Fire Hazard” is based on the area or specific site’s physical conditions that potentially create the likelihood of fire risks over a 30 to 50 -year period. “Fire Risk” is the potential damage a fire can cause to the area under existing conditions, accounting for any modifications such as fuel redu ction projects, defensible space, and ignition resistant building construction (Office of the State Fire Marshall; 2023). CAL FIRE is also responsible for the mapping of FHSZ and VHFHSZ areas.

The proposed Project site is located in the City of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road (to the north) and McCallum Way (to the south). The proposed Project would utilize an approximate seven (7) acre site for the two-phase construction of two scenarios: Scenario One would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with an area of 2,413 and 4,617 respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with an area of 3,217 sf each. Scenario Two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and one (1) Grocery Store/Big Box Retail building with a maximum area of 50,000 sf, and a retail building w ith an area of 4,725 sf. Both scenarios would include parking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a drainage retention basin are also to be included on the site. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ approximately 150 full-time and part-time employees. The Project would also require an amendment to the City’s Uptown Village Specific Plan (SP 96-54) to create a new planning area.

The Project site is designated as a non -VHFHSZ located within a LRA and is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or within a high, moderate, or VHFHS zone (Office of the State Fire Marshall; 2023).

Therefore, the proposed Project would not exacerbate wildfire hazard risks or expose people or the environment to adverse environmental effects related to wildfires. There would be no impact.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 140

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

4.21.1 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. All impacts to the environment, including impacts to Biological as well as Cultural and Tribal Resources have been evaluated by this ISMND. Some impacts were determined to be potentially significant and appropriate mitigation measures have therefore been imposed to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels (please refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.20). Accordingly, with incorporation of the mitigation measures imposed throughout this ISMND the pro posed Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation incorporated.

b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The environmental evaluation of this Initial Study concluded that, with adherence to all mitigation measures (please refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.20) the project’s cumulatively considerable impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels.

c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, has been discussed throughout this ISMND. The proposed Project has the potential to result in environmental impact s to humans directly or indirectly. All proposed Project related environmental impacts would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated (please refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.20). The 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Rosemount Storage Project 141

proposed Project would therefore not result in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Mitigation
Biological Resources:

BIO-1: Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.3, 3511, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). In order to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds during the nesting season. Consequently, if avian nesting b ehaviors are disrupted, such as nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort, it is considered “take” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

Cultural Resources:

CUL-1 Prior to grading disturbance activities, the City of Cathedral City Planning Department shall inform field personnel of the possibilities of a buried cultural resource find. A qualified archaeologist shall be made available by the applicant during all grou nd disturbing activities should any unknown cultural resource be uncovered. In addition, because the site is located within the boundaries of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Tribe’s Traditional Use Area, all ground disturbing activ ities shall be monitored by a qualified Native American monitor as requested by the ACBCI THPO. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and the qualified archaeologist sh all be retained by the applicant to assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist/Tribal monitor shall have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources found meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register, plans for the treatment, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to the find shall be developed.

Once the mitigation and disposition for the find has been determined, work in the vicinity of the find shall resume at the direction of the archaeologist.

Tribal Resources:

uncovered. In addition, because the site is located within the boundaries of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Tribe’s Traditional Use Area, all ground disturbing activities shall be monitored by a qualified Native American monitor as requested by the ACBCI THPO. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and the qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to assess the significance of the find . The qualified archaeologist/Tribal monitor shall have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources found meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register, plans for the treatment, evaluation and mitigation of impacts to the find shall be developed.

Once the mitigation and disposition for the find has been determined, work in the vicinity of the find shall resume at the direction of the archaeologist.

5 REPORT PREPARERS
Rosemount Storage Project 143

Chapter 5 Report Preparers
City of Cathedral City
Andrew Firestein Director of Development Services: Building, Code Compliance, Planning Project Applicant
Jason Borg Three Mile Hollow
The Altum Group
Anna Choudhuri Environmental Planning Manager
Madeline Luke Assistant Environmental Planner
Sub-Consultants
Travis McGill ELMT Consulting (Biological Resources)
Roberta Thomas Paleo West (Cultural Resources)
Mike Dickerson MD Acoustics (Air Quality; Energy; Greenhouse Gas; Noise) George Ghossain Integrated Engineering Group (Traffic)

6 REFERENCES
Rosemount Storage Project 144

Chapter 6 References
City of Cathedral City (2021). Zoning Ordinance Zoning Map.

City of Cathedral City ( 2021). Imagine 2040 General Plan Update: Environmental Impact Report. City of Cathedral City (1996). Uptown Village Specific Plan 96-54.

California Department of Conservation (1975). Mineral Resources.

