Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in impacts to scenic quality in the City, similar to the proposed project.
Finally, Alternative 1 would result in the buildout of the current General Plan, which could result in increased light and glare within the City, compared to existing conditions. Similar to the proposed project, undeveloped lands, which currently do not contribute to existing light and glare in the City, would be developed. Development would be required to be consistent with the Current General Plan land use designations, as well as lighting and design requirements in the Indian Wells Municipal Code.
Therefore, Alternative 1's impacts to light and glare will be less than significant, similar to the proposed GPU, since the current General Plan does not propose more intense uses than the GPU.
Overall, Alternative 1 would result in similar impacts to aesthetic resources as the proposed project.
Neither Alternative 1 nor the proposed project would result in significant impacts.
Agricultural Resources
Under Alternative 1, also referred to as the No Project / Current General Plan Buildout Alternative, the existing General Plan would remain in effect, resulting in the development of existing agricultural land within the City into non-agricultural uses. Identical to the impacts anticipated under the Proposed General Plan Update (GPU), buildout of Alternative 1 would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on agricultural resources. The City of Indian Wells has largely transitioned from agricultural use, evolving into a residential and resort -oriented community, with hotel properties, restaurants, and retail centers as dominant land uses.
Although the loss of Prime Farmland within Indian Wells is limited in scale relative to the larger agricultural landscape of the Coachella Valley, it nevertheless represents a contribution to regional urbanization trends and the gradual conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would sufficiently preserve agricultural resources while meeting the City's broader planning goals and objectives. Consequently, under Alternative 1 as well as the Proposed GPU, significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources are expected to occur.
Air Quality
Alternative 1 would allow for buildout of the City's currently undeveloped lands to occur in accordance with the existing land use designations and associated development standards. Since the City of Indian Wells is mostly developed (except for the protected open space), remaining areas suitable for new development would primarily consist of infill lots and vacant areas located north of Highway 111, near the intersection with Miles Avenue. The lands located north of Highway 111 are designated for Resort Commercial, Community Commercial, and Public Benefit uses. Alternative 1 would not grant any specific development entitlements or preclude further environmental review as applicable to the extent and configuration of land development proposals.
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-8 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
The Air Quality Management section of the Current General Plan recognizes the regulatory authority by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for air quality standards and attainment plans applicable to the City and rest of the air basin. Regulatory plans include the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and State Implementation Plans to address the non -attainment status of PM10 and ozone. Since the governing SCAMQD regulations are routinely updated to reflect changing conditions and needs, including land development and population factors, Alternative 1 would not conflict with or obstruct the applicable air quality plan and associated implementation plans aimed at achieving attainment.
Vacant parcels within the City would continue to be exposed to seasonal winds with potential off -site dust deposition and wind erosion capable of resulting in particulate matter emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) under high and adverse wind conditions. Alternative 1 would not grant direct approval of project -specific construction or operational pollutant emissions. Since land use conditions and associated population growth are factored into the SCAQMD AQMP documentation, the City's Current General Plan is built into the existing and updated strategies for attaining the regional air quality objectives. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Other than unregulated wind erosion and associated particulate matter emissions, Alternative 1 would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or odors because the developable sites would remain undeveloped and be built out under the existing land use regulations. Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in less than significant impacts to air quality.
By comparison, the proposed GPU was found to result in less than significant impacts on all air quality threshold criteria, including air quality plan conformance and the quantified emission levels compared against the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds (construction and operations), construction LST, operational LSTs, and health risks. The new policies and actions under the proposed GPU were found to adequately address the associated impacts. Under Alternative 1, the existing General Plan policies would help achieve similar controls toward the buildout condition. Based on population and job factors, Alternative 1 would result in potentially lower impacts than the proposed GPU and Alternative 2.
Biological Resources
Alternative 1 and the Proposed GPU would result in remaining vacant parcels to be developed. The City of Indian Wells is largely developed, and the remaining developable areas are located north of Highway 111, and north and south of Miles Avenue.
Development under the Proposed GPU and under Alternative 1 would require adherence to local, State, and federal regulations, as well as City -specific policies and actions. Compliance with applicable permitting requirements and oversight by regulatory agencies would ensure that potential impacts on biological resources are carefully managed. These regulatory and policy measures are expected to Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-9 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
reduce impacts to biological resources to a less -than -significant level under both Alternative 1 and the Proposed GPU.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 1, the GPU would not be implemented by the City and the current General Plan would remain in effect. Buildout of the current General Plan would result in 5,455 single family units and 816 multifamily units, for a total of 6,271 residential units; 5,132,104 square feet of nonresidential space; and 6,217 jobs. As stated in Section 4.5, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, implementation of the GPU would result in less than significant impacts. The development patterns under the existing General Plan and the GPU would be largely similar. However, the GPU includes updated policies and actions that are designed to address current environmental standards, promote sustainable development practices, and align with the City's objectives. In addition, future development under the existing GP and GPU would still be required to prepare project specific cultural reports conducted by qualified archaeologists pursuant to CEQA. When compared to the proposed project, Alternative 1 would have a slightly less impact since it would not develop the additional 27,563 square feet of non-residential use. However, neither Alternative 1 nor the proposed project would result in a significant impact.
Energy Resources
As previously stated, the City of Indian Wells is largely developed, apart from various vacant parcels located north of Highway 111 and north and south (and east and west where applicable) of Miles Avenue. Currently, these parcels do not consume energy resources. Alternative 1 would result in the development of these vacant and developable parcels. Development and operation of Alternative 1 would result in an increase of energy consumption compared to the existing vacant conditions, however, it would also result in reduced energy consumption compared to the proposed GPU.
Alternative 1 would develop 6,271 residential units, 5,132,104 square feet of nonresidential uses, and 6,217 jobs. The proposed GPU would develop 6,271 residential units (similar to Alternative 1), 5,159,667 square feet of nonresidential uses, and 6,310 jobs. Alternative 1 would develop 27,563 square feet less and provide 93 less jobs than the proposed project. This is due to the existing Golf and Recreation land use designation on approximately 8.31 acres (APNs 633-150-007 and 633-150- 071), which does not consume as much energy or provide additional jobs compared to a resort commercial use, which would consume energy during the operation of buildings and provide employment opportunities (i.e., hospitality, service, etc.).
As determined in Section 4.6, Energy Resources, the proposed GPU would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption because future development would be required to comply with Title 24 and CalGreen requirements, which ensures energy efficient appliances and fixtures are utilized in the development of new residential and nonresidential buildings. Development under Alternative 1 would also be required to comply with Title 24 and CalGreen requirements, as required Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-10 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
by the State. Additionally, the Chapter II I, Resource Management (IIIA: Conservation and Open Space) Element in the current General Plan provides policies that require energy efficient retrofitting and fixtures, and encourages energy conservation. Alternative 1 would be required to comply with the policies in the current General Plan document. Additionally, Alternative 1 would be required to comply with State and local regulations regulating energy consumption (including Senate BiII 100, Title 24, and the Indian Wells Climate Action Plan (CAP)), similar to the proposed project.
Although Alternative 1 would result in reduced energy consumption compared to the proposed project, both scenarios would comply with State and local regulations ensuring energy efficiency and neither scenario would result in significant and unavoidable energy impacts.
Geology and Soils
Under both the Current General Plan and the Proposed GPU, future development within the City could face geotechnical hazards, including seismic ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence, loss of topsoil, and expansive or corrosive soils. In the Current General Plan, projects within the Planning Area are required to adhere to City policies and actions that are enforced through the City's development review process, zoning regulations, and other ordinances.
In the Proposed GPU, specific standards to address geological and soil -related hazards would require compliance with the latest federal, State, and local building standards and mandates for soil and geologic surveys prior to project approval. In addition, implementation of project -specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) would provide further mitigation, reducing impacts associated with geology and soils.
Under both Alternative 1 and the Proposed GPU, policies and compliance requirements would help minimize impacts related to geology and soils to less than significant.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 1 would not grant any specific development entitlements or preclude further environmental review as applicable to the extent and configuration of land development proposals.
Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in no direct measurable greenhouse gas emissions. The project - specific buildout of developable land under the existing land use designations would incur GHG emissions, the impacts of which would be measured on a project -by -project basis while incorporating the necessary mitigation measures respective to the development proposals. New construction occurring under the Alternative 1 land use scenario would involve the strictest energy efficiency, water efficiency, and mobile emission standards that are routinely updated at the regional and state level as part of the GHG reduction strategies. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not conflict with the current statewide policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. By comparison, the proposed project GPU was found to result in less than significant impacts on GHG emissions and plan conformance. Based on population and job factors, Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-11 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
GHG impacts under Alternative 1 would be lower than the proposed GPU and would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As previously mentioned, the City of Indian Wells is largely developed apart from vacant developable lots north of Highway 111 and north and south (and east and west where applicable) of Miles Avenue.
Buildout of the current General Plan under Alternative 1 would result in the development of these vacant parcels, based on the land uses established by the current General Plan. Future development and improvements could result in the transportation, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials during construction or operation of future projects. Future activities may involve equipment or construction activities that use hazardous materials (e.g., coatings, solvents and fuels, and diesel - fueled equipment). Accidental release of hazardous materials that are used in the construction or operation of a project may occur. There is also the potential for accidental release of pre-existing hazardous materials, associated with previous activities on a site within the City limits.
Construction of Alternative 1 is expected to involve the temporary management and use of oils, fuels and other potentially flammable substances in a manner similar to the proposed project. Hazardous materials would be delivered, stored, and handled consistent with manufacturer instructions and local, State and federal requirements and as required by a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit (CGP) Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), like the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 1 would implement safety procedures when using, handling, or storing hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation of Alternative 1 could involve the use of materials common to residential or commercial developments that are labeled hazardous. Similar to the proposed project, if Alternative 1 were to store hazardous materials in large quantities, the applicant would be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) and Fire Department. The Riverside County DEH, as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the County, would manage and assure implementation of a project -specific HMBP. Alternative 1 would implement safety procedures when using, handling, and storing hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant.
As determined in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, only one school is located within the City boundary: Gerald R. Ford Elementary School. Construction access and activities and operational activities on future development within the City could result in the exposure of hazardous materials near the existing school. However, as stated above, construction materials would be properly stored in an approved location and implementation of the SWPPP during construction activities, and if required by code, will ensure that hazardous materials and waste are handled per manufacturer's instruction so that they are not released into the environment in a manner that results Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-12 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
in impacts to the surrounding uses. Additionally, during operation, all businesses dealing with hazardous materials would be required to be handled in accordance with federal, State, and County requirements, which would limit the potential for a project to expose nearby uses, including schools, to hazardous emissions or accidental release. Hazardous emissions are monitored by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), RWQCB, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and CUPA. In the event of a hazardous materials spill or release, notification and cleanup operations would be performed in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations and policies, including hazardous mitigation plans. Similar to the proposed GPU, Alternative 1 would result in less than significant impacts to schools.
As determined in Section 4.8, a database search within the City discovered facilities registered as a Hazardous Waste and Substances Site (Cortese). As stated above, development of future lands within the City will be required to comply with existing federal and State regulations, which ensure that existing hazards, including those associated with known hazardous materials sites, are addressed prior to development. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, impacts to sites registered within a Cortese List will be less than significant.
As stated in Section 4.8, the City is not located within 2 miles of a public or private airport. Therefore, no impacts from airports are anticipated. Alternative 1 would also result in no impacts.
Alternative 1 and the project proposes no changes to the City's roadway network. The Fire Department will review future projects, to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles is provided. Implementation of Alternative 1 is not expected to interfere with the critical facilities, emergency transportation and circulation, or emergency preparedness coordination, similar to the proposed project. Additionally, the current General Plan provides policies that ensure emergency response and preparedness is not impacted by development within the City (Goal and Policies IVA3).
Alternative 1 would be required to comply with the applicable policies listed in the current General Plan. Alternative 1 would be reviewed by City staff and police and fire department officials to ensure adequate police and fire service and safety as a result of implementation, similar to the proposed GPU.
Moreover, Alternative 1 would not expose people or structures to wildland fires because development is not proposed in areas where wildlands would be expected (i.e., near sloped and highly vegetated areas). Sloped areas within the City are located along the Santa Rosa Mountains, located in the southern portion of the City. Similar to the proposed project, future development in Alternative 1 would occur in the urban areas of the City, primarily north of Highway 111 and north and south (and east and west) of Miles Avenue. All future projects allowed under Alternative 1 would be required to comply with the provisions of federal, State, and local requirements related to building and fire codes, similar to the proposed GPU. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-13 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
Overall, Alternative 1 would result in similar impacts to hazards and hazardous materials, as compared to the proposed GPU, and both would be less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 1 would allow for buildout of the City's currently undeveloped lands to occur in accordance with the existing land use designations and associated development standards. Since the City of Indian Wells is mostly developed (except for the protected open space), remaining areas suitable for new development would primarily consist of infill lots and vacant areas located north of Highway 111, near the intersection with Miles Avenue. The lands located north of Highway 111 are designated for Resort Commercial, Community Commercial, and Public Benefit uses. Water quality, conservation, erosion control, siltation control, and stormwater management controls would apply on a project -specific basis in accordance with the City's engineering requirements, the Conservation of Natural Resources Element of the current General Plan, as well as the regional, state, and federal standards. Therefore, water conservation, flood control and associated stormwater management would be imposed on the scale and configuration of project -specific proposals in accordance with the existing General Plan and engineering standards. By comparison, the proposed GPU was found to result in less than significant impacts on all thresholds and criteria for hydrology, without the need for mitigation because the various compliance policies and actions, as well as the required plans and supporting documents from new development, including a SWPPP, WQMP, Hydrology Report, and underlying preliminary engineering design compliant of the City's stormwater retention parameters.
Hydrology and water quality impacts under Alternative 1 would be comparable to the proposed GPU due to the existing regulations.
Land Use and Planning
Alternative 1 and the proposed project does not include any new areas designated for urbanization or new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide existing communities. Both scenarios provide opportunities for cohesive new growth at vacant in -fill locations within existing urbanized areas of the City, as well as new growth adjacent to existing urbanized areas, but would not create physical division within the community. Neither project would have a significant impact associated with the physical division of an established community.
Under Alternative 1, the Planning Area would maintain its current General Plan land use and zoning designations. Therefore, no changes to the General Plan would occur. Alternative 1 would comply with the policies established in the current General Plan document.
Alternative 1 would be consistent with the General Plan land use designations established by the City.
The proposed GPU would update the land use map in two locations: (1) from Golf and Recreation to Resort Commercial, and (2) from Community Commercial to Resort Commercial. However, as determined in Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, the proposed GPU would not result in significant impacts to land use because the project features would be consistent with the General Plan goals and Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-14 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
policies. Alternative 1 would not be inconsistent with City goals and policies or existing land use designation. Accordingly, Alternative 1 is assumed to result in less land use impacts than the proposed project. Neither project would result in significant and unavoidable land use impacts.
Noise
As discussed throughout, the City of Indian Wells is largely developed with residential, resort, and commercial uses. Noise sources associated with existing land uses include residential maintenance, parking lot noise, heating, and cooling system (HVAC) noise, property maintenance noise, trash truck noise, loading and unloading noise, and recreational noise. Additional noise environments are contributed to non -stationary noise, such as vehicle traffic throughout the City, especially Highway 111. The remaining developable area within the City is located north of Highway 111 and north and south of Miles Avenue. Alternative 1 would result in the development and operation of the vacant, developable areas, resulting in an increase in the noise environment compared to the existing conditions.
Construction
Similar to the proposed project, construction of Alternative 1 would increase the ambient noise level because the existing vacant sites would be developed. However, per Section 9.06.047 of the City of Indian Wells Municipal Code, construction shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction noise is exempt from the noise ordinance during those times per Section 9.06.041(e) with the use of construction mufflers. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or national holidays. Therefore, noise generated by construction activities and traffic is mitigated by the existing Municipal Code.
Alternative 1 would result in less than significant construction noise impacts, similar to the proposed project.
Operation
During operation, Alternative 1 would result in less noise impacts than the proposed GPU because approximately 8.31 acres north of Highway 111 would continue to operate as a golf course, which, by nature, does not generate noise levels that are considered significant. Operation of the vacant parcels will result in noise, however, the community commercial and resort commercial uses allowed within these parcels would not generate noise levels that are inconsistent with the surrounding areas and general operation of the City, which largely includes residential, commercial, and resort uses).
Additionally, Chapter IV, the Public Safety Element, provides policies in IVB, Noise, regulating noise within the City. For example, Policy IVB1.1 requires all new or expansion of residential developments exceeding 65 dB CNEL shall require mitigation measures to reduce noise, and shall be required to conduct an acoustical study.
Moreover, operational noise associated with project -generated traffic would be less under Alternative 1, because the continued operation of the golf course would generate less VMTs Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-15 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
compared to the proposed GPU, which translates to less vehicles on the road, and less traffic -related noise. Therefore, traffic -generated noise associated with Alternative 1 will be less than the proposed GPU. As demonstrated in Section 4.12, Noise, the proposed GPU would result in less than significant noise impacts.
As determined in Section 4.12, construction vibration within the Planning Area is not anticipated to be significant unless an individual development uses pile driving or vibratory rollers. The current General Plan does not provide policies regulating vibrational impacts. Therefore, Alternative 1 could result in significant vibration impacts during construction if a pile driver or vibratory rollers are used.
Alternative 2 avoids these impacts by requiring vibration impact studies (and appropriate mitigation if necessary) when construction utilizes pile drivers within 200 feet of existing buildings or vibratory rollers within 50 feet of existing buildings, as required by GPU Policy PS -6.7 and Action PS -6j.
Alternative 1 would result in increased vibration impacts compared to the proposed project.
Population and Housing
Under Alternative 1, the project site would not introduce unplanned growth in the City because the Current General Plan was approved in 1996 and updated periodically since. The Housing Element of the General Plan was updated and adopted in 2024, and analyzes population, housing, and employment within the City. Therefore, increases in population, housing, and employment were already considered and accounted for (i.e., planned). Impacts would not be significant and unavoidable.
Alternative 1 would develop the same number of residential units as the proposed GPU (6,271 units), which would also result in the same population (5,405 people). Therefore, population and housing would be the same with Alternative 1 and the proposed GPU. Buildout of Alternative 1 would develop approximately 27,563 square feet less than the proposed GPU (which proposes 5,159,667 square feet of nonresidential uses). Alternative 1 would also result in 93 less employees than the GPU. However, as previously stated, this is already accounted for in the updated Housing Element of the General Plan. However, as determined in Section 4.13, Population and Housing, this increase generated by the GPU is consistent with projected employment growth for the City, and impacts would be less than significant. Both projects would result in less than significant growth impacts.
Public Services
Alternative 1 would develop the same number of residential units as the Proposed GPU (6,271 units), which would also result in the same population (5,405 people), however, the Proposed GPU would develop 5,159,667 square feet of nonresidential housing, approximately 27,563 square feet more than Alternative 1. The GPU would also introduce 93 more employees than Alternative 1.
For both the Current General Plan and the Proposed GPU, development within the area would be addressed on a case -by -case basis during the development and review of such development. This Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-16 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
ensures that services to accommodate current and future citywide growth could be reasonably provided. Additionally, both Alternative 1 and the Proposed GPU would require new developments to contribute to the payment of fees, which go towards minimizing impacts to fire and police services, as well as other public services. Therefore, with adherence to codes, policies and actions as well as the payment of impact fees, impacts in regard to fire and police services are expected to be less than significant.
Recreation
Identical to the Current General Plan, implementation of the Proposed GPU will not create significant impacts to recreational resources. As discussed above in the Public Services discussion, all new developments will be required to contribute to the payment of development impact fees towards the preservation, expansion and maintenance of the City's recreational parks and facilities. Demand for recreational facilities or parks is not anticipated to result in unanticipated construction of or expansion of these facilities. Therefore, with adherence to City policies and actions as well as Municipal Codes, all new development within City of Indian Wells under the Current General Plan and the Proposed GPU would create less than significant impacts on recreation.
Transportation
Alternative 1 assessed traffic conditions using a General Plan Traffic Study, which identified the need for additional through lanes for eastbound and westbound traffic on Highway 111, aligning with the Highway 111 Beautification and Improvement Plan. The study also recommended updates to intersection geometrics to better manage turning movements and through -traffic capacity demands.
Under Alternative 1, the City would continue its development monitoring process and implement specific guidelines from the Circulation Plan to manage internal circulation and support commercial development effectively.
To mitigate transportation impacts, traffic control devices would be installed as warranted, based on professional analysis, ensuring compliance with safety standards and reducing potential liability for the City. Furthermore, Alternative 1 would include a golf cart plan aimed at expanding golf cart usage within the City, enhancing local transportation options. Alternative 1 also incorporates policies and goals to support these efforts, helping to create a more efficient and safer transportation network and reduce impacts from current and future transportation demand.
In relation to the Proposed GPU, the implementation of the plan is anticipated to contribute to a significant and unavoidable impact on transportation, primarily due to increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Cumulative impacts are considered the combined result of a project's effects in conjunction with other related or foreseeable projects. By the 2045 horizon year, the total VMT for the City is expected to rise with the Proposed GPU, signaling a cumulative effect on transportation.
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-17 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
Cumulative daily VMT within the City was analyzed under two scenarios for the Proposed GPU: a "No Project" condition and a "With Project" condition. For 2045, the No Project scenario forecasts a total VMT of 538,149, while the With Project scenario estimates 542,972 VMT, reflecting an additional 4,823 VMT or a 0.90% increase. This increase suggests that the City's maximum development potential under the GPU would result in a net rise in VMT, contributing to cumulative transportation impacts. The "No Project" condition reflects the Alternative 1 scenario with a slight decrease in VMT compared to the proposed project.
The GPU includes a number of policies aimed at encouraging alternative modes of travel and more efficient land use, which could partially reduce VMT growth. However, these measures alone would not achieve the 27% VMT reduction necessary to entirely avoid significant impacts, as this reduction is considered infeasible. To address VMT, future development projects consistent with the GPU would need to integrate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. Such strategies might include initiatives like commuter assistance programs or mixed -use development patterns that reduce travel distances by combining residential, commercial, and employment areas. The City's Municipal Code (Chapter 16.50) on Transportation Demand Management will establish requirements for these VMT reduction measures for new development projects. Nonetheless, the anticipated benefits of TDM measures are not expected to entirely offset VMT growth. The "No Project" condition is not 27% less than the proposed project and would be anticipated to be a significant impact.
As a result, VMT per Capita would be significant and unavoidable. According to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) under SB743 guidelines, if there is a significant VMT increase at the project level, a cumulative impact is also implied. Therefore, the GPU's projected VMT increase is expected to yield a cumulative transportation impact that is significant and unavoidable, despite the proposed strategies to reduce VMT. Alternative 1 would be anticipated to have similar impacts based on the minimal difference between the two estimated VMT's
For all other transportation impacts associated with the GPU, impacts are anticipated to remain less than significant. Alternative 1 is expected to have similar impacts when compared to the proposed project. Should the City of Indian Wells move forward with GPU approval, CEQA Guidelines require the City to provide findings under Section 15091 and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 for review by City decision -makers.
Utilities and Service Systems
As described in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed GPU would result in less than significant impacts. All future developments proposed under the existing GP and proposed GPU would have an increase in the utility demand. However, given Alternative 1 would accommodate less non-residential development and assumes less job growth than the proposed Project, impacts to utilities and service systems would not be significant, similar to the proposed Project. The domestic water supply availability, and existing wastewater treatment capacity are sufficient to meet the water Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-18 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
supply needs of current and future population growth, and no impact would occur. In both Alternative 1 and the proposed Project, future projects developed under the existing GP and proposed GPU would not adversely impact water quality via stormwater inputs due to compliance to incorporate stormwater management. Like the proposed Project, the existing landfills would still have adequate capacity to accommodate the additional solid waste. Alternative 1 would not create new or different impacts to electrical power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities. Impacts on the City's infrastructure systems and water supply would be slightly reduced under Alternative 1 and impacts would remain less than significant.
7.5.2 Alternative 2 — Medical Offices and Convalescent Homes Under Alternative 2, the City would adopt the updated General Plan policy document, but with a community commercial (or professional office) land use and community commercial zoning designation on approximately 30 acres north of Highway 111 and west and east of Miles Avenue.
Currently, this area is designated as Resort Commercial on 14 acres west of Miles Avenue, and Community Commercial on 16 acres east of Miles Avenue. The remaining developable lands would be developed under their current land use designations, as established in the Current General Plan.
This area is proposed as Resort Commercial land uses and zoning in the proposed GPU. Alternative 2 would provide medical offices on 14 acres on the western -most parcel, west of Miles Avenue, and nursing homes/congregate/convalescent housing on 16 acres on the parcels east of Miles Avenue.
Alternative 2 would generate the same amount of residential units, nonresidential space and number of jobs as the proposed GPU due to the proposed medical office uses and nursing homes.
Aesthetics
Under Alternative 2, the GPU would be approved, allowing the buildout of the City, including a Community Commercial land use designation on approximately 30 acres north of Highway 111 and east and west of Miles Avenue. As stated above, this area is currently designated as Resort Commercial on 14 acres west of Miles Avenue, and Community Commercial on 16 acres east of Miles Avenue. The remaining developable lands would be developed under their current land use designations, as established in the Current General Plan. The GPU proposes these areas to be Resort Commercial uses.
Similar to the proposed GPU, Alternative 2 would result in the buildout of the currently undeveloped lands within the City. The remaining developable areas are located north of Highway 111, and north and south of Miles Avenue. Development of these lands could result in obstructions to existing scenic vistas (the most -prominent scenic view being the Santa Rosa Mountains), when viewed from public rights -of -way in the City. Similar to the proposed GPU, this impact is considered potentially significant.
However, with the implementation of GPU policies and actions, these impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Policies RM-2.1 through RM-2.4 and Action RM-2a require the City to preserve open space and scenic resources, which enhances the open space character of the City, and supports Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-19 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
tourism. The policies and actions ensure that new development is designed in a way that enhances the visual quality of the community, compliments the visual character of the City, and that adverse effects on public views are minimized.
No officially designated or eligible State scenic highway is located within the City of Indian Wells.
Therefore, Alternative 1 would not damage scenic resources (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings) within as State scenic highway, similar to the proposed GPU. Development of Alternative 2 would result in the development of vacant land within the City. However, the implementation of Policies RM-2.3 and RM-2.4 would ensure that development within the City would not result in damages to scenic resources, by establishing and maintaining greenbelts and open space amenities that are viewed by people who travel through and within the City and maintaining scenic views from public rights -of -way. Similar to the proposed GPU, Alternative 2 would not impact scenic resources within a State scenic highway.
As stated in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the scenic quality that currently exists in the City is primarily comprised of residential communities, commercial plazas, resort buildings, golf clubs, and the Santa Rosa Mountains. Scenic quality is established and maintained within the City with the implementation of the Indian Wells Municipal Code, Title 21, Zoning Code. The Zoning Code provides development standards for the various zones within the City (Chapter 21.20 through 21.48). The standards provide guidelines for building heights, setbacks, lot sizes, allowed structures, etc., which ensures visual consistency between projects throughout the City. Development under Alternative 2 would be subject to compliance with the guidelines and policies set in the Current General Plan, as well as the applicable regulations set forth in the Indian Wells Municipal Code. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not result in impacts to scenic quality in the City, similar to the proposed GPU.
Finally, Alternative 2 would result in the buildout of the Current General Plan, which could result in increased light and glare within the City, compared to existing conditions. Similar to the proposed GPU, undeveloped lands, which currently do not contribute to existing light and glare in the City, would be developed. Development under Alternative 2 would be required to be consistent with the General Plan land use designations, as well as lighting and design requirements in the Indian Wells Municipal Code. Therefore, Alternative 2's impacts to light and glare will be less than significant, similar to the proposed GPU.
Overall, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to aesthetic resources as the proposed GPU.
Neither Alternative 2 nor the proposed project would result in significant impacts.
Agricultural Resources
Alternative 2 would adopt the GPU policy document; therefore, existing agricultural land in the City would be developed into nonagricultural uses. Therefore, similar to the impacts anticipated under the Proposed GPU), buildout of Alternative 2 would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on agricultural resources. As stated in the above Agricultural Resources section, although the loss of Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-20 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
Prime Farmland within Indian Wells would be significant, the loss of farmland in the City is not significant at the scale of the Coachella Valley agricultural landscape.
No feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would sufficiently preserve agricultural resources while meeting the City's broader planning goals and objectives. Consequently, under Alternative 2, unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources are expected to occur as would be seen under the Proposed GPU.
Air Quality
Alternative 2 would adopt an updated General Plan policy document with the associated policies and actions. By comparison to the existing and proposed GPU, Alternative 2 would include a community commercial (or professional office) land use and community commercial zoning designation on approximately 30 acres north of Highway 111 and west and east of Miles Avenue. Currently, this area is designated as Resort Commercial on 14 acres west of Miles Avenue, and Community Commercial on 16 acres east of Miles Avenue. The remaining developable infill lands would be developed under their land use designations as established in the Current General Plan. Alternative 2 would not grant any specific development entitlements or preclude further environmental review as applicable to the extent and configuration of land development proposals. Alternative 2 is anticipated to have a lower trip generation and therefore fewer air quality impacts.
The development of medical offices and nursing homes/congregate/convalescent housing would incur air quality impacts from construction and operational area, energy, and mobile sources.
Buildout under Alternative 2 would continue to be regulated under the SCAQMD regulations, strategies and air quality significance thresholds. Compliance with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and State Implementation Plan strategies would be expected from new development occurring under Alternative 2. Since the governing SCAMQD regulations are routinely updated to reflect changing conditions and needs, including land development and population factors, Alternative 2 would be factored into SCAQMD's growth strategies and therefore not conflict with or obstruct the applicable air quality standards and attainment. New development under Alternative 2 would be subject to the most current construction, energy, and water efficiency standards, as well as any applicable statewide mandates that may emerge during the life of Alternative 2. Mobile emissions would also be regulated at the state level independent of new development.
Vacant parcels within the City would continue to be exposed to seasonal winds with potential off -site dust deposition and wind erosion capable of resulting in particulate matter emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) under high and adverse wind conditions. Since land use conditions and associated population growth are factored into the SCAQMD AQMP documentation, the proposed land uses under Alternative 2, would be incorporated into the growth assumptions and updated strategies for attaining the regional air quality objectives.
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-21 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
Therefore, Alternative 2 would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Other than unregulated wind erosion and associated particulate matter emissions, Alternative 2 would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or odors because the site would remain undeveloped and be built out under the existing land use regulations.
Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts to air quality.
By comparison, the proposed GPU was found to result in less than significant impacts on all air quality threshold criteria, including air quality plan conformance and the quantified emission levels compared against the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds (construction and operations), construction LST, operational LSTs, and health risks. The new policies and actions under the Alternative 2 General Plan scenario would be expected to further reduce the associated air quality impacts, similar to the proposed GPU project and existing General Plan. Based on population and trip generation factors, Alternative 2 would result in relatively fewer impacts than Alternative 1 and the proposed GPU; however, none of the alternatives nor the proposed project would result in any significant impacts relating to Air Quality. Under Alternative 2, the proposed General Plan policies would help achieve similar controls toward the buildout condition, resulting in less than significant impacts.
Biological Resources
Under Alternative 2, impacts to biological resources would be identical compared to the proposed project, because both Alternative 2 and the Proposed GPU are expected to develop the remaining vacant lots in the City. Alternative 2 would have identical impacts on undeveloped land. Future development under both the Proposed GPU as well as Alternative 2 would be required to follow the City's polices and actions, as well as local, State, and Federal standards pertaining to biological resources. Both Alternative 2 and the Proposed GPU would have less than significant impact on biological resources.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
As with the proposed Project, construction of Alternative 2 could unearth unknown archaeological or Tribal cultural resources or human remains which would have a significant impact. However, policies would be in place under the proposed GPU to protect those resources, including the requirement for a study to be conducted by a professional archaeologist pursuant to CEQA to determine if significant archaeological resources are potentially present and if the project will significantly impact these resources, and review and procedures for inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources.
Therefore, Alternative 2 would not cause adverse impacts to cultural and Tribal resources, including archaeological materials and human remains. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have a less than significant impact on archaeological resources.
Energy
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-22 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
As previously stated, the City of Indian Wells is largely developed, apart from various vacant parcels located north of Highway 111 and north and south (and east and west where applicable) of Miles Avenue. Currently, these parcels do not consume energy resources. Alternative 2 would result in the development of these vacant and developable parcels and redevelopment of appliable parcels (including the golf course use on approximately 8.31 acres). Development and operation of Alternative 2 would result in an increase of energy consumption compared to the existing vacant conditions; however, it would result in similar electricity and natural gas consumption compared to the proposed GPU, but less petroleum fuel consumption compared to the proposed GPU due to an expected decrease in trip generation/VMT.
Construction
Construction of Alternative 2 would result in similar energy consumed as the proposed GPU. This is because both projects propose the development of the remaining vacant parcels. Neither project proposes development outside of the scope that is considered normal for commercial projects.
Operation
Operation of Alternative 2 would result in the development of the vacant and developable parcels, as well as redevelopment of applicable parcels within the Planning Area, similar to the proposed GPU.
Alternative 2 would develop 6,271 residential units, 5,159,667 square feet of nonresidential uses, similar to the proposed project. Energy and natural gas consumed during operation of the residential and nonresidential buildings will be similar to the proposed GPU, because both projects would develop 6,271 residential units and 5,159,667 square feet of nonresidential uses. As determined in Section 4.6, Energy Resources, the proposed GPU would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption because future development would be required to comply with Title 24 and CalGreen requirements, which ensures energy efficient appliances and fixtures are utilized in the development of new residential and nonresidential buildings. Development under Alternative 2 would also be required to comply with Title 24 and CalGreen requirements, as required by the State.
Alternative 2 would also be required to comply with the policies in the General Plan Update document, similar to the proposed project. Additionally, Alternative 2 would be required to comply with State and local regulations regulating energy consumption (including Senate Bill 100, Title 24, and the Indian Wells Climate Action Plan (CAP)), similar to the proposed GPU.
Moreover, operational petroleum consumption would be less under Alternative 2, because the medical offices and nursing home/convalescent housing would result in less employee -generated VMTs compared to the proposed GPU. Reduced VMTs translates to less vehicles traveling far distances within the City, and therefore, less petroleum consumption. Therefore, petroleum consumption associated with Alternative 2 will be less than the proposed GPU. As demonstrated in Section 4.6, Energy Resources, the proposed GPU would result in less than significant impacts related to petroleum consumption with the implementation of GPU policies and actions which promote Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-23 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
multiple modes of transportation and safety for multi -modal transportation, as well as the thoughtful connectivity between land uses to reduce VMTs and subsequently petroleum consumed. Alternative 2 would be required to comply with the comply with the GPU policies and actions. Additionally, as stated in Section 4.6, over the lifetime of City buildout and operation, the fuel efficiency of vehicles in use is expected to increase as older vehicles are replaced with newer, more efficient models. Thus, the amount of petroleum consumed because of vehicle trips during operation would decrease over time.
Overall, Alternative 2 would result in similar construction -related consumption of energy resources and operational electricity and natural gas consumed compared to the proposed GPU, and reduced petroleum consumption compared to the proposed GPU. However, both scenarios would not result in the unnecessary, wasteful and inefficient use of energy resources, or conflict with a State or local plan for energy efficiency with the implementation of the GPU policies and actions. Neither project would result in significant and unavoidable energy impacts.
Geology and Soils
Alternative 2 would adopt the GPU policy document, and it is assumed that both Alternative 2 and the Proposed GPU would develop any remaining vacant lots within the City.
Without proper regulations and standards, future development within the City could experience geotechnical hazards, including seismic ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence, loss of topsoil, and expansive or corrosive soils.
For both the Proposed GPU and Alternative 2, specific measures to address geological and soil -related hazards would require compliance with the latest federal, State, and local building standards and mandates for soil and geologic surveys prior to project approval. In addition, implementation of project -specific Fugitive Dust Control Plans, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) would provide further mitigation, reducing impacts associated with geology and soils.
Under both Alternative 2 and the Proposed GPU, these policies and compliance requirements would help minimize impacts related to geology and soils to less than significant levels.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 2 would adopt an updated General Plan policy document with the associated policies and actions. By comparison to the existing and proposed GPU, Alternative 2 would include a community commercial (or professional office) land use and community commercial zoning designation on approximately 30 acres north of Highway 111 and west and east of Miles Avenue. Currently, this area is designated as Resort Commercial on 14 acres west of Miles Avenue, and Community Commercial on 16 acres east of Miles Avenue. The remaining developable infill lands would be developed under their land use designations as established in the Current General Plan. Alternative 2 would be Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-24 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
expected to incur a decrease in vehicle trips and VMT compared to proposed GPU due to the medical office uses and nursing homes.
Alternative 2 would not grant any specific development entitlements or preclude further environmental review as applicable to the extent and configuration of land development proposals.
Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in no direct measurable greenhouse gas emissions.
The project -specific buildout of developable land under the Alternative 2 land use scenario would incur GHG emissions, the impacts of which would be measured on a project -by -project basis while incorporating the necessary mitigation measures respective to the development proposals. New construction occurring under the Alternative 2 land use scenario would involve the strictest energy efficiency, water efficiency, and mobile emission standards that are routinely updated at the regional and state level as part of the GHG reduction strategies. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not involve land use policy changes able to conflict with the current statewide policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. By comparison, the proposed project GPU was found to result in less than significant impacts on GHG emissions and plan conformance.
Based on population and trip generation/VMT, GHG impacts under Alternative 2 would be relatively lower than the proposed GPU and Alternative 2 and would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As previously mentioned, the City of Indian Wells is largely developed apart from vacant developable lots north of Highway 111 and north and south (and east and west) of Miles Avenue. Development of Alternative 2 would result in the development of these vacant parcels, including the 14 acres west of Miles Avenue as medical offices and 16 acres east of Miles Avenue as nursing homes/convalescent housing. Future development and improvements could result in the transportation, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials during construction or operation of future projects. Future activities may involve equipment or construction activities that use hazardous materials (e.g., coatings, solvents and fuels, and diesel -fueled equipment). Accidental release of hazardous materials that are used in the construction or operation of a project may occur. There is also the potential for accidental release of pre-existing hazardous materials, associated with previous activities on a site within the City limits.
Construction of Alternative 2 is expected to involve the temporary management and use of oils, fuels and other potentially flammable substances in a manner similar to the proposed project. Hazardous materials would be delivered, stored, and handled consistent with manufacturer instructions and local, State and federal requirements. The nature and quantities of these products would be limited to what is necessary to carry out construction of Alternative 2 and are not anticipated to create significant impacts due to the limited quantities used in construction and the timeline of construction, which would occur in one phase. Additionally, the contractor will be required to identify a controlled Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-25 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
staging area within the project limits for storing materials and equipment, as required by a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit (CGP) Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), like the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would implement safety procedures when using, handling, or storing hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation of Alternative 2 could involve the use of materials common to residential or commercial developments that are labeled hazardous (e.g., solvents and commercial cleaners, petroleum products, and pesticides, fertilizers, and other landscape maintenance materials). Alternative 2 would include medical offices on 14 acres west of Miles Avenue and nursing homes/convalescent housing on 16 acres east of Miles Avenue. Similar to the proposed project, if Alternative 2 were to store hazardous materials in large quantities, the applicant would be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) and Fire Department. The Riverside County DEH, as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the County, would manage and assure implementation of a project -specific HMBP. The medical office use may be subjected to generate potentially infectious disease -causing agents upon project operation. According to the California Department of Public Health, the Medical Waste Management Program (MWMP) regulates the generation, handling, storage, treatment, and disposal of medical waste by providing oversight for the implementation of the Medical Waste Management Act (MWMA). MWMA Section 117705 of the California Health and Safety Code considers any person whose act or process produces medical waste to be a "medical waste generator" in California. The proposed project shall follow all State, federal and industrial standards regarding the handling and disposal of waste produced by the facility. The project's compliance with California Health and Safety Code, and the California Department of Public Health's Medical Waste Management Program, the project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment involving the release of hazardous materials. Thus, Alternative 2 would implement safety procedures when using, handling, and storing hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant.
As determined in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, only one school is located within the City boundary: Gerald R. Ford Elementary School. Construction access and activities and operational activities on future development within the City could result in the exposure of hazardous materials near the existing school. However, as stated in previously, construction materials would be properly stored in an approved location and implementation of the SWPPP during construction activities, and if required by code, will ensure that hazardous materials and waste are handled per manufacturer's instruction so that they are not released into the environment in a manner that results in impacts to the surrounding uses. Additionally, during operation, all businesses dealing with hazardous materials would be required to be handled in accordance with federal, State, and County requirements, which would limit the potential for a project to expose nearby uses, including schools, to hazardous emissions or an accidental release. Hazardous emissions are monitored by the SCAQMD, Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-26 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
RWQCB, DTSC, and the local CUPA. In the event of a hazardous materials spill or release, notification and cleanup operations would be performed in compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations and policies, including hazardous mitigation plans. Similar to the proposed GPU, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts to schools.
As stated in Section 4.8, the City is not located within 2 miles of a public or private airport. Therefore, no impacts from airports are anticipated. Alternative 2 would also result in no impacts.
As determined in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, a database search within the City discovered facilities registered as a Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese). As stated above, development of future lands within the City will be required to comply with existing federal and State regulations, which ensure that existing hazards, including those associated with known hazardous materials sites, are addressed prior to development. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2's impact relative to sites registered within a Cortese List will be less than significant.
Alternative 2 and the project proposes no changes to the City's roadway network. The Fire Department will review future projects, to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles is provided. Implementation of Alternative 2 is not expected to interfere with the critical facilities, emergency transportation and circulation, or emergency preparedness coordination, similar to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would be reviewed by City staff and police and fire department officials to ensure adequate police and fire service and safety as a result of implementation, similar to the proposed GPU.
Moreover, Alternative 2 would not expose people or structures to wildland fires because development is not proposed in areas where wildlands would be expected (i.e., near sloped and highly vegetated areas). Sloped areas within the City are located along the Santa Rosa Mountains, located in the southern portion of the City. Similar to the proposed project, future development in Alternative 2 would occur in the urban areas of the City, primarily north of Highway 111 and north and south (and east and west) of Miles Avenue. All future projects allowed under Alternative 2 would be required to comply with the provisions of federal, State, and local requirements related to building and fire codes, similar to the proposed GPU. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Overall, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to hazards and hazardous materials, as compared to the proposed GPU, and both would be less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 2 would adopt an updated General Plan policy document with the associated policies and actions, but by comparison, would include a community commercial (or professional office) land use and community commercial zoning designation on approximately 30 acres north of Highway 111 and west and east of Miles Avenue.
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-27 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
The Alternative 2 General Plan scenario would include equivalent policies and actions applicable to water conservation, water quality, and hydrology, as allowed under the Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), state, and local regulations to prevent violations or impacts to surface water quality standards and waste discharge requirements pertinent to surface or ground water quality.