California Department of Conservation’s. Williamson Act Enrollment Finder (2022).

City of Cathedral City. ( 2021). Imagine 2040 General Plan Update: Environmental Impact Report. California Department of Conservation’s (2022). Williamson Act Enrollment Finder.

California Department of Conservation (1975). Mineral Resources. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (2022). Envirostor.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (2009). Health Risk Assessment for proposed Land use Projects.

California Air Resources Board (2008). Resolution 08-43 California Air Resources Board (2008). Recommended Approaches or Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act California Air Resources Board (2008). Climate Change and Scooping Plan; A Framework for Change.

California Air Resources Board (2011). Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document.

California Air Resources Board (2014). First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan; Building a Framework Pursuant to AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May.

California Air Resources Board (2018). Historical Air Quality; Top 4 Summary.

California Department of Transportation (CAL Trans) (2013). Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual.

California Department of Transportation (CAL Trans) (2018). Technical Noise Supplement of the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sept.

City of Cathedral City (2019-2023) Cathedral City Fire Department Strategic Plan. City of Cathedral City (2015).

City of Cathedral City General Plan.

City of Cathedral City (2021). Municipal Code.

County of Riverside (2015). County of Riverside General Plan. December 8.

County of Riverside (2019). County of Riverside Climate Action Plan Update. November.

ELMT (2023). Habitat Assessment and Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Consistency Analysis for the Proposed Date Palm and Rosemount Road Storage Project. Appendix B.

Federal Highway Administration (FWHA) (2006). Construction Noise Handbook.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (2018). Transit Noise Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (1998). State California General Plan Guidelines.

Governor’s Office of planning and Research (2008). CEQA and Climate : Addressing Climate Change Through 6 REFERENCES
Rosemount Storage Project 145

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.

Governor’s Office of planning and Research (2009). CEQA Guidelines to be added or Amended. Integrated Engineering Group (2023). Scoping Agreement for Date Palm Dr Mixed Use Project. March 20.

Integrated Engineering Group (2023). Date Plam Mixed Use Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Assessment.

Appendix F.

MD Acoustics LLC (2023). Date Palm Mixed Use Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study.

Appendix A.

MD Acoustics LLC (2023). Dae Plam Mixed Use Project Noise Impact Study. Appendix D.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (2015). Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines.

PaleoWest (2023). Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Date Palm and Rosemount Storage Project.

Appendix C.

Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (2022). Current Compatibility Plans. SoundPLAN International, LLC (2019). SoundPLAN Essential 8.1 Manual.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (1993) CEQA Air Quality Handbook South Coast Air Quality Management District (2015). Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (2005). Rule 403 Fugitive Dust.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (2007). Air Quality Management Plan South Coast Air Quality Management District (2008). Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (2011). Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2012). Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (2016). Final 2016 Quality Management Plan.

State of California (1973). California Fish and Game Code. Sections 3503, 3503.3, 3511, and 3513. State of California (1978). California code of regulations, Title 8 California §15000 Et seq.

State of California (1978). California Public Resource Code §21000 et seq. State of California (1978). California code of regulations Tittle 8 §15000 Et seq.

State of California (1978). California code of regulations, Tittle 14 §15000 et seq.

State of California (1978). California Public Resource Code, Title 14 §15063 and §21000 et seq.

State of California (2023). California Environmental Quality Act, Statute and Guidelines Section §15371. State of California (2023). California Environmental Quality Act, Statute and Guidelines Section §15371 (b). State of California (1978). California code of regulations, Tittle 14. §15000 et seq.

United States of America (1918). Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Government Code USC 703. United States Census Bureau (2021). QuickFacts: Coachella City, California.

United States Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 2022. National Hazardous Materials Route Registry by State
6 REFERENCES
Rosemount Storage Project 146

Websites
California Department of Transportation. California State Scenic Highway System Map, March 2023. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic- highways.

CalRecycle. Accessed March 2023. CalRecycle Home Page.

Envirostor. Accessed March 2023. EnviroStor (ca.gov).

Google Earth Pro. Accessed July 2023.Google Earth. Google Maps, Accessed July 2023. Google Maps National Ocean Services, 2023, NOAA's National Ocean Service. Office of the Fire Marshall, 2023. OSFM (ca.gov).

Palm Springs Unified School District. 1958. Palm Springs Unified School District School Directory. https://www.psusd.us/domain/196, (accessed March 2023)
United States Wastewater Generation Standards. Accessed April 2024. https://www.pollutioncontrolsystem.com/.

USDA NRCS, Web Soil Survey, Accessed July 2023. Web Soil Survey | Natural Resources Conservation Service (usda.gov).

Cathedral City City CouncilSeptember 11, 2024

Cathedral City City Council
September 11, 2024