Construction activities under Alternative 2 would be required to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to comply with the most current NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities. During the life of the project, water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be met and demonstrated through a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).
On the aspect of water demand in relation to groundwater supplies, development under Alternative 2 would involve a potential increase in demand for water than the existing General Plan. Alternative 2 would implement the standard requirements for non-structural and structural pollution source control measures that work toward the protection of groundwater quality.
On the aspect of groundwater recharge, development under Alternative 2 will not result in any physical modifications to an existing recharge facility or result in any stormwater runoff condition capable of interfering with recharge operation. The City's requirement for on -site retention facilities would contribute to infiltration and groundwater recharge.
On the matter of erosion, siltation, flooding, and urban runoff conditions, development under Alternative 2 would result in an increase in impervious land cover through the introduction of structures, hardscape and streets. However, the required storm drainage system with on -site retention facilities and stabilized surfaces, applicable at the project -specific level, would control the volume and conveyance of runoff to prevent erosion and siltation. Flooding would be prevented through compliance with the City's engineering standards for new development. Development under Alternative 2 would be required to retain urban runoff on -site, it would not result in a discharge condition affecting public storm drainage infrastructure.
By comparison, the proposed project was found to result in less than significant impacts on all thresholds and criteria for hydrology, without the need for mitigation, other than the proposed policies and actions. Other than the standard plans, no mitigation is necessary to achieve less than significant impacts.
Land Use and Planning
Alternative 2 and the proposed GPU does not include any new areas designated for urbanization or new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide existing communities. Both scenarios provide opportunities for cohesive new growth at vacant in -fill locations within existing urbanized areas of the City, as well as new growth adjacent to existing urbanized areas, but would Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-28 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
not create physical division within the community. Neither project would have a significant impact associated with the physical division of an established community.
Under Alternative 2, 14 acres at the northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Highway 111 would be designated for community commercial and would allow the development of medical offices. 16 acres at the northeast corner of Miles Avenue and Highway 111 would continue to be designated for community commercial and would allow the development of nursing homes/convalescent housing.
Alternative 2, like the proposed GPU, would update two locations to Community Commercial land use designations. However, like the proposed GPU, Alternative 2 would be consistent with State and local land use plans, including the GPU, the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The GPU policies and actions would be approved with Alternative 2, therefore, this Alternative would be consistent with the GPU.
Additionally, Alternative 2 would allow the City to continue to operate as primarily a residential, resort, and commercial community, and will be consistent with the existing operations, and developed areas of the City. Alternative 2 would be consistent with the CVMSHCP because the developable areas within the City are not located within Conservation Areas, as established by the CVMSHCP, and future development would be required to pay the Local Development Mitigation Fee at the time of the issuance of a building permit. Therefore, like the proposed GPU, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the CVMSHCP. SCAG's RTP/SCS goals encourage regional economic growth and prosperity, success of the regional transportation network, improved air quality and reduction of GHGs in the region, and the conservation of lands and development of diverse and successful housing in the region. Alternative 2 would also be consistent with SCAG's RTP/SCS goals (where applicable) because Alternative 2 would reduce VMTs in the City (compared to the proposed GPU), with the introduction of medical offices and nursing homes/convalescent housing, reducing GHG emissions.
Alternative 2 would continue to conserve protected lands (i.e., slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains in the southern boundary of the City. Overall, Alternative 2 would not conflict with a land use plan or policy that mitigates potential environmental effects, similar to the proposed GPU. Neither project would result in significant and unavoidable land use impacts.
Noise
As discussed throughout, the City of Indian Wells is largely developed with residential, resort, commercial uses. Noise sources associated with existing land uses include residential maintenance, parking lot noise, heating, and cooling system (HVAC) noise, property maintenance noise, trash truck noise, loading and unloading noise, and recreational noise. Additional noise environments contribute to non -stationary noise, such as vehicle traffic throughout the City, especially Highway 111. The remaining developable area within the City is located north of Highway 111 and north and south of Miles Avenue. Alternative 2 would result in the approval of the GPU, and the development and operation of the vacant, developable areas, and redevelopment of a portion of a golf course, resulting Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-29 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
in an increase in the noise environment compared to the existing conditions. Alternative 2 would develop 30 acres of community commercial north of Highway 111 and east and west of Miles Avenue.
Construction
Similar to the proposed project, construction of Alternative 2 would increase the ambient noise level because the existing vacant sites would be developed. However, per Section 9.06.047 of the City of Indian Wells Municipal Code, construction shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction noise is exempt from the noise ordinance during those times per Section 9.06.041(e) with the use of construction mufflers. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or national holidays. Therefore, noise generated by construction activities and traffic is mitigated by the existing Municipal Code.
Alternative 2 would result in less than significant construction noise impacts, similar to the proposed project.
Operation
During operation, Alternative 2 would result in similar stationary noise levels as the proposed GPU, because both projects would develop commercial uses; where Alternative 2 would develop community commercial uses on 30 acres north of Highway 111 and east and west of Miles Avenue, instead of resort commercial uses as proposed by the project. Similar to the proposed GPU, Alternative 2 would be required to implement relevant GPU policies and actions that reduce stationary noise levels, such as Policy PS -6.5, which requires commercial uses to implement noise attenuation measures, if adjacent to sensitive receptors. GPU Policy PS -6.3 and Action PS -6b also require a detailed noise study for new projects to ensure that noise control measures are implemented into project design. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant stationary noise levels.
Operational noise associated with project -generated traffic would be less under Alternative 2, because the operation of the medical offices and nursing home/convalescent housing will generate less VMTs compared to the proposed GPU, which translates to less vehicles on the road, and less traffic -related noise. Therefore, traffic -generated noise associated with Alternative 2 will be less than the proposed GPU. As demonstrated in Section 4.12, Noise, the proposed GPU would result in less than significant noise impacts.
As determined in Section 4.12, construction vibration within the Planning Area is not anticipated to be significant unless an individual development uses pile driving or vibratory rollers. These impacts can be avoided by requiring vibration impact studies (and appropriate mitigation if necessary) when construction utilizes pile drivers within 200 feet of existing buildings or vibratory rollers within 50 feet of existing buildings, as required by GPU Policy PS -6.7 and Action PS -6j. Alternative 2 would be required to enforce Policy PS -6.7 and Action PS -6j, as established in the GPU. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not result in the operation of facilities that generate vibration.
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-30 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
Overall, Alternative 2 would result in reduced noise and vibration impacts, as compared to the proposed project, but both would be less than significant.
Population and Housing
As previously stated, the City of Indian Wells is largely developed with residential, resort and commercial uses. Alternative 2 proposed the approval of the GPU, however, lands north of Highway 111 and east and west of Miles Avenue will be designated as Community Commercial, and operate as medical offices (on the property west of Miles Avenue) and a nursing home/convalescent housing (on the property east of Miles Avenue). These uses would not introduce unplanned growth within the City because the 16 -acre property east of Miles Avenue is currently designated as Community Commercial. The property west of Miles Avenue is currently designated as Resort Commercial.
Alternative 2 would allow housing for the older population within the City, as well as medical services and employment opportunities within the City.
Alternative 2 would develop the same number of residential units as the proposed GPU (6,271 units), which would also result in the same population (5,405 people). Therefore, population and housing growth would be the same with Alternative 2 and the proposed GPU. Buildout of Alternative 2 would develop 5,159,667 square feet of nonresidential uses, similar to the proposed GPU. Alternative 2 would result in similar number of employment opportunities as the proposed GPU.
As determined in Section 4.13, Population and Housing, the population of 5,405 people, the operation of 6,271 residential units and 5,159,667 square feet of nonresidential uses, and the employment growth to 6,310 jobs is consistent with projected growth for population, housing and employment for the City. Section 4.13 also determined that growth within the City is consistent with the City's and SCAG's growth forecasts. Both projects would result in less than significant growth impacts.
Public Services
As stated previously, Alternative 2 would adopt the GPU policy document but would include a community commercial (or profession office) land use and community commercial zoning designation on approximately 30 acres north of Highway 111 and west and east of Miles Avenue. Currently, this area is designated as Report Commercial on 14 acres west of Miles Avenue, and Community Commercial on 16 acres east of Miles Avenue. The remaining developable lands would be developed under their current land use designations, as established in the Current General Plan. This area is proposed as Resort Commercial land uses and zoning in the proposed GPU. Alternative 2 would provide medical offices on 14 acres on the western -most parcel, west of Miles Avenue, and nursing homes/congregate/convalescent housing on 16 acres on the parcels east of Miles Avenue. Alternative 2 would allow services and employment opportunities within the City.
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-31 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
Although Alternative 2 would provide additional housing opportunities, this is technically not considered added housing units. Therefore, Alternative 2 would provide the same number of residential units as the proposed GPU (6,271 units). Alternative 2 would result in the same number of population and employment opportunities as the proposed project.
For both Alternative 2 and the proposed project, development within the area would be addressed on a case -by -case basis during the development and review of such development. This ensures that services to accommodate current and future citywide growth could be reasonably provided.
Additionally, both Alternative 2 and the proposed project would require new developments to contribute to the payment of fees, which go towards minimizing impacts to fire and police services, as well as other public services. Therefore, with adherence to codes, policies and actions as identified in this section, all new development within the City will assist in minimizing cumulative impacts in regard to fire and police services and are expected to be less than significant.
Recreation
Alternative 2 would provide the same number of residential units (6,271 units), nonresidential space, and employment opportunities as the proposed GPU. Future development under Alternative 2 as well as under the proposed project would be required to contribute to the payment of developmental fees towards the preservation, expansion and maintenance of the City's recreational parks and facilities.
Demand for recreational facilities or parks is not anticipated to result in unanticipated construction of or expansion of these facilities. Therefore, with adherence to City policies and actions as well as Municipal Codes, all new development within City of Indian Wells under Alternative 2 and the proposed project would create less than significant impacts on recreation.
Transportation
Alternative 2 would adopt the GPU policy document but would include a community commercial (or profession office) land use and community commercial zoning designation n approximately 30 acres north of Highway 111 and west and east of Miles Avenue. This area is proposed as Resort Commercial land use and zoning in the proposed project.
As stated above, Alternative 2 would provide the same number of residential units as the proposed GPU (6,271 units). Additionally, Alternative 2 would generate similar employment opportunities within the City, however trip generation and VMTs would be decreased in accordance with the proposed medical/congregate care land uses which would generate less traffic than the GPU Resort Commercial land uses.
The Proposed GPU Traffic Analysis concluded that VMT per Capita for buildout of the Proposed GPU would exceed the per Capita VMT threshold.
The GPU includes a number of policies aimed at encouraging alternative modes of travel and more efficient land use, which could partially reduce VMT growth. However, these measures alone would Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-32 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
not achieve the 27% VMT reduction necessary to entirely avoid significant impacts, as this reduction is considered infeasible. To address VMT, future development projects consistent with the GPU would need to integrate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. Such strategies might include initiatives like commuter assistance programs or mixed -use development patterns that reduce travel distances by combining residential, commercial, and employment areas. The City's Municipal Code (Chapter 16.50) on Transportation Demand Management will establish requirements for these VMT reduction measures for new development projects. Nonetheless, the anticipated benefits of TDM measures are not expected to entirely offset VMT growth. Alternative 2 would also implement these measures, however Alternative 2 is not anticipated to result in VMT levels that are Less than significant.
As a result, VMT per Capita would be significant and unavoidable for both the proposed project and Alternative 2. According to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) under SB743 guidelines, if there is a significant VMT increase at the project level, a cumulative impact is also implied. Therefore, the GPU's projected VMT increase is expected to yield a cumulative transportation impact that is significant and unavoidable, despite the proposed strategies to reduce VMT. Alternative 2 would be anticipated to have similar impacts based on the existing traffic conditions.
For all other transportation impacts associated with the GPU, impacts are anticipated to remain less than significant. Alternative 2 is expected to have similar impacts when compared to the proposed project.
Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 2 would adopt the GPU and would increase the amount of office development compared to the proposed Project. Development under this alternative is expected to have a higher increase in water, wastewater, and solid waste demands because of full time residents/clientele. However, GPU Policies and Actions from the Resource Management section of the GPU will include policies and guidelines to regulate the performance of water, wastewater, solid waste, electricity, natural gas and telecommunication facilities, and infrastructure within the region. Additionally, future development will be required to be consistent with the goals set within the federal, State, regional, and local levels.
The regional cooperation of all involved agencies and groundwater management. Future development would be evaluated at a project level to ensure proper water and wastewater improvements are made. Alternative 2 would not create new or different impacts to electrical power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities. The environmental impacts of Alternative 2 are expected to be similar to those associated with new development and infrastructure projects under the GPU. Overall, the utilities and service system serving the City are sufficient for both Alternative 2 and the proposed project. Impacts for Alternative 2 and the proposed project would remain less than significant.
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-33 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
7.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The purpose of the Alternatives analysis is to explain potentially feasible ways to avoid or minimize the significant effects identified for the project. State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2) also requires an EIR to identify an environmentally superior alternative among those evaluated in an EIR.
A summary and comparison of impacts associated with the project Alternatives is provided in Table 7-2, Comparison of Alternatives to Project.
The No Project / Current General Plan Buildout Alternative (Alternative 1) would develop remaining vacant and infill parcels within the City. Development would be consistent with the existing land use designations for the sites, as established by the current General Plan. As described above, Alternative 1 would reduce impacts associated with construction and operation related to air quality, energy resources (petroleum consumption), greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing (employment), transportation, and utilities, compared to the proposed project. Of the Alternatives considered in this Draft EIR, the No Project / Current General Plan Buildout Alternative is environmentally superior to the other Alternatives because this Alternative would avoid any impacts identified for the project or any other alternative.
Although Alternative 1 is environmentally superior, it does not meet any of the objectives of the proposed project because it would not involve development of the site. Alternative 1 would not:
develop a diverse set of land uses including employment -generating land uses that create new jobs and ensure long-term economic benefits and stability for the City of Indian Wells, because 8.31 acres would remain a golf course use, instead of a more income -generating use, such as resort commercial, as proposed by the GPU. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that if the No Project / Current General Plan Buildout Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, then an environmentally superior alternative should be identified among the other alternatives.
Among the other alternatives, Alternative 2 (Medical Offices and Nursing Home/Convalescent Housing Alternative) would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would cause incremental reductions with respect to impacts related to all of the environmental topics except agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards, hydrology, land use and planning, population and housing, public services, and recreation where the impacts are expected to be similar to those resulting from the proposed project because of similar land disturbance. Although impacts would be similar under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed project, policies and actions would still be required to reduce impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards, hydrology, land use and planning, public services, and recreation. Alternative 2 would result in reduced impacts to air quality, energy resources (petroleum use), greenhouse gas emissions, noise (traffic noise), and transportation, due to the reduced VMTs generated by Alternative 2 Alternative 2 Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-34 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
could result in an increase in utility uses, such as water and wastewater. Although Alternative 2 reduces VMTs, compared to the project, it is still considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
In addition, Alternative 2 meets all of the objectives proposed for the project. Specifically, Alternative 2 accommodates a range of land uses (commercial, residential, open space, and public uses); maintains adequate sites to accommodate the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); develops a diverse set of land uses including employment -generating land uses that create new jobs and ensure long-term economic benefits and stability for the City of Indian Wells; promotes the development of a connected community that is enhanced by sidewalks, shade from trees, pedestrian benches, safe pedestrian crossings, and landscaping along streets, and providing buffers between surrounding uses; encourages the development of a multimodal circulation network that provides a safe and efficient level of connectivity for vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users; and provides adequate infrastructure, services, and utilities to meet the needs of the community by requiring new developments to pay their fair share for required improvements. Alternative 2 also meets the objective of maintaining the City's residential -resort lifestyle, however, to a lesser degree than the proposed GPU, because Alternative 2 would develop community commercial uses on 30 acres, instead of resort commercial uses (as proposed by the GPU). Therefore, Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative.
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-35 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
Table 7-2 Comparison of Alternatives and Project
Environmental
Topic
Impacts of the Proposed GPU
Alternative 1
No Project / Current GP Buildout
Alternative 2
Medical Offices & Convalescent Homes
Aesthetics
Less than Significant (LTS) with
GPU Policies and Actions
Similar (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Agricultural Resources
Significant and Unavoidable (SU)
Impact
Similar (SU)
Similar (SU)
Air Quality
LTS with GPU Policies and Actions
Reduced (LTS)
Increased (LTS)
Biological Resources
LTS with GPU Policies and Actions
Similar (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Cultural and Tribal Cultural
Resources
LTS with GPU Policies and Actions
Reduced (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Energy
LTS with GPU Policies and Actions
Similar electricity & natural gas;
Reduced petroleum (LTS)
Similar electricity & natural gas;
Reduced petroleum (LTS)
Geology and Soils
LTS with GPU Policies and Actions
Similar (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Greenhouse Gas
LTS with GPU Policies and Actions
Reduced (LTS)
Increased (LTS)
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
LTS with GPU Policies and Actions
Similar (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Hydrology and Water Quality
LTS with GPU Policies and Actions
Similar (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Land Use and Planning
LTS with GPU Policies and Actions
Reduced (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Noise
LTS with GPU Policies and Actions
Reduced noise; Increased vibration (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Population and Housing
LTS with GPU Policies and Actions
Similar population and housing; reduced
employment (LTS)
Similar population and housing;
Increased employment (LTS)
Public Services
LTS with GPU Policies and Actions
Similar (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Recreation
LTS with GPU Policies and Actions
Similar (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Transportation
SU Impact
Similar (LTS); Increased VMT (SU)
Similar (LTS); Reduced VMT (SU)
Utilities & Service Systems
LTS with GPU Policies and Actions
Reduced (LTS)
Similar (LTS)
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
7-36
November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
PROGRAMMATIC DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Indian Wells General Plan Update
8.0 References
Chapter 8.0 References
Chapter 3.0 Project Description
Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan, SP2020-0002, April 2021.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis
Section 4.1 Aesthetics
State Scenic Highways, Caltrans, website https://dot.ca.gov/ architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. programs/design/la
3-landscape-
Streets and Highways Code — SHC; Division 1. State Highways, Chapter 2. The State Highway System, Article 2.5 State Scenic Highways, California Legislative Information, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?IawCode=SHC&division=1.&tit le=&part=&chapter=2.&article=2.5.
Section 4.2 Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources City of Indian Wells General Plan Update Land Use/Zoning Map Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), California Department of Conservation (CDC), available at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp Riverside County Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan, September 2021, available at htt as://planning.rctlma.org/sites/g/files/aldnop416/files/migrated/Portals-14-genplan-GPA- 2022-Compiled-ECVAP-4-2022-rev.pdf
Coachella Valley Economic Partnership, Agriculture in the Coachella Valley, June 2023, available at https://cvep.com/agriculture-in-the-coachella-
val ley/#:^':text=The%20Coachella%20VaI ley%20Agriculture%20sector,we%20have%20lost%20si nce%201990.
Section 4.3 Air Quality
Analysis of the Coachella Valley PM10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, by the California Air Resources Board, February 2010; and sections of the SCAQMD Rule Book.
Clean Air Act (CWA).
2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), adopted December 2, 2022.
Final 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (CVSIP), by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), August 2003.
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
8-1 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
8.0 REFERENCES
Section 4.4 Biological Resources
Biological Resources Assessment and CVMSHCP Consistency Analysis, LSA Associates, Inc., May 2021.
Focused Bat Survey Report, LSA Associates, Inc., May 2021.
Environmental protection Agency, May 2020 https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary- endangered-species-act, accessed 2020
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, May 2020 https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/hcp- overview.html, accessed 2020.
La Quinta General Plan, Chapter III, Natural Resources Element, accessed 2020.
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 2019 Annual Report, accessed 2020.
Section 4.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Indian Wells General Plan, Resource Management Element
Indian Wells Municipal Code; https://ecode360.com/IN4940 Cultural and Paleontological Resource Study for the General Plan Update conducted by Duke Cultural Resources Management, LLC., 2021.
Section 4.6 Energy Resources
California Energy Demand 2018-2030 Revised Forecast, California Energy Commission, Demand Analysis Office, February 2018.
Carbon Neutrality by 2045, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, https://opr.ca.gov/climate/carbon-
neutrality.html#:^':text=SB%20100%20(De%20Leon%2C%202018,serve%20state%20agencies% 2C%20by%202045.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy Electricity Consumption by Planning Area, California Energy Commission, California Energy Consumption Database, http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyplan.asDx Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator — Calculations and References, Environmental Protection Agency, available at https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator- calculations-and-references
Natural Gas and California, California Public Utilities Commission, available at https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/natural_gas/CARB , EMFAC2017 Web Database, accessed June 2020, available at https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/
Section 4.7 Geology and Soils
Indian Wells General Plan PDEIR
8-2 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
8.0 REFERENCES
Cultural and Paleontological Resource Study for the General Plan Update, City of Indian Wells, Riverside County, DUKE Cultural Resources Management, January 2021 City of Indian Wells General Plan 2018, Seismic Hazards Section and Paleontological Resources Section of the Public Safety Section (Chapter 4), 2018.
https://staticl.squarespace.com/static/5f639a7de05d1e43d92ad6a5/t/5f7f8f3d8ecd9933dd0a 4057/1602195361668/ General+Plan+Updated+2018.pdf
County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521, Cultural and Paleontological Resources (Section 4.9), 2015.
Jennings, C.W., Strand, R.G., and Rogers, T.H., 1977, Geologic Map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1:750,000.
California Department of Conservation EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application.
California Department of Conservation, Fault Activity Map of California, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/apo/
California
htt
Department of Conservation, Landslide Inventory,
as://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Isi/a pp/
USGS Areas of Land Subsidence in California, https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land subsidence/california- subsidence-areas.html
USGS U.S. Landslide Inventory and Interactive Map,
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ae120962f459434b8c904b4 56c82669d
USGS US Topo 7.5 -minute map for La Quinta, CA 2015,
USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Water Systems Consulting, Inc., 2021, https://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/5482/Coachella-Valley-RUWMP Section 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Adopted December 2, 2022.
Analysis of the Coachella Valley PM10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, by the California Air Resources Board, February 2010
California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017, Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, 2019 Edition, California Air Resources Board; Release No. 18-37 & 19-35, California Air Resources Board Press Release, July 2018 and August 2019
Indian Wells General Plan PDEIR
8-3 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
8.0 REFERENCES
Federal Clean Air Act (CWA)
Final 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (CVSIP), by SCAQMD, August 2003; and sections of the SCAQMD Rule Book
Section 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
GeoTracker, State Water Resources Control Board, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ EnviroStor, Department of Toxic Substance Control, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ Enforcement and Compliance History, EPA, https://echo.epa.gov/facilities/facility-search/results Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese), Department of Toxic Substance Control, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site typ e=CSITES,FUDS&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+ SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29
Indian Wells 2023 Draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, December 2022, https://www.cityofindianwells.org/home/showpublisheddocument/8010/63809045135997000 0 2022 Long Range Facilities Master Plan, Desert Sands Unified School District, Ruhnau Clarke Architects, https://www.dsusd.us/common/pages/DownloadFileByUrl.aspx?key=xv4tCcttbRn%2badjBJsX8 6hso7d5xRt7sLLdOE%2tcn9SeKBYuGH EnobaraXQN%2bN2wpXHhJ1SxRTXaQKtxwAFV8czdy0TTTI 6032s%2bT8rbR66gaNfyskNW7eex4i63M4NYIOeAOnRb4g5IyECC8FPLu%2btFida0%2b2UHeHCZ y2UuyQIg1DeaoO96Fvt2M5Itt3PRne5HFgo8g6CeIMO3baThWm1A9ThhoH43D3ZVgFJJBwknm Ao
Section 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
California Code of Regulations (CCR)
California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB) City of Indian Wells 1996 General Plan, as Amended
Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/laws- regulations/su mma ry-clea n -water -act
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) 06065C2226H, 06065C2227H, 06065C2231H, 06065C2228H, 06065C2229H, and 06065C2233H, effective April 19, 2017. httas://msc.fema.gov/portal/home
Indian Wells Municipal Code
Indian Wells General Plan PDEIR
8-4 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
8.0 REFERENCES
Indio Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Plan. htto:// www.indiosubbasinsgma.ori/
Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne) Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Basin Plan), January 2019. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver/water issues/programs/basin planning/docs/ 2020/rb7bp e2019.pdf
Whitewater River Region Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff and the associated Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit, effective June 20, 2013. https://content.rcflood.org/downloads/NPDES/Documents/WW SWMP WQMP/Jan2015 App B MS4Permit.pdf
United States Geological Survey (USGS) La Quinta 7.5 -minute Quadrangle Topographic Map 2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management and Stormwater Resources Plan, December 2018. https://dwa.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/integrated-regional- water-management-alan/2019/06/2019 04 03 CVRWMG-FinaI2018IRWMSWR-Plan 160437 - compressed. adf
Section 4.11 Land Use and Planning
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, Executive Summary, August 2016; http://www.cvmshcp.org/Plan%20Documents/07.%20CVAG%20MSHCP%20PIan%20Executive %20Summary.pdf
Connect SoCal (RTP/SCS), Southern California Association of Governments, https://scag.ca.gov/connect- Section 4.12 Noise
Indian Wells General Plan Update Noise Impact Study, MD Acoustics, Inc., September 2024.
Indian Wells Municipal Code, https://ecode360.com/IN4940 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, September 2018, available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123 0.pdf,.
Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, September 2013, available at
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/34120/Caltrans-2013-construction- vibration-PDF?bidld=.
Section 4.13 Population and Housing
Indian Wells General Plan PDEIR
8-5 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
8.0 REFERENCES
American Community Survey (ACS) 2018 ACS 5 -Year Estimates Data Profiles, accessed January 2020, available at httas:// www.census.gov/arograms-surveys/acs California Department of Finance (DOF), Estimates: E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2010-2020 and 2020-2023,
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/
California Legislative Information, Government Code, Title 7 Planning and Land Use, Division 1, Planning and Zoning, January 2018,
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displaySection.xhtml?IawCode=GOV§ionNu m=65580
Connect SoCal (RTP/SCS), Southern California Association of Governments, https://scag.ca.gov/connect- socal
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Profile of the City of Indian Wells— Local Profiles Report 2019, May 2019, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/indianwells IocalDrofile.pdf?1606013543
US EPA, EnviroAtlas, Employment to Housing Ratio, November 2014, https://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/DataFactSheets/pdf/Supplemental/EmploymentHousin gRatio.pdf.
Section 4.14 Public Services
City of Indian Wells, Fire Department website, https://www.cityofindianwells.org/services/fire City of Indian Wells, Police Department website https://www.cityofindianwells.org/services/police Developing a Shared Police Services Contract, Matrix Consulting Group, June 2021, https://www.cityofindianwells.org/home/showpublisheddocument/7416/63781146905407000 0 Desert Sands Unified School District Fee Justification Report for New Residential and Commercial/Industrial
Development, June 2024,
https://www.dsusd.us/common/pages/GetFile.ashx?key=LxQmC%2fbg Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates, 2024.
Section 4.15 Recreation
Indian Wells City Website, Commissions, Committees, & Boards, https://www.cityofindianwells.org/city- hall/city-committees
Indian Wells Municipal Code, https://ecode360.com/IN4940 Visit Greater Palm Springs Website, Indian Wells, https://www.visitgreater3almsprings.com/coachella- val ley/indian-wells/
Indian Wells General Plan PDEIR
8-6 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
8.0 REFERENCES
Section 4.16 Transportation
City of Indian Wells General Plan, adopted in 1996 and amended periodically.
Indian Wells General Plan Update Transportation Analysis, Kittleson & Associates, August 27, 2024 City of Indian Well General Plan Update, 2024.
Section 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Coachella Valley Water District Urban Water and Management Planning Website http://cvwd.org/543/Urban-Water-Management-Planning
Coachella Valley Water District 2019-2020 Annual Report https://www.cvwd.org/blog.aspx?iid=15 Coachella Valley Water District Sewer System Management Plan https://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/1012/Coachella-Valley-Water-District---Sewer- System-Management-Plan-Final-Draft-SSM P-PDF?bidld=
Riverside County Department of Waste Resources https://www.rcwaste.org/business/planning/ciwmp County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft February 2015 https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/general plan 2015/DEIR%20521/04- 17 PublicFacilities.pdf
CalRecycle 2024
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports/DisposalTonnageT rend
California Department of Finance Population Estimates
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/ Indian Wells General Plan PDEIR
8-7 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
Page intentionally blank
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
PROGRAMMATIC DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Indian Wells General Plan Update
9.0 Glossary of Terms
Chapter 9.0 Glossary of Terms
AB Assembly Bill
ACBCI Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AFY Acre -Feet per Year
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
BACM Best Available Dust Control Measures
BMP Best Management Practices
BP Before Present
BTU British Thermal Unit
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CaIARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program CALGreen California's Green Building Standards
CaIEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CaIEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model'
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Officers Association
CARB California Air Resources Board
CASQA California Stormwater Quality Association
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CdC Carsitas gravelly sand
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDGP Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province
CEC California Energy Commission
CERS California Environmental Reporting System
CESA California Endangered Species Act
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
9-1 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
9.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
cf Cubic feet
CFGC Californian Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGP Construction General Permit
CH4 Methane
ChC Carsitas cobbly sand
CHL California Historical Landmarks
CHP California Highway Patrol
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board
CkB Carsitas fine sand
CMA Congestion Management Agency
CMP Congestion Management Plan
CMS Congestion Management System
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUPA California Certified Unified Program Agencies
CVAG Coachella Valley Association of Governments
CVCC Coachella Valley Conservation Commission
CVEP Coachella Valley Economic Partnership
CVMC Coachella Valley Mountain Conservancy
CVMSHCP Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan CVSC Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
CVSIP Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan
CVWD Coachella Valley Water District
CWA Clean Water Act
CWA Coachella Water Authority
CWC California Water Code
dB Decibel
dBA A -weighted decibel
DCE Desert Community Energy
DEH Riverside County Department of Environmental Health DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DIF Development Impact Fee
DOF Department of Finance
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
9-2 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
9.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS
DOSH Division of Occupational Safety and Health
DOT Department of Transportation
DPR Department of Pesticide Regulation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWA Desert Water Agency
DWR California Department of Water Resources
DWQ Department of Water Quality
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EIA Energy Information Administration
EIC Eastern Information Center
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
EMFAC Emissions Factors Model
EO Executive Order
EOC Emergency Operations Center
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right -To -Know Act EPO Environmental Protection and Oversight Division
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FC Footcandle
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GCC Global Climate Change
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GO General Order
GP General Plan
GPCD Gallons Per Capita Day
GPS Global Positioning System
GPU General Plan Update
GRF Groundwater Replenishment Facility
GWh Gigawatt Hours
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
9-3 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
9.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS
HCP Habitat Conservation Plans
HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HFC Hydrofluorocarbons
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program
Hp Horsepower
HSC Health and Safety Code
HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law
HWWTP Horton Wastewater Treatment Plant
I-10 Interstate 10
IID Imperial Irrigation District
ISO Independent System Operator
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
IWA Indio Water Authority
IWMP Integrated Waste Management Plan
kW kiloWatt
Leq Equivalent Sound Level
LDMF Local Development Mitigation Fee
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LID Low Impact Development
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LST Local Significance Threshold
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MC Municipal Code
MGD Million Gallons Per Day
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MMI Modern Mercalli Intensity
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMT Million Metric Tones
MMTCO2e Million Metric Tones of Carbon Dioxide emissions MSL Mean Sea Level
MSWD Mission Springs Water District
MS4 Permit Whitewater River Region Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit MTCO2e Metric Tones of Carbon Dioxide emissions
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
MW Megawatt
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
9-4 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
9.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS
NAAQS
NAHC
NFIP
NHPA
NHTSA
NPDES
NPPA
N2O
NO2
NOA
NOAA
NOC
NOP
NOx
NRHP
O3
OEHHA
OES
O&M
OPR
OSHA
Pb
PCE
PDEIR
PDF
PEL
PFC
PHMSA
PM1o/ PM2.5
PPV
PRC
PWS
PV
RCDWR
RCEM
RCFC&WCD
RCFD
RCRA
RCTC
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Native American Heritage Commission
National Flood Insurance Program
National Historic Preservation Act
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Native Plant Protection Act
Nitrous Oxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Notice of Availability
National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration
Notice of Completion
Notice of Preparation
Nitrogen Oxide
National Register of Historic Places
Ozone
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Office of Emergency Services
Operations and Maintenance
Office of Planning and Research
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Lead
Passenger Car Equivalent
Programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Design Feature
Permissible Exposure Limit
perfluorocarbons
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Particulate Matter (10 Microns / 2.5 Microns)
Peak Particle Velocity
Public Resources Code
Public Water System
Photovoltaic
Riverside County Department of Waste Resources
Road Construction Emissions Model
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Riverside County Fire Department
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR 9-5
November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
9.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Region 7 State Water Resources Control Board Colorado River Basin Region RFS Renewable Fuel Standard
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RIVCOM Riverside County Model
RIVTAM Riverside Transportation Analysis Model
RMS Root Mean Squared
ROG Reactive Organic Gas
ROW Right -of -Way
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RUWMP Regional Urban Water Management Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
RWRF Regional Water Reclamation Facility
SB Senate Bill
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SDS Safety Data Sheets
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SED Socioeconomic data
SF Square Feet
SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SHMA Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company (The Gas Company) SOX Sulfur Oxides
SP Service Population
SP Specific Plan
SRA Source Receptor Areas
SRA State Responsibility Area
SSAB Salton Sea Air Basin
SWP State Water Project
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
9-6 November 2024
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
9.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TCR Tribal Cultural Resources
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
tpd Tons per day
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
UBC Uniform Building Code
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMPA Urban Water Management Planning Act
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
VPH Vehicle per hour
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WECS Wind Energy Convection System
WEO Wind Energy Overlay
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WRPs Water Reclamation Plants
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
WSV Water Supply Verification
Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
9-7 November 2024
ATTACHMENT #6
rni inril Aijc'nrin Frhri inry 1 7n)1
INDIAN WELLS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FINAL EI R
SCH# 2024071208
Applicant:
CITY OF INDIAN WELLS
44950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
Lead Agency:
CITY OF INDIAN WELLS
44950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
INDIAN WELLS
TALI FORNIA
Preparer:
MSA CONSULTING INC.
34200 Bob Hope Drive
Rancho Mirage, California 92270
January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Indian Wells General Plan Update
1.0 Introduction
Chapter 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The City of Indian Wells, as the "Lead Agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.) is responsible for preparing the Programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Report (PDEIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the proposed Indian Wells General Plan Update (GPU) project ("project"). The City of Indian Wells prepared this EIR to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with buildout of the proposed GPU.
The Final EIR includes the PDEIR, written comments received during the public comment period, responses to those comments, and changes or errata to the PDEIR.
1.2 Organization of Final EIR
The Final EIR has been prepared in conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Indian Wells's rules to implement CEQA to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the buildout of the General Plan Update. The CEQA Guidelines require the City to prepare an EIR for any project that includes a request for approval of discretionary actions that may result in significant effects on the environment. Upon preliminary review, the City determined that since the project may have significant effects on the environment, a PDEIR would be prepared and circulated for public review.
This Final EIR was prepared pursuant to Section 15089 of the CEQA Guidelines and incorporates the November 2024 PDEIR by reference; comments received during the 45 -day public comment period; written responses to comments; and corresponding revisions to the text of the PDEIR.
Pursuant to Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Final EIR includes the following components:
Chapter 1.0 Introduction
This Chapter provides an introduction of the environmental process.
Chapter 2.0 Comment Letters and Response to Comments
This Chapter provides a list of public agencies that provided comments on the PDEIR during the 45 -day public review period.
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
1-1 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR
This Chapter provides clarification and makes necessary corrections to specific information in the PDEIR and determines whether new significant information was introduced.
Chapter 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This Chapter provides the project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which identifies mitigation measures, timing, responsibility for mitigation implementation, and levels of significance after mitigation.
The PDEIR and Final EIR were all made available for public review at the City of Indian Wells City Hall and on the City's website.
1.3 Draft EIR Public Review Period
The PDEIR was released for public comment on November 7, 2024. The document was sent to the California State Clearinghouse, public agencies, and individuals who had expressed an interest or requested to receive the Draft EIR. In addition, a Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability was published in the Desert Sun. The Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability was also sent to the Riverside County Clerk. Copies of the PDEIR were made available at the locations listed above.
The public comment period for the PDEIR ended on December 23, 2024. The City received four comment letters during the public review period.
1.4 Certification of the EIR and Project Selection Process In order to certify the Final EIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 prescribes that the City must find that:
a) The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) The Final EIR was presented to the decision -making body and that the decision -making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR; and c) The Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgement and analysis.
If the Lead Agency certifies the Final EIR, it can then consider approving the project, in whole or in part.
1.5 Consideration of Recirculation
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 1-2 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
LO INTRODUCTION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a Lead Agency to recirculate a revised EIR only if significant new information is identified following the release of the PDEIR.
As a part of the Final EIR, the City has included minor changes to the EIR, as provided in Chapter 3.0 of this document. The changes include additional policies related to flood control measures, and minor typos in the EIR. The City did not receive comment letters during the public review period (see Chapter 2.0, Response to Comments, of this Final EIR).
The City has evaluated the information contained in this Final EIR as well as other information in the record and has determined that no significant new information has been added to the EIR after public notice was given of the availability of the PDEIR for public review. Therefore, CEQA does not require the recirculation of the EIR.
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 1-3 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Indian Wells General Plan Update
2.0 Comment Letters and Response to Comments
Chapter 2.0 Responses to Comments
2.1 Purpose
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that written comments received during the public review period for a draft EIR must be responded to in writing. Section 15088(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the written response can be either in a printed copy or in an electronic format. The responses to comments must provide reasonable, good faith analyses regarding all significant environmental issues raised in the EIR comments. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). Moreover, responses to comments submitted by another public agency must be provided to the commenting agency at least 10 days before certification of the Final EIR. When such comments from a sister agency disclose new or conflicting data or opinions that raise concern that the agency may not have fully evaluated the project and its alternatives, the lead agency must pay particular care to respond with good faith, reasoned analysis. However, comments that are only objections to the merits of the project itself may be addressed briefly, as they do not relate to a specific environmental concern.
This chapter provides the comments made on the Indian Wells General Plan Update (GPU) Programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Report (PDEIR), and responses to those comments. This chapter includes copies of the comment letters received by the City of Indian Wells regarding the PDEIR. Each comment letter is numbered for reference and the individual comments in each letter are identified by a letter (i.e., "a", "b", etc.).
The PDEIR was released for public comment from November 7, 2024 to December 23, 2024. The City received a total of 4 comment letters from public agencies. Table 2-1, Comment Letters Received on the Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR, provides a list of all comment letters received, including the ID number assigned to each comment letter, the date it was received, and commenter's name.
Table 2-1 Comment Letters Received on the Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR Public Agencies
Letter ID
Date
Agency
Commenter
1 December 23, 2024
California Governor's Office of Emergency Services
(Cal OES)
Annika Braucher
2 December 23, 2024
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans)
Victor Flores
3 December 23, 2024
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Kim Freeburn
4 December 23, 2024
City of Palm Desert
Carlos Flores
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 2-1
January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
2.2 Public Agency & Area Residents Comment Letters & Responses Public Agencies
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 2-2
January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter No. 1: California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Date: December 23, 2024
Name: Annika Braucher
Affiliation: Cal OES
Comment 1-a:
The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team has taken the time to review the proposed updates/changes to your General Plan. Government Code 65302(g)(8) states "before preparing or revising its Safety Element, each city and county shall consult.... the Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of including information known by and available to the department."
The Cal OES Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team reviews and compares your current Safety Element hazards against those listed in the most recent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved City of Indian Wells Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Response 1-a:
In this comment, Cal OES introduces the purpose of their comment letter. The City thanks Cal OES in their participation in the General Plan Update PDEIR. Since this comment does not raise any questions or concerns with the PDEIR, and no further response is warranted.
Comment 1-b:
Our office has reviewed your proposed Safety Element and found no substantive changes to your hazard profiles when compared against the most recent approved local hazard mitigation plan.
Please reach out to you our office at [email protected] if you have any further questions or need additional assistance.
Response 1-b:
In this comment, Cal OES confirms that they have reviewed the Safety Element of the General Plan Update and determined that no substantive changes to the hazard profiles as compared to the approved local hazard mitigation plan. Cal OES concludes the letter. Since this comment does not raise any questions or concerns with the PDEIR, and no further response is warranted.
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 2-3
January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter No. 2: California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) Name: Victor Flores
Date: December 23, 2024
Affiliation: CalTrans District 8
Address: 464 West 4th Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Comment 2-a:
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Local Development Review (LDR) unit has completed the evaluation of the City of Indian Wells General Plan Update Programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Report (PDEIR).
The General Plan Update (GPU) is designed to address all State -required topics, including land use, circulation, housing, open space, noise, safety, and conservation, as well as other locally significant issues such as community design, sustainability, economic development, and public facilities. The General Plan Planning Area will encompass the entire City boundary and provide additional guidance for future development. The GPU will establish goals, policies, and actions that create a long-term blueprint for potential growth in the City. This proposed update will build upon the existing General Plan, offering a framework for land use decisions and guiding future development in Indian Wells through 2040.
Response 2-a:
In this comment, Caltrans introduces the purpose of their comment letter and confirms that they have reviewed the PDEIR. Caltrans summarizes the proposed General Plan Update in this comment.
The City thanks Caltrans in their participation in the General Plan Update PDEIR. Since this comment does not raise any questions or concerns related to the PDEIR, and no further response is warranted.
Comment 2-b:
Based on the information provided in the PDEIR, we are providing the following comments/recommendations:
Traffic Operations
1. Include study area intersection of Cook St. at I-10 EB ramps, Cook St. at I-10 WB ramps, Washington St. at I-10 EB ramps, and Washington St. at I-10 WB ramps on the TIA.
Response 2-b:
In this comment, Caltrans introduces their concerns discussed in Comment and Responses 2-b through 2-i. Caltrans recommends the inclusion of a study area intersection of Cook Street at I-10 EB ramps, Cook St. at I-10 WB ramps, Washington St. at I-10 EB ramps, and Washington St. at I-10 WB Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 2-4
January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
ramps on the TIA. Caltrans published its Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG)1, which is used as guidance for Caltrans to review projects and plans as a commenting agency under CEQA during environmental review of land use projects and plans. The TISG states that "for land use projects and plans, automobile delay is no longer considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA (SB 743, 2013). Caltrans review of land use projects and plans is focused on a VMT metric, consistent with changes to the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15064.3(b)(1))." It is not clear why Caltrans is requesting to include these intersections in the TIA given LOS is no longer a metric to evaluate transportation impacts.
The study area intersections were determined during scoping meeting between the traffic technical experts at Kittelson & Associates and City staff. These intersections are located well outside City limits, the nearest interchange is located 2 miles away from the northern City boundary. A review of tables
4.16-2 and 4.16-8 shows that the traffic increases in City roads from 2024 to 2045 on roads oriented in the north -south direction will not be substantial and will be distributed to the Coachella Valley via several roads. Given the traffic increases and the distance to the I-10 Freeway, the traffic increase attributed to the project at these interchanges was determined to be less than that deemed necessary for analysis.
Comment 2-c:
Active Transportation
The IS NOP highlights a project objective to "Promote the development of a connected community that is enhanced by sidewalks, shade from trees, pedestrian benches, safe pedestrian crossings, and landscape along streets, and providing buffers between surrounding uses." The Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR and Section 4.16.4 should consider actions that identify a process where locations with no pedestrian facilities and where bicycle travel is prohibited should be addressed. Addressing regional pedestrian, bicycle and neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) network gaps (4.16.4a M-2.7/2.8) should also be considered, in addition to connectivity between residential neighborhoods and points of interest such as schools, retail centers and hotels (4.16.4a M-2.4). A consideration to address these non -motorized transportation gaps to promote the development of a connected community within (and between other jurisdictions) should meet (or be) the objective.
Under section 4.16.3 Regulatory Setting there should be a consideration to reference Caltrans Directors Policy DP -37, noting that all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans will provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail unless an exception is documented and approved. 1 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb-743/2020-05-20-approved- vmt-focu sed-tisg-a 11y. pdf
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 2-5
January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
It is noted that in the Transportation section 4.16.2 Existing Conditions, Local Access Roads section that Fred Waring Drive does not indicate any bicycle prohibitions in the text, as such currently exist via placement of bicycle prohibition signs upon entering the City. Also, within that section the word "Principle" may be misused, as it should read "Principal".
Response 2-c:
The City acknowledges Caltrans' comment regarding the Transportation Section 4.16.2, Existing Conditions, Local Access Roads subsection of the PDEIR. The omission of existing bicycle prohibitions on Fred Waring Drive will be corrected in the revised document. The Final EIR will be edited to include a reference to Caltrans Director Policy DP -37. Additionally, the error of "Principle" will be amended to correctly state "Principal." These updates are reflected in Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, in this Final EIR.
In regard to the portion of the comment that requests consideration of additional actions, this comment is noted.
Comment 2-d:
System Planning
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):
The VMT assessment is comprehensive, demonstrating a strong effort to balance projected growth with the state's sustainability goals. However, there appears to be a gap in addressing the potential for induced demand. Specifically, with the addition of housing and commercial developments, it would be beneficial to further consider how these changes might increase trips from neighboring cities, such as La Quinta or Palm Desert. Enhanced modeling in this area could significantly strengthen this section.
Response 2-d:
In this comment, CalTrans acknowledges the comprehensive nature of the VMT assessment and its alignment with the state's sustainability goals. While the City recognizes the importance of considering induced demand from housing and commercial developments, the policies and actions outlined in the GPU, as well as compliance with existing City and County standards and regulations, adequately address these concerns. The VMT assessment was performed using the RIVCOM travel demand model. The RIVCOM model is a complex system that analyzes road networks, socio-economic data, driver behavior, and goods movement to predict where traffic flow will occur as the population grows and changes. While the RIVCOM model covers the entire SCAG region, Riverside County is the focus of analysis, and the model data is more disaggregated within the County as opposed to other areas of the region. It includes socio-economic projections and circulation improvements in the region, calculating trips and VMT from future land use developments.
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 2-6
January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Policy M-1.1 requires that all new development and expansions of existing developments offset their adverse effects on the circulation system and mitigate VMT impacts. This policy directly addresses potential induced demand by ensuring that projects include measures to manage and reduce VMT, contributing to sustainable transportation outcomes. Action M -lb requires VMT analysis for land use application projects and transportation projects for the purposes of environmental review under CEQA. Action M -la further complements this effort by requiring developments to implement necessary improvements to the transportation infrastructure and address operational deficiencies caused by their traffic. These improvements may include on -site transportation facilities such as streets, curbs, and traffic control devices; access enhancements like street extensions, widening, turn lanes, and signals; street widening for streets fronting development properties, as indicated in the Circulation Plan map; right-of-way landscaping; and off -site roadway and intersection improvements.
These requirements ensure that developments account for their contributions to increased traffic and provide the necessary infrastructure to accommodate potential trips, including those from neighboring cities such as La Quinta and Palm Desert.
Furthermore, City and County standards and regulations, such as adherence to the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Guidelines and the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), provide additional safeguards. These frameworks mandate VMT mitigation strategies, including enhanced public transit options, active transportation improvements, and transportation demand management (TDM) measures, which collectively address potential increases in intercity trips.
A combination of applicable policies, actions, and standards ensures that the City's VMT assessment not only addresses potential growth within the City but also accounts for broader regional transportation dynamics. Therefore, no additional enhancements to the modeling or revisions to the PDEIR are necessary.
Comment 2-e:
Multimodal Connectivity:
The proposed complete streets improvements are admirable, particularly the expanded bike lanes and pedestrian pathways, which align well with CAPTI and regional goals. However, consideration should be given to how these networks will connect with similar infrastructure in neighboring cities.
Ensuring smooth transitions for cyclists and pedestrians crossing city boundaries could have a significant impact. Additionally, providing a timeline for the rollout of these improvements would be beneficial.
Response 2-e:
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 2-7
January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The City's General Plan Mobility Element includes existing bicycle and pedestrian networks. Section
4.16 of the DEIR includes the existing bicycle route conditions to adjacent Cities. Discussion on pages
4.16-8 through 9 indicates:
"These bicycle facilities connect to bicycle facilities in adjacent Cities providing a connected bicycle network in the Coachella Valley. In particular, the bicycle facilities on Highway 111 and Hovley Lane connect to east -west bicycle facilities in Palm Desert, La Quinta and beyond. In addition, the bicycle facilities on Portola Avenue, Cook Street and Miles Avenue connect to bicycle facilities in Palm Desert and beyond in the north -south direction. The bicycle lane on Portola Avenue within City limits is also a designated golf cart lane. The City allows golf carts on all private and public roadways within a one - mile radius of a golf course."
Policy M-2.4 requires new developments to provide bike lanes on public roads and mandates updates to the Citywide Bicycle Plan as needed. Action M -2a states that during project application review, the City will consider requiring new or enhanced transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities along arterials and collectors where appropriate. Action M -le encourages new development to provide safe pedestrian facilities for internal circulation and access to adjacent uses as part of their design. The implementation of these actions and policies for new developments would ensure that new development would not negatively affect the City's bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
The majority of Improvements would be constructed in association with private development. It is not possible to predict the schedule of future private development.
Comment 2-f:
Traffic Mitigation:
The proposed upgrades to intersections and signals are a positive development. However, there appears to be a lack of detail regarding prioritization, particularly in terms of which intersections or areas will be addressed first. For instance, intersections near new developments may experience congestion sooner, so addressing these areas early could be beneficial. Additionally, it would be valuable to include more specific strategies for managing peak -hour traffic.
Response 2-f:
The majority of Improvements would be constructed in association with private development. In accordance with Policy M-1.1, private development projects will be required to provide resources to address any intersections that may reach a level of concern following completion of the project.
Projects will be conditioned to address any intersection related concerns prior to occupancy of the project (Action M -1a). A Traffic Control Plan may be required for construction activities determined on a case by case basis under Policy M-1.4.
In addition, as stated on page 4.16-31 of the PDEIR, General Plan Update Policy M-1.6 encourages the use of non-traditional intersection designs, like roundabouts, when feasible. Title 11 of the Indian Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 2-8
January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Wells Municipal Code addresses Vehicles and Traffic regulations. It establishes rules for the proper flow of traffic, including traffic control on streets, highways, and certain privately owned roads, and ensures state approval for regulations involving state highways. The code also specifies that traffic regulations can be enacted by City Council resolution and includes a severability clause ensuring that if any part of the Title is found invalid, the remainder stays in effect.
Moreover, Indian Wells Municipal Code Chapter 16.50 aims to improve public health, safety, and welfare by reducing air pollution from vehicle trips. This chapter requires new and expanded development projects, particularly those with 100 or more employees, to create and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. The goal is to minimize vehicle miles traveled and promote alternative transportation options, like public transit, carpooling, and biking, as part of the city's Congestion Management Plan.
Collectively, these measures ensure that traffic conditions are thoroughly addressed as part of new development projects.
Comment 2-g:
Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI):
This project appears to align well with the goals of the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI), particularly the focus on reducing reliance on private vehicles and promoting multimodal options. To further strengthen this connection, it may be helpful to explicitly link the proposed improvements —such as bike lanes and pedestrian pathways —to CAPTI principles, including equity and safety. This would demonstrate how the project supports state -level priorities while addressing local needs.
Response 2-g:
throughout California, and the City of Indian Wells adheres to Caltrans' bikeway standards.
Comment 2-h:
Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans' equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.
Response 2-h:
The City does not contain any Caltrans facilities, nevertheless future construction projects will be conditioned to maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction activities where appropriate. As stated on page 4.16-25 of the PDEIR, General Plan Update Policy M-2.3 focuses on Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 2-9
January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
new developments, encouraging them to create internal shared -use paths where desirable and feasible, including amenities such as secure bicycle parking, pedestrian -scale lighting, street furniture, and landscaping. These developments must connect any internal walking or biking paths to the City- wide path system with frequent and safe access points, ensuring safety for people walking and biking.
To further enhance the bike network system, Policy M-2.4 requires new developments to provide bike lanes on public roads and mandates updates to the Citywide Bicycle Plan as needed. Action M - 2a states that during project application review, the City will consider requiring new or enhanced transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities along arterials and collectors where appropriate. Action M - le encourages new development to provide safe pedestrian facilities for internal circulation and access to adjacent uses as part of their design. The implementation of these actions and policies for new developments would ensure that new development would not negatively affect the City's bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Comment 2-i:
Caltrans Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans' ROW requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating Caltrans' ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and any other applicable documents that may be requested by the Office of Encroachment Permits. Your application package or submittal inquiry may be emailed to [email protected].
For information regarding the Encroachment Permit application and submittal requirements, contact:
Caltrans Office of Encroachment Permits
464 West 4th Street, Basement, MS 619
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
(909) 383-4526
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/
Response 2-i:
In this comment, Caltrans notes that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans's ROW requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. This information exists on page 4.16-10 (Regulatory Setting discussion) in Section 4.16, Transportation, of the PDEIR.
Comment 2-j:
Thank you again for including Caltrans in the review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, or for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email LDR- [email protected] or call 909-925-7520.
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
2-10 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response 2-j:
In this comment, Caltrans thanks the City for including Caltrans in the review process. Since this comment does not raise any questions or concerns with the PDEIR, no further response is warranted.
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
2-11 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter No. 3: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Name: Kim Freeburn
Date: December 23, 2024
Affiliation: CDFW
Address: 3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
Comment 3-a:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Availability of a DEIR from the City of Indian Wells (City) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.
Response 3-a:
The City thanks CDFW for participating in the review of the PDEIR. Since this comment does not raise any questions or concerns with the PDEIR, no further response is warranted.
Comment 3-b:
CDFW Role
CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on Projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.
CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW's lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in "take" as defined by State law Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
2-12 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the Project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.
Response 3-b:
This introductory comment describing the role of CDFW role as a trustee or responsible agency does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the content of the PDEIR. No further response is required.
Comment 3-c:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Indian Wells
Objective: The Project proposes the comprehensive General Plan Update (GPU). The GPU addresses land use, mobility, open space, conservation, safety, noise, and economic development. The GPU includes an update to the City's Land Use Map. While no specific development projects are proposed as part of the GPU, the General Plan will accommodate future growth in Indian Wells, including new businesses, expansion of existing businesses, and new residential uses. The buildout analysis utilizes a 20 -year horizon, and 2045 is assumed to be the buildout year of the General Plan Update.
Among other actions, the Project proposes changing the current land use designation of a portion of the Whitewater River. A 6.82 -acre portion of the Whitewater River, currently designated as part of the storm channel will be changed to the designation of developable acreage for resort commercial uses utilizing approved channel re -design. The proposed improvements will include engineered fill material and new slope protection on the southern slope of the channel in the vicinity of Miles Avenue.
Location: The Project, City of Indian Wells, occupies an area of roughly 15 square miles. Indian Wells is located in the Coachella Valley area of Riverside County, approximately 14 miles southeast of Palm Springs.
Timeframe: Project construction is anticipated through the assumed buildout of the City in 2045.
Response 3-c:
This comment provides a summary of the project and does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the content of the PDEIR. No further response to this comment is required.
Comment 3-d:
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (i.e., biological Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
2-13 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
resources). CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project's significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. The DEIR has not adequately identified and disclosed the Project's impacts (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative) on biological resources and whether those impacts are reduced to less than significant.
CDFW's comments and recommendations on the DEIR are explained in greater detail below and summarized here. CDFW is also concerned that the DEIR does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. CDFW requests that additional information and analyses be added to a revised DEIR.
Response 3-d:
The DEIR adequately discloses the project's potentially significant impacts on biological resources, includes a complete and stable project description, provides mitigation measures to reduce biological impacts to less than significant levels, and complies with CEQA's requirements. Specific responses to the general comments are provided individually below in Responses 3-e through 3-g.
Comment 3-e:
Existing Environmental Setting
Compliance with CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the environmental setting that may be affected by the proposed Project. CDFW is concerned that the assessment of the existing environmental setting has not been adequately analyzed in the DEIR. CDFW is concerned that without a complete and accurate description of the existing environmental setting, the DEIR may provide an incomplete analysis of Project -related environmental impacts.
The DEIR lacks a complete assessment of biological resources within the Project site and surrounding area specifically as it relates to special -status wildlife species and burrowing owl. For example, though a desk review of biological resources (e.g., use of data from the California Natural Diversity Database [CNDDB]) as carried out, no field assessments of biological resources was conducted. A complete and accurate assessment of the environmental setting and Project -related impacts to special -status wildlife species and burrowing owl is needed to both identify appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and demonstrate that these measures reduce Project impacts to less than significant.
Response 3-e:
The commenter's opinion is noted. The comment provides the commenter's concerns but no substantial evidence to support those concerns. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 provides that an EIR is required to include a general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 further provides that the description of the project in an EIR need not provide detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the project's Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
2-14 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
environmental impact. In this case, a detailed description of the site's location and setting is provided on page 3-1 through 3-6, 3-14 through 3-20, and also in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, at page 4.4- 1 through 4.4-3.
As stated throughout the PDEIR, most of the City is developed with residential, resort and commercial uses. As disclosed in the PDEIR, there are various lots that could result in new development, including APNs 633-150-077, 633-150-071, 633-310-035 and 633-410-051 (page 3-20 of the PDEIR). While field surveys were not conducted as part of the PDEIR as they are of minimal utility given the ever changing biological conditions of these sites, site which are not currently proposed for development. Instead, in order to obtain accurate information when development is proposed field surveys are explicitly required during project -specific reviews, as outlined in the City's policies and actions. City Policies that address biological resources include Policy RM-1.7, requiring that all development proposals identify significant biological resources and implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. This can include, but is not limited to, conducting detailed field surveys and assessments performed by qualified biologists as part of the project -level review process. In addition, Action RM- 1d further mandates compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), which can require provisions for narrow endemic surveys, riparian/riverine policy compliance, and other applicable biological assessments. Action RM-le requires, where feasible, that vegetation and tree removal should occur outside the bird nesting season. If not feasible, project applicants must retain a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than three days prior to the commencement of construction activities. If active nests are observed, specific buffer zones and monitoring requirements ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected. These measures, in conjunction with other applicable policies and actions and compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), demonstrate that the GPU establishes an effective framework for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts to species. The policies and actions outlined in the Biological Resources section of the DEIR ensure that appropriate performance standards and policies will reduce potential impacts to biological resources as they are identified and mitigated during project -specific reviews. As such, no additional information or changes to the DEIR are necessary.
Comment 3-f:
Mitigation Measures
CEQA requires that a DEIR include mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant impacts. CDFW is concerned that the policies and actions proposed in the DEIR in lieu of mitigation measures are not adequate to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. To support the City in ensuring that Project impacts to biological resources are reduced to less than significant, CDFW recommends adding mitigation measures for assessment of biological resources and burrowing owl.
Response 3-f:
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
2-15 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The commenter's opinion is noted. Individual responses to these concerns are provided below.
Comment 3-g:
1) Assessment of Biological Resources
Section 15125(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that knowledge of the regional setting of a project is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts, that special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to the region, and that significant environmental impacts of the proposed project are adequately investigated and discussed.
River Channel consistent with ongoing efforts to improve the Channel. Specifically, approximately
6.82 acres of the Whitewater River Channel will be removed from designation as part of the storm channel and added to the designation of developable acreage for resort commercial uses utilizing approved channel re -design. The improvements will include engineered fill material and new slope protection on the southern slope of the Channel in the vicinity of Miles Avenue." The DEIR indicates that channel modification will follow appropriate environmental review with relevant water resources agencies (page 4.4-2), and the Project will secure appropriate permits from CDFW (page
4.10-23). However, page 3-25 of the DEIR also indicates that the City will "utilize this PEIR as a basis in determining potential environmental effects and the appropriate level of environmental review"; therefore, it is important that the DEIR accurately describe and analyze impacts to biological resources associated with proposed activities to remove 6.82 acres from the Whitewater River and install slope protection.
Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea: burrowing owl) is a candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & G.
Code, §§ 2050 et seq., 2080, 2085). As a CESA candidate, burrowing owl receives the same protections as afforded to threatened or endangered species. Page 4.4-19 of the DEIR indicates that "the Whitewater River Channel is not a Conservation Area, nor have any sensitive species been found in the portion of the Channel in the Planning Area." The DEIR only supports this conclusion with the results of a desk review of biological resources, e.g., use of species observation data from CNDDB; the DEIR does not include or consider the results a field assessment of biological resources. CDFW clarifies that the banks of the Whitewater River contain suitable burrowing/nesting habitat for burrowing owl.
As indicated in Section page 9-145 of the CVMSHCP, burrowing owls "occur in open desert areas, in fallow fields, along irrigation dikes and levees, wherever burrows (generally dug by ground squirrels) are available away from intense human activity." Through review of various projects in Coachella Valley, CDFW has observed that burrowing owls are common in the Whitewater River and often use the banks for nesting and the entire Whitewater River for foraging. Further, the California Natural Diversity Database contains unprocessed data showing recent observations of burrowing owl within
2.5 miles to the east of the area where stream habitat is proposed for removal from the Whitewater River. CDFW recommends that the DEIR is revised to describe the potential for burrowing owl to be Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
2-16 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
impacted by activities associated with disturbance to and the removal of areas from the Whitewater River. Additionally, the Whitewater River provides important foraging, refugia, nesting, and burrowing habitat for a variety of native wildlife species including bobcats (Lynx rufus), coyotes (Canis latrans), desert kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), reptiles, and resident and migratory birds. Cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) and several species of bats (e.g., Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) and Mexican free -tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis)) may use bridges for nest building and day/night roosting, respectively. The DEIR should include an accurate description of the biological resources that could be impacted for activities associated with the removal of sections of the Whitewater River.
Also, page 4.4-22 of the DEIR states that "the City does not act as a wildlife movement corridor due to the current built environment as well as the presence of urban/suburban development encompassing much of the City." CDFW clarifies that the Whitewater River serves as an important wildlife movement corridor for a species such as bobcats, coyotes, desert kit fox, and other wildlife that have adapted to the urban -wildlife interface. The Whitewater River serves as a wildlife movement corridor between the urban areas, the surrounding mountains, the Salton Sea, and protected areas including the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan's Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation Area. The Whitewater River and its plant communities are valuable biological resources that serve as important habitat for variety of wildlife, including burrowing owl. CDFW requests that the DEIR is revised to accurately describe the biological resources associated with the section of the Whitewater River that is proposed for a change in land use designation.
Given the DEIR's lack of a field assessment when analyzing impacts to biological resources, and given the potential for burrowing owl to occupy the section of the Whitewater River proposed for a land - use designation change and removal, CDFW recommends the City include the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant:
Mitigation Measure BIO-[A]: Assessment of Wildlife
Prior to Project construction activities, a complete and recent inventory of threatened, endangered, and other sensitive wildlife species located within the Project footprint and within offsite areas with the potential to be affected, including California Species of Special Concern (CSSC) and California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511), will be completed. Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (CEQA Guidelines § 15380). The inventory should address seasonal variations in use of the Project area and should not be limited to resident species. Focused species -specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable are required.
Acceptable species -specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where necessary. Note that CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one-year period. Some Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
2-17 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
aspects of the proposed Project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if the Project is proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases, or if surveys are completed during periods of drought.
Mitigation Measure BIO-[B]: Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment and Surveys No less than 60 days prior to the start of Project -related activities, a burrowing owl habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according to the specifications of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Department of Fish and Game, March 2012 or most recent version).
If the habitat assessment demonstrates suitable burrowing owl habitat, then focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior to vegetation removal or ground -disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall begin coordination with CDFW and USFWS immediately, and shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites (occupied site means at least one burrowing owl has been observed within the last three years; may also be indicated by owl sign including feathers, pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch site), acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measures. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also describe minimization and relocation actions that will be implemented.
Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to result in take. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls and the conservation status of adjacent or nearby suitable habitat, along with proposed relocation actions. The Project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.
If Project activities, including burrow exclusion and closure, could result in take of burrowing owl, appropriate CESA authorization should be obtained prior to commencement of Project activities.
Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project -related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG, 2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
2-18 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities.
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, section 15097(f), CDFW has prepared a draft mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) in Attachment 1 for revised MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2, as well as CDFW-recommended MM B1O-[A] and MM B1O-[B].
Response 3-g:
The PDEIR for the City's General Plan Update references policies, actions, and plans to address biological resource impacts and provide mitigation to potential impacts to biological resources.
Adoption of the GPU would not result in any changes to existing conditions; however, given that development in the future may occur pursuant to the GPU, it does set the framework for how future developments must address potential future biological impacts.
City policies and actions discussed in the Biological Resources section include Policy RM-1.7, which requires that all development proposals identify significant biological resources and implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Additionally, Action RM-1d requires future projects to adhere to the terms of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), including, but not limited to, the payment of mitigation fees, narrow endemic surveys, riparian/riverine policy, and other applicable surveys.
Regarding the potential existence of birds, including the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), on a project site, Action RM-le states that where feasible, vegetation and tree removal should occur outside of the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If not feasible, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey (including burrowing owls) no more than three days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document the negative results if no active bird nests are observed on the project site or within the vicinity during the clearance survey with a brief letter report, submitted to the City of Indian Wells Planning Department prior to construction, indicating that no impacts to active bird nests would occur before construction can proceed. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre -construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside a 300 -foot buffer around the active nest. For listed raptor species, this buffer shall be 500 feet. A biological monitor shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure the nesting behavior is not adversely affected by construction activity, pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Prior to the commencement of construction activities and the issuance of any permits, results of the pre -construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the City of Indian Wells Planning Department, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and other appropriate agencies.
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
2-19 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The DEIR utilizes a desk review to identify potential biological resources impacts and supplements this review with the requirement for field assessments at the project level. This approach is consistent with CEQA Guidelines (§15125(c)), which allows baseline environmental conditions to be established using existing data, provided that future field surveys are conducted as part of project -specific reviews. This baseline data would guide any subsequent project -specific biological survey. The City's policies, including RM-1.7 and RM-1d, ensure that qualified biologists perform detailed surveys to identify and mitigate impacts to sensitive species, including burrowing owls, as part of the development review process.
Additionally, CDFW expresses concerns regarding the Whitewater River serving as a wildlife movement corridor and providing habitat for species such as bobcats, coyotes, and desert kit fox.
While the portion of the Whitewater River within the City is not included in the CVMSHCP's Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation Area, it is important to maintain any existing ecological connectivity. As such, Policy RM-1.7 requires that future development evaluates potential impacts on wildlife corridors and implements mitigation measures as needed, in line with the CVMSHCP framework. Any wildlife movement outside of Conservation Areas must be identified and addressed during a project -specific biological survey.
As to the removal of 6.82 acres from the Whitewater River Channel and its potential impacts on biological resources, including burrowing owl habitat, the City requires compliance with Policy RM-
1.7 and Action RM-1d. These mandate site -specific biological surveys and adherence to CVMSHCP provisions, which include mitigation measures such as habitat restoration, payment of fees, and monitoring. These measures ensure that impacts are adequately addressed, even for areas not designated as Conservation Areas. As such any biological resources found during a biological survey would be mitigated to ensure impacts to the resources are less than significant.
The portions of the City that include the Santa Rosa Mountains are considered a Conservation Area; however, no development is proposed in this area of the City with the implementation of the GPU.
Furthermore, the portion of the Whitewater River Channel that exists in the City is not included in CVMSHCP's Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation Area. The portions of the Whitewater River Channel that are included in this Conservation Area are further south, closer to the Salton Sea. Although the implementation of the GPU is not proposing development in the Santa Rosa Mountains, which is included in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, any future development that could occur in this Conservation Area would be required to comply with CVMSHCP's Guidelines for Conservation Areas as well as any applicable City ordinances.
As well, development projects within the City would be required to comply with CVMSHCP provisions to mitigate impacts and contribute to the broader conservation strategy (Action RM-1d).
Lastly, while CDFW has recommended additional mitigation measures, the City has determined that existing and proposed policies in the GPU and adherence to the CVMSHCP adequately address potential impacts. The combination of all listed policies and actions in Section 4.4 ensures thorough Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
2-20 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
identification and mitigation of impacts to biological resources, including sensitive species like burrowing owl, during project -specific reviews. Existing City policies and actions were developed in conjunction with CEQA requirements. No changes to the DEIR are required.
Comment 3-h:
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special -status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data . The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals .
Response 3-h:
The City thanks the Department for this information and will continue to encourage project biologists to comply with reporting requirements under PRC 21003(e).
Comment 3-i:
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)
Response 3-i:
The project applicant shall pay the environmental document filing fee upon filing the Notice of Determination.
Comment 3-j:
CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts to biological resources. CDFW concludes that the DEIR does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources.
The CEQA Guidelines indicate that recirculation is required when a new significant impact is identified Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
2-21 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
(§ 15088.5). CDFW recommends that a revised DEIR, including a complete description of the existing environmental setting, be recirculated for public comment. CDFW also recommends that the revised DEIR include an analysis of impacts to biological resources including, but not limited to, burrowing owl, as well as mitigation measures described in this letter CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to avoid and minimize impacts. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Jacob Skaggs, Senior Environmental Scientist Specialist, at [email protected].
Response 3-j:
The City thanks CDFW for their participation in the CEQA process. As described in Responses 3-a through 3-g above, the DEIR correctly assesses impacts to biological resources and incorporates polices and actions which will ensure that these impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels.
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
2-22 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter No. 4: City of Palm Desert
Name: Carlos Flores
Date: December 23, 2024
Affiliation: City of Palm Desert
Address: 73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Comment 4-a:
Thank you for providing the City of Palm Desert the opportunity to comment on the Draft Programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Report (PDEIR) for the proposed Indian Wells General Plan Update (Project). This letter will serve as comments from the City of Palm Desert Development Services and Capital Improvements staff on the Project.
Response 4-a:
The City thanks the City of Palm Desert for participating in the review of the PDEIR.
Comment 4-b:
Staff's primary concern on the Project is the proposed Mobility network, as presented in the draft General Plan document. The following summarizes our concerns:
1. Figure M-3 (Bike Facilities Network) shows Highway 111 identified as a "Class I I I Bike Route" where bicyclists share the right of way with motor vehicles. Due to Highway 111 being classified as a Principal Arterial roadway with high traffic volume and traffic speeds, City of Palm Desert staff is concerned with the Class II I Bike Route classification and recommends reclassification to include either a Class II and/or Class IV bicycle lanes along Highway 111 for safety and consistency with the City's of Palm Desert Mobility Element.
Response 4-b:
The City of Palm Desert introduces their first concern regarding the Mobility Element of the General Plan. In this comment, the City of Palm Desert recommends the reclassification of the Class III Bike Route on Highway 111 to a Class II and/or Class IV Bike facility. The City of Indian Wells appreciates the City of Palm Desert's input; however, a Class II or Class IV Bike facility is not the preferred design on Highway 111. Additionally, the City of Indian Wells includes Class II Bike Lanes on potions of the east -west trending rights -of -way, Fairway Drive, which is south of Highway 111, and Hovley Lane, which is north of Highway 111, as illustrated in Figure M-3 in the General Plan Update. These roadways provide lower speeds and traffic volumes than Highway 111. Cyclists coming from and heading to Palm Desert will have options to travel in the east -west direction via Class II and Class II I Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
2-23 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
bike lanes and not preclude cyclists from traveling to/from Palm Desert and beyond through Indian Wells roadway and bicycle network.
Comment 4-c:
2. Figure M-3 identifies "Proposed Bike Facilities" along Warner Trail. Additional information on the proposed bicycle facility here would be beneficial to facilitate coordination with Palm Desert and analyze transitions and termination points.
Response 4-c:
The City's second concern includes the proposed bike facilities along Warner Trail, and requests additional information in order to coordinate transitions and termination points with the City of Palm Desert. The City of Indian Wells identified its portion of Warner Trail as a potential bicycle facility. At the moment the facility type and layout has not been determined. The City of Indian Wells General Plan Mobility Element Policy M-1.8 and Action M -lc directs the City to "M -lc: Coordinate with other government entities in implementation of the City's Circulation Plan and Coachella Valley -wide circulation improvements. Entities include Caltrans, Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), LAFCO, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Riverside County and adjacent communities." Implementation of Policy M-1.8 and Action M -lc direct City staff to coordinate with adjacent communities such as Palm Desert prior to implementation of these facilities.
Additionally, the proposed bike facility along Warner Trail was included in Figure M-3 as a part of the City's Safer Routes to Schools, in order to provide safe bike access to students attending Gerald Ford Elementary School. Moreover, the City identifies the Warner Trail bike facility as a "Proposed Bike Facility". If and when the proposed bike facility moves forward, the City of Indian Wells will coordinate with the City of Palm Desert, regarding intersection, access, etc., and make a determination of type of bike facility.
Comment 4-d:
3. The legend for Figure M-4 shows a "Class II NEV and Bike Lane" in the legend but is not shown on the map itself.
Response 4-d:
The only existing Class II NEV and Bike Lane is shown in blue and is located on Portola Avenue along western City limits in the boundary with Palm Desert. In order to remove confusion regarding NEVs, the term "NEV" will be replaced with "Golf Cart Route". The use of golf carts throughout the City is not exclusive to golf courses. Golf carts are a common form of transportation throughout Indian Wells. Therefore, the General Plan Update and the Traffic Analysis has been revised from "NEV" to "Golf Cart Route" throughout, including the Figure referenced in the comment above. The revised Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
2-24 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
General Plan Update is provided in this Final EIR as Appendix B, and the revised Traffic Analysis is provided as Appendix C. NEV is also removed in various locations within the EIR. See Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the DEIR, of this Final EIR.
Comment 4-e:
4. City should review and reconcile the termination of NEV routes at the edge of their city limits, including the western City limit on Highway 111 that connects to City of Palm Desert.
Response 4-e:
The City of Palm Desert's fourth and final concern states that the City should review and reconcile the termination of NEV routes at the edge of the City limits. The City of Indian Wells identified potential NEV routes but has not identified the design and timing for their implementation. As stated in Response 4-c, implementation of Policy M-1.8 and Action M -lc direct City staff to coordinate with adjacent communities such as Palm Desert prior to implementation of these facilities. Additionally, as stated in Response 4-d, the term "neighborhood electric vehicle/NEV" has been revised to "golf cart route." Refer to Response 4-d and Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the DEIR.
Comment 4-f:
City staff would also like to inform the City of Indian Wells that we are currently undergoing an update to the Circulation element of our General Plan. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 760-776-6478 or [email protected].
Response 4-f:
In this comment, the City of Palm Desert states that they are updating the Circulation Element of their General Plan. This concludes the City of Palm Desert's letter. This comment does not raise any concerns regarding the PDEIR. However, the City of Indian Wells requests that the City of Palm Desert coordinate during the update of their Circulation Element of their General Plan.
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
2-25 January 2025
COMMENT LETTER NO. 1: CAL OES
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
From: Braucher. Annika@CaIOES
To: Jon Bero
Cc: LaMar -Haas, Victoria@CaIOES; Raether, Co nstantin@CaIOES Subject: Qty of Indian Wells General Ran Update
Date: Monday, December 23, 2024 9:53:25 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside our organization. Be cautious with any links or attachments.
Good morning,
lhe California Govemor'sOffice of Emergency Services(Cal OES) Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team hastaken the time to review the proposed updates/changesto your General Plan. Government Code 65302(g)(8) states "before preparing or revising its Safety Element, each city and county shall consult.... the Office of Ernergency Servicesforthe purpose of including information known by and available to the department."
lhe Cal OESLocal Hazard Mitigation Planning Team reviewsand comparesyour current Safety Element hazardsagainst those listed in the most recent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved City of Indian WellsLocal Hazard Mitigation Plan,
Our office hasreviewed yourproposed Safety Element and found no substantive changesto your hazard profileswhen compared against the most recent approved local hazard mitigation plan.
Please reach out to you our office at mitigationplanning&aloes.ca.gov if you have any furtherquestionsorneed additional assistance.
lhank you,
Annika Braucher
Annika Braucher, Environmental Planner
Local Mitigation Planning 1 Recovery Directorate
California Governor's Office of Ernergency Services
(916) 639-36191 Annika.Brauchera( aIOES.ca.gov
Cal OES
▪ Old IFFHrENOR-&4F E
O R
I liilfi6 �Y #ERwtClB
1-a
1-b
COMMENT LETTER NO. 2: CALTRANS
CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
California Department of Transportation
DISTRICT 8
464 WEST4TH STREET
SAN BERNARDINO CA, 92401
(909) 925-7520
www.dot.ca.gov
December23, 2024
Route & Postmile #: SR -10 -PM 50.128
GTSID: 34664
SC H #: 2024071208
City of Indian Wells
Community Development
Attn: Jon Berg
44-950 El Dorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
Subject: Indian Wells General Plan Update PDEIR
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Local Development Review (LDR) unit hascompleted the evaluation of the City of Indian WellsGeneral Plan Update Programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Report (PDEIR).
The General Plan Update (GPU) isdesigned to addressall State -required topics, including land use, circulation, housing, open space, noise, safety, and conservation, as well asotherlocally significant isqaessuch ascommunity design, sustainability, economic development, and public facilities. The General Plan Planning Area will encompassthe entire City boundary and provide additional guidance forfuture development. The GPU will establish goals, policies, and actionsthat create a long-term blueprint for potential growth in the City. This proposed update will build upon the existing General Plan, offering a framework for land use decisionsand guiding future development in Indian Wellsthrough 2040.
Based on the information provided in the PDEIR, we are providing the following comments/recommendations:
"Improving lives and communities through transportation" 1
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
Traffic Operations
1. Include study area intersection of Cook St. at I-10 EB ramps, Cook St. at I-10 WB ramps, Washington St. at I-10 EB ramps, and Washington S. at I-10 WBrampson the 11A.
Active Transportation
lre ISNOPhighlightsa project objective to "Promote the development of a connected community that isenhanced by sidewalks, shade from trees, pedestrian benches, safe pedestrian crossings, and landscape along streets, and providing buffersbetween surrounding uses"
The Indian WellsGeneral Plan Update PDEIRand Section 4.16.4 should consider actions that identify a processwhere Iocationswith no pedestrian facilitiesand where bicycle travel isprohibited should be addressed. Addressing regional pedestrian, bicycle and neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) network gaps(4.16.4a M-2.7/2.8) should also be considered, in addition to connectivity between residential neighborhoodsand pointsof interest such asschools, retail centersand hotels(4.16.4a M-2.4). A consideration to addressthese non -motorized transportation gapsto promote the development of a connected community within (and between otherjurisdictions) should meet (or be) the objective.
Under section 4.16.3 Regulatory Setting there should be a consideration to reference Caltrans Directors Policy DP -37, noting that all transportation projectsfunded oroverseen by Caltranswill provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilitiesforpeople walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail unlessan exception isdocumented and approved.
It is noted that in the Transportation section 4.16.2 Existing Conditions, Local Access Roadssection that Fred Waring Drive does not indicate any bicycle prohibitions in the text, assuch currently exist via placement of bicycle prohibition signs upon entering the City. Also, within that section the word "Principle" may be misused, as it should read "Principal".
System Planning
Vehicle MilesTraveled (VM1):
The VMTasssment iscomprehensive, demonstrating a strong effort to balance projected growth with the state's sustainability goals. However, there appears to be a gap in addressing the potential for induced demand. Specifically, with the addition of housing and commercial developments, it would be beneficial to further consider how these changes might increase tripsfrom neighboring cities, such as La Quinta or Palm Desert. Enhanced modeling in thisarea could significantly strengthen thissection. "Improving lives and communities through transportation" 2
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
Multimodal Connectivity:
The proposed complete streetsimprovementsare admirable, particularly the expanded bike lanesand pedestrian pathways, which align well with CAP11 and regional goals.
However, consideration should be given to how these networkswill connect with similar infrastructure in neighboring cities. Ensuring smooth transitionsforcyclistsand pedestrians crossing city boundariescould have a significant impact. Additionally, providing a timeline for the rollout of these improvementswould be beneficial.
Traffic Mitigation:
The proposed upgradesto intersectionsand signalsare a positive development.
However, there appearsto be a lack of detail regarding prioritization, particularly in termsof which intersectionsorareaswill be addresd first. For instance, intersections near new developmentsmay experience congestion sooner, so addressing these areas early could be beneficial. Additionally, it would be valuable to include more specific strategiesformanaging peak-hourtraffic.
Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAP11):
Thisproject appearsto align well with the goalsof the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAP11), particularly the focuson reducing reliance on private vehiclesand promoting multimodal options. To further strengthen this connection, it may be helpful to explicitly link the proposed improvements —such as bike lanesand pedestrian pathways —to CAP11 principles, including equity and safety. This would demonstrate how the project supportsstate-level prioritieswhile addressing local needs.
Equitable Access
If any Caltransfacilitiesare impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American DisabilitiesAct (ADA) Standardsafter project completion. Aswell, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian accessduring construction. These access considerations support Caltrans' equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.
Caltrans Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans' ROW requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you maybe asked by the Office of Encroachment Permitsto submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating Caltrans' ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, thiscomment letter, yourresponse to the comment letter, and any other applicable documentsthat may be requested by the Office of Encroachment Permits. Yourapplication package or "Improving lives and communities through transportation" 2-f
2-Ih
3
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
submittal inquiry may be emailed to [email protected].
For information regarding the Encroachment Permit application and submittal requirements, contact:
CaltransOffice of Encroachment Permits
464 West 4th Street, Basement, MS619
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
(909) 383-4526
http://www.dot.ca.gov/he/traffops'developserv/oermits/
Thank you again forincluding Caltransin the review process. Should you have any questionsregarding thisletter, orforfuture notificationsand requestsfor review of new projects, please email [email protected] orcall 909-925-7520.
Sncerely,
Victor Rores
[On behalf of Janki Patel
Branch Chief - Local Development Review]
Division of Transportation Planning
CaltransDistrict 8
"Improving lives and communities through transportation" 4
CALIFORNIA
FI�:=reuSHnaeo-ir u�
&
WILDLIFE
COMMENT LETTER NO. 3 CDFW
State of California — Natural Resources Acency
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.cov
December 23, 2024
Sent via email
Jon Berg
Community Development Director
City of Indian Wells
44950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
[email protected]
Council Agenda- February 13, 20,5
GAV/N NEWSOM, Governor
Indian Wells General Plan Update Project (PROJECT)
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
SCH# 2024071208
Dear Jon Berg:
CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Availability of a DEIR from the City of Indian Wells (City) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.'
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.
Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.
CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on Projects and related 'CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The "CEQA Guidelines" are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.
Conserving California's Wildlife Since 1870
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
Jon Berg, Community Development Director
City of Indian Wells
December 23, 2024
activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.
CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW's lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in "take" as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the Project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Indian Wells
Objective: The Project proposes the comprehensive General Plan Update (GPU). The GPU addresses land use, mobility, open space, conservation, safety, noise, and economic development. The GPU includes an update to the City's Land Use Map.
While no specific development projects are proposed as part of the GPU, the General Plan will accommodate future growth in Indian Wells, including new businesses, expansion of existing businesses, and new residential uses. The buildout analysis utilizes a 20 -year horizon, and 2045 is assumed to be the buildout year of the General Plan Update.
Among other actions, the Project proposes changing the current land use designation of a portion of the Whitewater River. A 6.82 -acre portion of the Whitewater River, currently designated as part of the storm channel will be changed to the designation of developable acreage for resort commercial uses utilizing approved channel re -design.
The proposed improvements will include engineered fill material and new slope protection on the southern slope of the channel in the vicinity of Miles Avenue.
Location: The Project, City of Indian Wells, occupies an area of roughly 15 square miles. Indian Wells is located in the Coachella Valley area of Riverside County, approximately 14 miles southeast of Palm Springs.
Timeframe: Project construction is anticipated through the assumed buildout of the City in 2045.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (i.e., biological resources). CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the 3-c
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
Jon Berg, Community Development Director
City of Indian Wells
December 23, 2024
Project's significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. The DEIR has not adequately identified and disclosed the Project's impacts (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative) on biological resources and whether those impacts are reduced to less than significant.
CDFW's comments and recommendations on the DEIR are explained in greater detail below and summarized here. CDFW is also concerned that the DEIR does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. CDFW requests that additional information and analyses be added to a revised DEIR.
Existing Environmental Setting
Compliance with CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the environmental setting that may be affected by the proposed Project. CDFW is concerned that the assessment of the existing environmental setting has not been adequately analyzed in the DEIR. CDFW is concerned that without a complete and accurate description of the existing environmental setting, the DEIR may provide an incomplete analysis of Project -related environmental impacts.
The DEIR lacks a complete assessment of biological resources within the Project site and surrounding area specifically as it relates to special -status wildlife species and burrowing owl. For example, though a desk review of biological resources (e.g., use of data from the California Natural Diversity Database [CNDDB]) as carried out, no field assessments of biological resources was conducted. A complete and accurate assessment of the environmental setting and Project -related impacts to special -status wildlife species and burrowing owl is needed to both identify appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and demonstrate that these measures reduce Project impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
CEQA requires that a DEIR include mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant impacts. CDFW is concerned that the policies and actions proposed in the DEIR in lieu of mitigation measures are not adequate to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. To support the City in ensuring that Project impacts to biological resources are reduced to less than significant, CDFW recommends adding mitigation measures for assessment of biological resources and burrowing owl.
1) Assessment of Biological Resources
Section 15125(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that knowledge of the regional setting of a project is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts, that special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to the 3-d
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
Jon Berg, Community Development Director
City of Indian Wells
December 23, 2024
region, and that significant environmental impacts of the proposed project are adequately investigated and discussed.
the Whitewater River Channel consistent with ongoing efforts to improve the Channel.
Specifically, approximately 6.82 acres of the Whitewater River Channel will be removed from designation as part of the storm channel and added to the designation of developable acreage for resort commercial uses utilizing approved channel re -design.
The improvements will include engineered fill material and new slope protection on the southern slope of the Channel in the vicinity of Miles Avenue." The DEIR indicates that channel modification will follow appropriate environmental review with relevant water resources agencies (page 4.4-2), and the Project will secure appropriate permits from CDFW (page 4.10-23). However, page 3-25 of the DEIR also indicates that the City will "utilize this PEIR as a basis in determining potential environmental effects and the appropriate level of environmental review"; therefore, it is important that the DEIR accurately describe and analyze impacts to biological resources associated with proposed activities to remove 6.82 acres from the Whitewater River and install slope protection.
Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea: burrowing owl) is a candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2050 et seq., 2080, 2085). As a CESA candidate, burrowing owl receives the same protections as afforded to threatened or endangered species. Page 4.4-19 of the DEIR indicates that "the Whitewater River Channel is not a Conservation Area, nor have any sensitive species been found in the portion of the Channel in the Planning Area." The DEIR only supports this conclusion with the results of a desk review of biological resources, e.g., use of species observation data from CNDDB; the DEIR does not include or consider the results a field assessment of biological resources. CDFW clarifies that the banks of the Whitewater River contain suitable burrowing/nesting habitat for burrowing owl. As indicated in Section page 9-145 of the CVMSHCP, burrowing owls "occur in open desert areas, in fallow fields, along irrigation dikes and levees, wherever burrows (generally dug by ground squirrels) are available away from intense human activity." Through review of various projects in Coachella Valley, CDFW has observed that burrowing owls are common in the Whitewater River and often use the banks for nesting and the entire Whitewater River for foraging. Further, the California Natural Diversity Database contains unprocessed data showing recent observations of burrowing owl within 2.5 miles to the east of the area where stream habitat is proposed for removal from the Whitewater River. CDFW recommends that the DEIR is revised to describe the potential for burrowing owl to be impacted by activities associated with disturbance to and the removal of areas from the Whitewater River. Additionally, the Whitewater River provides important foraging, refugia, nesting, and burrowing habitat for a variety of native wildlife species including bobcats (Lynx rufus), coyotes (Canis latrans), desert kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), reptiles, and resident and migratory birds. Cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) and several species of bats (e.g., Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) and
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
Jon Berg, Community Development Director
City of Indian Wells
December 23, 2024
Mexican free -tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis)) may use bridges for nest building and day/night roosting, respectively. The DEIR should include an accurate description of the biological resources that could be impacted for activities associated with the removal of sections of the Whitewater River.
Also, page 4.4-22 of the DEIR states that "the City does not act as a wildlife movement corridor due to the current built environment as well as the presence of urban/suburban development encompassing much of the City." CDFW clarifies that the Whitewater River serves as an important wildlife movement corridor for a species such as bobcats, coyotes, desert kit fox, and other wildlife that have adapted to the urban -wildlife interface. The Whitewater River serves as a wildlife movement corridor between the urban areas, the surrounding mountains, the Salton Sea, and protected areas including the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan's Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation Area. The Whitewater River and its plant communities are valuable biological resources that serve as important habitat for variety of wildlife, including burrowing owl. CDFW requests that the DEIR is revised to accurately describe the biological resources associated with the section of the Whitewater River that is proposed for a change in land use designation.
Given the DEIR's lack of a field assessment when analyzing impacts to biological resources, and given the potential for burrowing owl to occupy the section of the Whitewater River proposed for a land -use designation change and removal, CDFW recommends the City include the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant:
Mitigation Measure BIO-[A]: Assessment of Wildlife
Prior to Project construction activities, a complete and recent inventory of threatened, endangered, and other sensitive wildlife species located within the Project footprint and within offsite areas with the potential to be affected, including California Species of Special Concern (CSSC) and California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511), will be completed. Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (CEQA Guidelines § 15380). The inventory should address seasonal variations in use of the Project area and should not be limited to resident species. Focused species - specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable are required. Acceptable species -specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where necessary. Note that CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one-year period. Some aspects of the proposed Project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if the Project is proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases, or if surveys are completed during periods of drought.
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
Jon Berg, Community Development Director
City of Indian Wells
December 23, 2024
Mitigation Measure BIO-[B]: Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment and Surveys No less than 60 days prior to the start of Project -related activities, a burrowing owl habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according to the specifications of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Department of Fish and Game, March 2012 or most recent version).
If the habitat assessment demonstrates suitable burrowing owl habitat, then focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior to vegetation removal or ground -disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall begin coordination with CDFW and USFWS immediately, and shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites (occupied site means at least one burrowing owl has been observed within the last three years; may also be indicated by owl sign including feathers, pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch site), acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measures. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also describe minimization and relocation actions that will be implemented. Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to result in take. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls and the conservation status of adjacent or nearby suitable habitat, along with proposed relocation actions. The Project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval. If Project activities, including burrow exclusion and closure, could result in take of burrowing owl, appropriate CESA authorization should be obtained prior to commencement of Project activities.
Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project -related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG, 2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
Jon Berg, Community Development Director
City of Indian Wells
December 23, 2024
preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities.
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, section 15097(f), CDFW has prepared a draft mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) in Attachment 1 for revised MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2, as well as CDFW-recommended MM BIO-[A] and MM BIO-[B].
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special -status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link: https://wildlife.ca.qov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data . The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
httos:// www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals .
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)
CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts to biological resources. CDFW concludes that the DEIR does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that recirculation is required when a new significant impact is identified (§ 15088.5). CDFW recommends that a revised DEIR, including a complete description of the existing environmental setting, be recirculated for public comment. CDFW also recommends that the revised DEIR include an analysis of impacts to biological resources including, but not limited to, burrowing owl, as well as mitigation measures described in this letter CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to avoid and minimize impacts. Questions regarding this letter or further 3-g
3-h
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
Jon Berg, Community Development Director
City of Indian Wells
December 23, 2024
coordination should be directed to Jacob Skaggs, Senior Environmental Scientist Specialist, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
c —I DocuSigned by:
lDi rru,tiU I&
84F92FFEEFD24C8...
Kim Freeburn
Environmental Program Manager
Attachment 1: MMRP for CDFW-Proposed Mitigation Measures ec:
Heather Brashear, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor), CDFW Heather. Brashear(c�W ildlife.ca.gov
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Mitigation Measures
Timing and
Methods
Responsible
Parties
Mitigation Measure BIO-[A]: Assessment of Wildlife
Timing: Prior to
Project
Implementation:
City of Indian Wells
Prior to Project construction activities, a complete
construction
and Project
and recent inventory of threatened, endangered, and
other sensitive wildlife species located within the
activities
proponent
Project footprint and within offsite areas with the
Methods: See
Monitoring and
potential to be affected, including California Species
Mitigation
Reporting: City of
of Special Concern (CSSC) and California Fully
Measure
Indian Wells
Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511), will
be completed. Species to be addressed should
include all those which meet the CEQA definition
(CEQA Guidelines § 15380). The inventory should
address seasonal variations in use of the Project area
and should not be limited to resident species.
Focused species -specific surveys, completed by a
qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate
time of year and time of day when the sensitive
species are active or otherwise identifiable are
required. Acceptable species -specific survey
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
Jon Berg, Community Development Director
City of Indian Wells
December 23, 2024
procedures should be developed in consultation with
CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where
necessary. Note that CDFW generally considers
biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid
for a one-year period. Some aspects of the proposed
Project may warrant periodic updated surveys for
certain sensitive taxa, particularly if the Project is
proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, or in
phases, or if surveys are completed during periods of
drought.
Mitigation Measure BIO-[B]: Burrowing Owl Habitat
Assessment and Surveys
Timing: Focused
surveys: Prior to
Implementation:
City of Indian Wells
vegetation
and Project
No less than 60 days prior to the start of Project-
removal or
proponent
related activities, a burrowing owl habitat
ground -disturbing
assessment shall be conducted by a qualified
activities. Pre-
Monitoring and
biologist according to the specifications of the Staff
construction
Reporting: City of
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Department of
surveys: No less
Indian Wells
Fish and Game, March 2012 or most recent version).
than 14 days prior
to start of Project -
If the habitat assessment demonstrates suitable
related activities
burrowing owl habitat, then focused burrowing owl
and within 24
surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist
hours prior to
according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
ground
Mitigation prior to vegetation removal or ground-
disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected
during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist
disturbance.
Methods: See
and Project proponent shall begin coordination with
Mitigation
CDFW and USFWS immediately, and shall prepare a
Measure
Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW
for review and approval prior to commencing Project
activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe
proposed avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and
monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall
include the number and location of occupied burrow
sites (occupied site means at least one burrowing
owl has been observed within the last three years;
may also be indicated by owl sign including feathers,
pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or
excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch
site), acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be
impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on
proposed buffers and other avoidance measures. If
impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow
cannot be avoided, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also
describe minimization and relocation actions that will
be implemented. Proposed implementation of burrow
exclusion and closure should only be considered as
a last resort, after all other options have been
evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance,
minimization, or mitigation method and has the
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
Jon Berg, Community Development Director
City of Indian Wells
December 23, 2024
possibility to result in take. If impacts to occupied
burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be
provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable
habitat available to owls and the conservation status
of adjacent or nearby suitable habitat, along with
proposed relocation actions. The Project proponent
shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following
CDFW and USFWS review and approval. If Project
activities, including burrow exclusion and closure,
could result in take of burrowing owl, appropriate
CESA authorization should be obtained prior to
commencement of Project activities.
Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be
conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of
Project -related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG, 2012 or
most recent version). Preconstruction surveys
should be performed by a qualified biologist
following the recommendations and guidelines
provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm
occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities
shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist
shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing
Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and
USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing
Project activities.
COMMENT LETTER NO. 4: CITY OF PALM DESERT Council Agenda- February 13, 2025 CITY Of HUM UESEki
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TE+L: 760 346-0611
[email protected]
December 23, 2024 VIA EMAIL DELIVERY
Jon Berg, Community Development Director
City of Indian Wells
44950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210-7497
Dear Mr. Berg,
Subject: Programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Report for proposed Indian Wells General Plan Update
Thank you for providing the City of Palm Desert the opportunity to comment on the Draft Programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Report (PDEIR) for the proposed Indian Wells General Plan Update (Project). This letter will serve as comments from the City of Palm Desert Development Services and Capital Improvements staff on the Project.
Staff's primary concern on the Project is the proposed Mobility network, as presented in the draft General Plan document. The following summarizes our concerns:
1. Figure M-3 (Bike Facilities Network) shows Highway 111 identified as a "Class I II Bike Route" where bicyclists share the right of way with motor vehicles. Due to Highway 111 being classified as a Principal Arterial roadway with high traffic volume and traffic speeds, City of Palm Desert staff is concerned with the Class I II Bike Route classification and recommends reclassification to include either a Class II and/or Class IV bicycle lanes along Highway 111 for safety and consistency with the City's of Palm Desert Mobility Element
2. Figure M-3 identifies "Proposed Bike Facilities" along Warner Trail. Additional information on the proposed bicycle facility here would be beneficial to facilitate coordination with Palm Desert and analyze transitions and termination points.
3. The legend for Figure M-4 shows a "Class II NEV and Bike Lane" in the legend but is not shown on the map itself.
4. City should review and reconcile the termination of NEV routes at the edge of their city limits, including the western City limit on Highway 111 that connects to City of Palm Desert.
4-c
4-d
4-e
City staff would also like to inform the City of Indian Wells that we are currently undergoing an update to the Circulation element of our General Plan. Should you have any questions zi-i
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 760-776-6478 or cfloresApalmdesert.gov.
Sincerely,
CARLOS FLORES
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
cc: Richard Cannone, Director of Development Services - City of Palm Desert Jess Culpeper, Director of Capital Projects — City of Palm Desert 4-f
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Indian Wells General Plan Update
3.0 Revisions to the DEIR
Chapter 3.0 Revisions to the DEIR
3.1 Purpose
The following provides changes to the Draft EIR being made as a result of the implementation of additional policies in this Final EIR. Typographical errors and other editorial modifications are also provided below. Please note that deletions are indicated in strikethrough and additions are underlined text.
Location & Page Revision
Chapter 1.0,
Executive Summary,
page 1-10
Table 1-2
Revisions to page 1-10, Table 1-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, in Chapter 1.0, Executive Summary, of the DEIR was updated to correct the Level of Significance before Mitigation from Less than Significant to Potentially Significant. Table 1-2 has been updated to indicate the following:
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance Before
Mitigation
Measures Required?
Resulting
Level of
Significance
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous materials within
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
PS4
General Plan Policies and Actions mitigate this
impact to a less than significant level. continue
to support LTS finding.
LTS
Location & Page
Chapter 3.0, Project
Description, pages 3-
15, 3-18, 3-19, and 3-
24 Revision
Revisions to pages 3-18, 3-19, and 3-24 would correct a minor change in acreage attributed to the Community Commercial land use and zoning designation. In 2016, the City approved a land use change to redesignate the Nest and Sands Hotel, located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Providence Way from Professional Office to Community Commercial in GPA Ordinance No. 701.
The revision to correct this land use designation would revise Table 3-2, Current General Plan Designations, and associated Figure 3-4, Existing Land Uses, Figure 3-5, Current General Plan Land Use, and Figure 3-6, Proposed General Plan Land Use Map, which indicates this area as Commercial, Professional Office. This change would revise approximately one acre of this land to Commercial, Community Commercial land use Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
3-1 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Location & Page
Revision
and zoning designation, as approved in 2016 (per GPA Ordinance No. 701).
Additional revisions to Figures 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6 include an update to two small parcels (approximately 0.59 acres total) at the northwest corner of Fairway Drive and Eldorado Drive (APNs 633-144-005 and -006).
Currently, the exhibits designate the parcels as Public Parks/Recreation.
The Figures have been revised to illustrate a Very Low Density Residential (RVLD) land use and zoning designation, consistent with the City land use and zoning designation for this site. See Appendix A.1 and A.2 of this Final EIR, which includes a Staff Report and determination for the 2023 ruling approving a passive park design and installation during a City Council meeting (held on March 2, 2023) for the 0.59 -acre site. The Staff Report indicates that the park use is allowable in a residentially zoned area, and no zoning change is required.
The revisions in the PDEIR are as follows:
Table 3-2 Current General Plan Designations
Current General Plan Designation
Acres
Civic, Public Facility
29 Commercial, Community Commercial
8889
Commercial, Professional Office
76 Commercial, Resort Commercial
185
Commercial, Sports Complex
63 Low Density Residential
162
Medium Density Residential
46 Medium High Density Residential
18 Open Space, Golf and Recreation
1,317
Open Space, Natural Preserve
195
Open Space, Open Space
4,320
Open Space, Public Benefit (PB-1)
34 Open Space, Public Park
6 Open Space, Watercourse
557
Residential, Very Low Density Residential
2,306
Total
9,333
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 3-2
January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
42ND AVE
City of
Palm Desert
FRED WARING OR
Sauces: City of haw Welk,
IZiuerside COumty, USG r:, FEW_ USDA
FT
1,5fl4 3Dt 4,5C4 b;DW
City of Indian Wells
General Plan Update
Figure 3-4
Existing Land Uses
City of
Palm Desert
FRED VVARFIG DR
GENERAL PLAN 2O4O
11 .71:11
INDIAN WELLS
Legend
City of Indian Wells (Plann rig Area)
Existing Land Use
Residential - Detached
Residential - Attached
Sports Complex
Commercial
Open Space, Parks, Golf
Natural Preserve
Public Fatal
ResidentiabWatercourse Interface
thility.Ailaintenance Loa
Watercourses, Drainage Chancels
Vacant
Streets
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
3-3
January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
HOWLEY LIV
42ND AVE
City of
Palm Desert
FRED WARING DR
riVOY111
0 AIIPP
FAIRWAY DR
Rrrersid City of , Mims
lM FEMA,
E,
#liversi#e County, USES, USDA
FT
0RI 0 1,500 30110 4 5f10 6,000
2 aO
2 ELDORADO DR
-1•09k..SD
City of
Indian Wells
■
OD
try
CC
0 City of Indian Wells
General Plan Update PDEIR
Figure 3-5
Current General Plan Land Use
City of
Palm Desert
GENERAL PLAN 2040
r
o
3 City of
La Quinta
FRED WARING D1
ti
INDIAN '" WELLS,
Legend
U=.7: _ . City of Indian Weis (Planning Area)
Resdential
Very Low Density Residential
Low Denary ResidenCel
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
Commercial
Community Commercial
Resort Commercial
Professional °liice
Sports Complex
Puteft:Ouasi-Public
Pubic Benefit
Pubic Facility
Pubic Parksatiecreati©e
Open Space
Golf and Recreation
I' tirral Preserve
Watercourse
Open Space
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 3-4 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
HIDVLEY LN
42ND AVE
W
A
City of
Palm Desert
FRED WARING DR
1-rrrr I t t
cc
U
trtiEon
r,
CC
j 160
Tk
re
FAIRWAY DR
"INIMPrethippir iradipmeS
-AtnimithiSD,
O.
J
'IX
III a
IAA'
ELDORADO DR
City of
Indian Wells
p!)-.IFF
Ca
C)
QO a
City of Indian Wells
General Plan Update PDEIR
Figure 3-6
Proposed General Plan Land
Use Map
City of
Palm Desert
..—
Saunas: City crf Intim Wells,
Riverside County, USGS, FEVA_ iJ SDA
Fr
H 0 I,5D0 3,GGfl 4,5D0 6,GD0
J
ot
2 F-
� �w
c
6 x City of
La Quinta
GENERAL PLAN Z040
la 3
INDIAN WELLS
Legend
L'=.7: _ . City of Indian Wells (Planning Area)
Residential
Very Low Density Residential
Low Densiy Residential
Medium Density Residential
l.,M/A Medium High DersseyR ideeratial
Commercial
Community Commercial
Resort Commercial
Professional ice
Sports Complex
Public+Quasi-Pubic
Public Benefit
Public Facility
Public ParsaiRecreation
Open Space
God and Recreation
Natural Preserve
Waierosurse
Open Space
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 3-5
January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Location & Page
Section 4.1,
Aesthetics, page 4.1-
7 and 4.1-11
Section 4.3, Air
Quality, page 4.3-16
Section 4.6, Energy
Resources, page 4.6-
22 Section 4.8,
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, page 4.8-
12 Revision
Revisions to pages 4.1-7 and 4.1-11 in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the PDEIR corrects policy RM-2.2: Scenic Vista Preservation, as referenced in the PDEIR to be consistent with the correction in the General Plan Update document. The text has been updated to the following:
"RM-2.2
Scenic Vista Preservation. Locate and site development to preserve public and private views of hillside areas, the Santa Rosa Mountains, and other scenic vistas of the San Jacinto and San GorJonio Mountain ranges."
Revisions to page 4.3-16, Table 4.2-4, Summary of Peak Operational Emissions, in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR was updated in response to a comment from SCAQMD in Comment Letter No. 3 (see Response 3-g). Table 4.2-4 has been updated to indicate the following:
"The Proposed Project is expected to generate approximately 12,666 MTCO2e per year from construction, area, energy, mobile sources, waste, and water usage sources (see Table 4.8-2 of the Draft EIR). As such, the Project GHG emissions would be above with the threshold of significance set at 3,000 MTCO2e per year (i.e. Tier 3 of the SCAQMD's greenhouse gas significance thresholds). However, the Proposed Project would be consistent with Tier 4 of the SCAQMD's greenhouse gas significance thresholds, since the Proposed GPU would generate approximately 6,217 6,310 jobs; therefore, the MT CO2e per employee would be approximately 2.0/ 2.01, which is below the SCAQMD Tier 4 threshold of
6.6 MTCO2e per SP."
Revisions to pages 4.6-22 and 4.1-11 in Section 4.6, Energy Resources, of the PDEIR corrects policy RM-10c, as referenced in the PDEIR to be consistent with the correction in the General Plan Update document. The text has been updated to the following:
"RM-10c
mp cmcnt Encourage the Home Energy Assistance Link
(HEAL) program, a monetary incentive program, that
assists Indian Wells residents purchase energy and water efficient appliance."
Revisions to page 4.8-12 in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the PDEIR corrects policy M-2.5, as referenced in the PDEIR to be consistent with the correction in the General Plan Update document. The text has been updated to the following:
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
3-6 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Location & Page
Section 4.8,
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, page 4.8-
13 and Section 4.16,
Transportation, page
4.16-26
Section 4.8,
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, page 4.8-
14 and Section 4.16,
Transportation, page
4.16-27
Revision
"The Mobility Element will include various policies and actions designed to promote transportation efficiency across multiple modes, thus helping reduce the associated GHG reductions. The relevant policies are M-1.1 (Development -Related Traffic Impacts), M-1.2 (LOS Standards), M-1.3 (Traffic Distribution), M-1.4 (Efficient Circulation), M-1.5 (Transportation Management System), M-1.6 (Intersection Configurations), M-1.7 (Minimize Environmental Impacts), M-1.8 (Local and Regional Collaboration), M-1.9 (Safe Routes to School), M-1.10 (Residential Streets Traffic Calming), M-1.11 (ADA Accessibility), M-1.12 (Truck Routes), M-2.1 (Multi -Modal Streets), M-2.2 (Alternative Modes), M-2.3 (Connectivity), M-2.4 (New Development), M-2.5 (Citywide Bicycle Network P an), M-2.6 (Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety), M-2.7 (CV Link Users), M-2.8 (Bus Stops), M-2.9 (Rail and Air Travel), M-2.10 (The Living Desert). The relevant actions are M -1a through M -1g. These policies and actions are further discussed in Section 4.16, Transportation, of this PDEIR."
Revisions to page 4.8-13 in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and page 4.16-26 in Section 4.16, Transportation, of the PDEIR corrects policy M-1.4: Efficient Circulation, as referenced in the PDEIR to be consistent with the correction in the General Plan Update document. The policy has been updated to the following:
"M-1.4 Efficient Circulation. Support traffic control measures which reduce noise and air quality impacts and are
consistent with traffic engineering guidelines; such
measures could include continue to support traffic signal coordination programs like the Coachella Valley Sync
program, adding left -turn lanes at intersections,
incorporating right -turn only access at selected locations, and continue to maintain streets surfaces in good
operating condition."
Revisions to page 4.8-14 in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and page 4.16-27 in Section 4.16, Transportation, of the PDEIR corrects policy M-2.1: Multi -Modal Streets, and M-2.5, Citywide Bicycle Plan, as referenced in the PDEIR to be consistent with the correction in the General Plan Update document. The policy has been updated to the following:
"M-2.1 Multi -Modal Streets. Apply context -sensitive complete streets principles to roadway improvement projects to
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
3-7 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Location & Page
Section 4.8,
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, page 4.8-
16 and Section 4.16,
Transportation, page
4.16-33
Section 4.10,
Hydrology and
Water Quality, pages
4.10-18 and Section
4.17, Utilities and
Service Systems,
page 4.17-22
Section 4.10,
Hydrology and
Water Quality, Page
4.10-21
Revision
serve all modes of travel and users of all ages and abilities, where aaaroariate.
M-2.5 Citywide Bicycle Network. Plan. Support an integrated citywide bicycle network through the construction of new bike lanes and enhancement of existing. bike lanes.
mp ement cons ruction o- _ie bi<c networ< system by
requ•r•ng new deve opment _o provide bi<e anes on
pub is roads and upcate the p an as iecced."
Revisions to page 4.8-16 in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and page 4.16-33 in Section 4.16, Transportation, of the PDEIR corrects action M -1d, as referenced in the PDEIR to be consistent with the correction in the General Plan Update document. The action has been updated to the following:
"M -1d
Evaluate opportunities to implement alternative roadway desi,3n elements, including but not limited to, roundabouts, traffic circles, and chicanes, as traffic control, considering safety, traffic calming, cost and maintenance."
Revisions to page 4.10-18 in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and page 4.17-22 in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of the PDEIR corrects actions RM-6b and RM-6d, as referenced in the PDEIR to be consistent with the correction in the General Plan Update document.
The policy has been updated to the following:
"RM-6b
RM-6d
Recommend the establishment incentives/funding and/or
reba:c p'-og-ams for projects or residences that implement water conservation measures.
Incorporate water -wise native landscaping or alternative water saving materials or use of non -notable water in
recently constructed medians."
Revisions to page 4.10-21 of Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, is indicated by the text below. This revision inserts GPU policies related to flooding hazards discussed in threshold question cii. "cii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site; Construction activities are regulated by the NPDES General Construction Storm Water Permit that apply to project -level land development Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
3-8 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Location & Page
Revision
activities. Compliance with the storm water permit during construction activities requires the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that contains BMPs to control the discharge of pollutants, including sediment, into local surface water drainages. Additionally, the City, in accordance with its approved Phase I Storm Water Management Program, must implement Post -Construction Storm Water Management in new development and redevelopment (Policy PS -3.3).
A gradual increase in impervious cover associated with new development could increase operational storm water runoff. In addition to complying with the NPDES programs and WQMP stormwater requirements, the General Plan contains policies and actions to reduce impacts associated with stormwater and drainage including policies to maintain sufficient levels of storm drainage service, improvements to flood control facilities, and other best practices in order to protect the community from flood hazard, and minimize the discharge of materials into the storm drain system that are toxic, or which could obstruct flows. Additionally, the governing regulations encourage stormwater be directed towards permeable surfaces, incorporate stormwater capture, and promote BMPs and Low Impact Development measures (LID) to treat stormwater.
Future development under the proposed GPU would result in a progressive reduction in the amount of impervious soil surfaces available for infiltration of rainfall and runoff, but such changes would occur for limited infill areas that have largely been disturbed. The pollutants generally associated with urban runoff from new development would be captured and retained in privately constructed and operated storm drain systems and applicable forms of flood control subject to review and approval at the project level.
Additionally, the City plans to regularly maintain the regional stormwater facilities including the Whitewater River/Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (Policy PS -3.1), as well as maintain floodplain management ordinances, response plans, and building and safety codes to comply with applicable Federal and State law, and National Flood Insurance Program requirement. The policies also require communication with Riverside County Flood Control (RCFC) regarding regional flood control facilities (Policies PS -3.2, PS -3.4, PS -3.5, PS -3.6, PS -3.7 and PS -3.8). Moreover, the City will limit the amount of impervious surfaces in new developments and redevelopments as feasible; developments that add impervious surfaces should integrate low impact development best management practices to reduce stormwater runoff (Policies PS -3.9 and PS -3.10' Therefore, implementation of the proposed GPU and associated policies is expected to result in less than significant impacts pertaining to Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 3-9 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Location & Page
Revision
increases or changes to surface runoff in a manner which could result in flooding conditions.
General Plan Policies
The GPU establishes
policies and actions designed to sup
port various
efforts relevant to flooding. The policies and actions contained in the Public Services Element that are most applicable to this matter are summarized below:
Policies
PS -3.1 Maintain Stormwater Infrastructure. Preserve the cuality and function of the Whitewater River/Coachella Valley
Stormwater Channel, and subsecuent flood control
facilities, by proactively planning for improvements,
regularly performing maintenance, and limiting
development within the flood plain and flood way.
PS -3.2 Comply with National & State Flood Programs. Maintain and periodically update flood Slain management
ordinances, response plans, building and safety codes,
and multi-.urisdictional efforts, to reflect, and comply with, applicable Federal and State law, and National Flood Insurance Program recuirement. Coordinate with FEMA
to ensure that Federal Insurance Rate Maps correctly
depict flood hazards in the City.
PS -3.3 NPDES. Adhere to requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's
NPDES/Munici Dal Stormwater Management Program.
PS -3.4 Regional Coordination. Maintain communication with RCFCD regarding regional flood facilities and the potential future need to expand the capacity of flood control
facilities based on changing flood conditions associated with climate change and extreme weather.
PS -3.5 Municipal Code. Implement the standards and
recuirements defined in the Municipal Code to reduce
flood hazards and address flood -prone areas within Indian Wells.
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
3-10 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Location & Page
Section 4.10,
Hydrology and
Water Quality, Page
4.10-22
Revision
PS -3.6
Development within Watercourse Designations. Limit
development within watercourse designations to
improvements proven to not substantially impede the
flow of water or result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the one hundred 100) year flood discharge; improvements must be approved by CVWD.
PS -3.7 Building Codes. Adhere to the latest building, site, and design codes in the California Building Code and FEMA
flood control guidelines to avoid or minimize the risk of flooding hazards in the community.
PS -3.8 Natural Drainage and Habitat Preservation. Minimize the alteration of natural drainage patterns and conserve
riparian habitat when implementing flood control
maintenance activities to hinder contamination and
enhance the overall health of the Whitewater
River/Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel.
PS -3.9 Reduce Stormwater Runoff. Limit the amount of
impervious surfaces in new developments and
redevelopments as feasible; developments that add
impervious surfaces should integrate low impact
development best management practices to reduce
stormwater runoff.
PS -3.10 Mitigation. Require that all new development and redevelopment in areas susceptible to flooding
incorporate mitigation measures designed to reduce flood hazards."
Revisions to page 4.10-22 of Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, is indicated by the text below. This revision inserts GPU policies related to flooding flows discussed in threshold question civ.
"civ. Impede or redirect flood flows?
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) serve as the basis for identifying potential hazards and determining the need for and availability of federal flood insurance.
As previously mentioned, FEMA flood zone designations rely on a variety of flood risk information based on historic, meteorological, hydrologic and hydraulic data, as well as existing development, open space and Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 3-11 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Location & Page
Revision
topographic conditions within an area. FIRM data and corresponding zone designations are represented in numbered panels. The applicable FIRM Panels to the project site are identified as Panel Numbers 06065C2226H, 06065C2227H, 06065C2231H, 06065C2228H,
06065C2229H, and 06065C2233H, applicable to the site since April 19, 2017.
Approximately 7.7 percent, or 720 acres, of the City is designated by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as Special Flood Hazard Areas (Zones A, AE, AO). Zone A consists of low-lying areas that are in close proximity to lakes, ponds, and other large bodies of water. Zone AE flood zones are areas that present a 1% annual chance of flooding. Zone AO is the flood zone that corresponds to the areas of 1% shallow flooding where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. Approximately 444 acres of Indian Wells is designated as Zone A, however, most of it is contained in the two primary stormwater channels. FEMA Zones AO and AE are located in the southwest corner of the city, primarily due to its adjacency to the natural alluvial fan feature, cut by braided stream channels, located southwest of the City. Approximately 1,055 acres of the City are designated by FEMA as part of the 500 -year flood zone (Zone X Shaded) and the remaining 7,558 acres are deemed to be areas of minimal hazard or areas with reduced risk due to levee improvements (Zone X).
As previously discussed, the City contains natural and human -made drainage courses along the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains.
Infrastructure within the City limits is protected from the drainage by existing public flood control infrastructure consisting of two channels designed to convey flows to the Coachella Valley floor and eventually Whitewater River. The two channels are the Whitewater River ( and the connecting) and the Deep Canyon Stormwater Channel (DCSC). The ephemeral nature of local drainage translates to short-term duration after storm events, rather than continuous or long-term flows. The presence of this flood control infrastructure allows the majority of the City to operate under reduced risk of flooding.
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) outlets assist the drainage of stormwater into the CVSC and the DCSC. CVWD also provides slope protection and service roads within the CVSC and the DCSC, for continual maintenance of the channels.
Implementation of the proposed GPU would establish updated land use designations Recreation to Resort Commercial for the vacant lands located north of Highway 111, on the east and west sides of Miles Avenue. The remaining infill developable lands dispersed throughout the Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 3-12 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Location & Page
Revision
City would maintain their current designations. Implementation of the GPU would not preclude project -level proposals from the requirement to demonstrate the appropriate flood control, storm drain, and hydrology compliance in relation to the existing infrastructure. Existing drainage patterns on protected open space and along the dedicated flood control facilities would not be substantially altered by means of land use designations or policies in a manner that would affect the connectivity and function of local resources. Future efforts toward channel improvements will follow the appropriate environmental review and engineering approval process under CVWD's jurisdiction and other relevant water resource agencies to ensure capacity and consistency with regional facilities. The existing engineering requirements on new project -specific development proposals to adequately convey or retain stormwater runoff while protecting new structures and facilities would not be modified by the proposed GPU. Therefore, the project would not incur planning or project -level modifications capable of impeding or redirecting flood flows. Regarding potential impedances or redirection of flood flows, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
Additionally, the City plans to regularly maintain the regional stormwater facilities including the Whitewater River/Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (Policy PS -3.1), as well as maintain floodplain management ordinances, responseplans, and building and safety codes to comply with applicable Federal and State law, and National Flood Insurance Program recuirement. The policies also require communication with Riverside County Flood Control RCFC) regarding regional flood control facilities (Policies PS -3.2, PS -3.4, PS -3.5, PS -3.6, PS -3.7 and PS -3.8). Moreover, the City will limit the amount of impervious surfaces in new developments and redevelopments as feasible; developments that add impervious surfaces should integrate low impact development best management practices to reduce stormwater runoff (Policies PS -3.9 and PS -3.10 Therefore, implementation of the proposed GPU and associated policies is expected to result in less than significant impacts pertaining to flood flows.
General Plan Policies
The GPU establishes policies and actions designed to support various efforts relevant to flood flows. The policies and actions contained in the Public Services Element that are most applicable to this matter are summarized below:
Policies
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 3-13 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Location & Page
Revision
PS -3.1
Maintain Stormwater Infrastructure. Preserve the quality and function of the Whitewater River/Coachella Valley
Stormwater Channel, and subsequent flood control
facilities, by proactively planning for improvements,
regularly performing maintenance, and limiting
development within the flood plain and flood way.
PS -3.2 Comply with National & State Flood Programs. Maintain and periodically update flood plain management
ordinances, response plans, building and safety codes,
and multi -jurisdictional efforts, to reflect, and comply with, applicable Federal and State law, and National Flood Insurance Program recuirement. Coordinate with FEMA
to ensure that Federal Insurance Rate Maps correctly
depict flood hazards in the City.
PS -3.3 NPDES. Adhere to recuirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's
NPDES/Municipal Stormwater Management Program.
PS -3.4 Regional Coordination. Maintain communication with RCFCD regarding regional flood facilities and the potential future need to expand the capacity of flood control
facilities based on changing flood conditions associated with climate change and extreme weather.
PS -3.5
Municipal Code. Implement the standards and
requirements defined in the Municipal Code to reduce
flood hazards and address flood -prone areas within Indian Wells.
PS -3.6 Development within Watercourse Designations. Limit development within watercourse designations to
improvements proven to not substantially impede the
flow of water or result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the one hundred 1100) year flood discharge; improvements must be approved by CVWD.
PS -3.7 Building Codes. Adhere to the latest building, site, and design codes in the California Building Code and FEMA
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 3-14 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Location & Page
Section 4.11, Land
Use and Planning,
pages 4.11-3, 4.11-9,
and 4.11-10
Revision
flood control guidelines to avoid or minimize the risk of flooding hazards in the community.
PS -3.8 Natural Drainage and Habitat Preservation. Minimize the alteration of natural drainage patterns and conserve
riparian habitat when implementing flood control
maintenance activities to hinder contamination and
enhance the overall health of the Whitewater
River/Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel.
PS -3.9 Reduce Stormwater Runoff. Limit the amount of
impervious surfaces in new developments and
redevelopments as feasible; developments that add
impervious surfaces should integrate low impact
development best management practices to reduce
stormwater runoff.
PS -3.10 Mitigation. Require that all new development and redevelopment in areas susceptible to flooding
incorporate mitigation measures designed to reduce flood hazards."
Similar to the revisions on pages 3-18, 3-19 and 3-24, revisions to pages
4.11-3, 4.11-9 and 4.11-10 would correct a minor change in acreage attributed to the Community Commercial land use and zoning designation. As stated above, in 2016, the City approved a land use change to redesignate the Nest and Sands Hotel, located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Providence Way from Professional Office to Community Commercial in GPA Ordinance No. 701.
Currently, Table 4.11-2, General Plan Land Use Designations, and associated Figure 4.11-1, Existing General Plan & Zoning Designations, and Figure 4.11-2, Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations, indicates this area as Commercial, Professional Office. This change would revise approximately one acre of this land to Commercial, Community Commercial land use and zoning designation, as approved in 2016 (per GPA Ordinance No. 701).
Additional revisions to Figure 4.11-1 and Figure 4.11-2 include an update to two small parcels (approximately 0.59 acres total) at the northwest corner of Fairway Drive and Eldorado Drive (APNs 633-144-005 and -006).
Currently, the exhibits designate the parcels as Public Parks/Recreation.
The Figures have been revised to illustrate a Very Low Density Residential Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 3-15 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Location & Page
Revision
(RVLD) land use and zoning designation, consistent with the City land use and zoning designation for this site. See Appendix X.1 and X.2 of this Final EIR, which includes a Staff Report and determination for the 2023 ruling approving a passive park design and installation during a City Council meeting (held on March 2, 2023) for the 0.59 -acre site. The Staff Report indicates that the park use is allowable in a residentially zoned area, and no zoning change is required.
Similar to the revisions on pages 3-15, 3-18, 3-19, and 3-24, the revisions in Section 4.11 are as follows:
Table 4.11-2 General Plan Land Use Designations
Current General Plan Designation
Acres
Civic, Public Facility
29 Commercial, Community Commercial
8889
Commercial, Professional Office
76 Commercial, Resort Commercial
185
Commercial, Sports Complex
63 Low Density Residential
162
Medium Density Residential
46 Medium High Density Residential
18 Open Space, Golf and Recreation
1,317
Open Space, Natural Preserve
195
Open Space, Open Space
4,320
Open Space, Public Benefit (PB-1)
34 Open Space, Public Park
6 Open Space, Watercourse
557
Residential, Very Low Density Residential
2,306
Total
9,333
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 3-16 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
H'CVLEY LN
42ND AVE
City of
$ Palm Desert
FRED WARING DR ----
H'NJY fit
ce
ce
z
U
Lk
= iu
g
FAIRWAY DR
-.m,4-i lfr
pingory al•
...allerf';4.1.N
illi
rAilyp
id i ---
!, Ink* •--we
SC-Irces: City of Mao Weis,
Riverside Caurrly, USGS, FELLA, USDA
aCC
miriquilimi
U
0M.
0a
City of Indian Wells
General Plan Update PDEIR
Figure 4.11-1
Current General Nan Land Use
City of
Palm Desert
I 44.---- ----,_______ IL l„
lir
I.. I OWN, z itu H fit.
i di,
5 City of
Indian Wells
FT
OR1 0 1,509 3.090 4,5t:9 6.©40
r
to
0 0
City of
La Q.uinta
FRED WARING DR
tO*2
GENERAL PLAN 2040
605I4
INDIAN €LLS-
Legend
. —. City of Indian Wels (Planning Area)
Resciential
Very Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
fill Medium High Density Residential
Commercial
Community Commercial
IIIIIIIIIIIIII� Resort Commercial
Professional Office
IIIIIIIIIIIIII� Sports Complex
Pubic!'Ouaci-Puirlic
i. I Pubic Benefit
Pubic Facility
Pubic Parks,FFiecreaticn
Open Space
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� Goland Recreation
Ih Natural Preserve
Watercourse
Open Space
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 3-17
January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
HOVIY LN
42ND AVE
City of
Palm Desert
FRED WARING DR
FPNY 4t1
Q
z ul
:11[ o o of
H
I
o FA9RWA' DR rrrrrw-
.6416;
i
l
,}_
6 0
I�
rim iii,
411A am
Soswroes_ City of 'futon Wells,
F
RI o
Ili
w c9
u
City of Indian Wells
General Plan Update PDEIR
Figure 4.11-2
Proposed General Plan Land Use
City of
Palm Desert
City of
c La Quinta
.i --- — FRED �fAR�JG DR
E. Lii=litit y A,
I Nib r----...71.
. Aro.-
0 li, iijp:
,,,._..,
0 m ii
r „,
,,,,,,,
pyr-
45111
�1 J
City of
Indian Wells
15lb 3,iSFSd
Fr
4,50CI 6
Leperrd
City of 'mien Wells ;Planning Area
Residential
Very Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
Commercial
Community Commercial
Resort Commercial
Professional Office
Sports Complex
Public/Quasi-Public
GENERAL PLAN 2040
irmaral
INDIAN WELLS
Public 6enelt
Public Facility
Public Parks+`Retreaticn
Oen Spare
Golf and Recreation
Natural Preserve
Watercourse
Open Space
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 3-18
January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Location & Page
Section 4.11, Land
Use and Planning,
Pages 4.11-11, 4.11-
22, 4.11-23, 4.11-24,
and 4.11-25
Revision
Revisions to page 4.11-23 of Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, removes the reference to neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV). As stated in Response 4-d in Chapter 2.0, Response to Comments, in this Final EIR (response to City of Palm Desert comment letter), references to "neighborhood electric vehicles routes" and "NEVs" have been removed, and will solely state "Golf Cart Routes"....
The revisions include changes to the following text (page 4.11-11) and Tables 4.11-5 and 4.11-6 (pages 4.11-22 through 4.11-25):
"Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
SCAG's 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (also known as "Connect SoCal") is a plan for mobility, accessibility, sustainability, and a high quality of life in the region. It is first and foremost, a transportation plan that integrates land use planning into its framework to improve mobility and access to transportation options in response to Senate Bill (SB) 375. The goals within the RTP/SCS are meant to provide guidance for the project within the context of regional goals and policies. Therefore, the goals in the RTP/SCS may be pertinent to the proposed Project.
The Goals and Guiding Policies set forth in RTP/SCS are listed below.
Most of the goals can be adapted and implemented at the local level by the City of Indian Wells such as maximizing mobility and accessibility for all people and goods. This is being achieved by the City's commitment to good roads where intersections can accommodate round-abouts instead of 4 -way stops or traffic signals where vehicles stop and idle; and where streets can be designed to accommodate motor vehicles and non - motorized vehicles such as bicycles and golf carts/ncigiborhood c cctric vchic cs."
Table 4.11-5 SCAG Consistency Analysis
Goal
Consistency Analysis
RTP/SCS G1: Encourage
Consistent: This goal encourages regional economic prosperity and global regional economic
competitiveness. The City of Indian Wells currently provides a desirable resort prosperity and global
competitiveness.
destination, with its various hotels and resorts and the Indian Wells Tennis Gardens, which hosts the BNP tennis tournament for two weeks in March, attracting thousands of people to the City. Currently, buildout of the General Plan would result in 5,132,104 square feet of nonresidential space. The GPU proposes a total of 5,159,667 square feet of nonresidential space (approximately 27,563 square feet more than the current General Plan). The GPU will provide additional resort, commercial and recreational facilities to continue to attract visitors and employment opportunities.
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
3-19 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
RTP/SCS G2: Improve
mobility, accessibility,
reliability, and travel
safety for all people and
goods.
Not applicable but consistent: The GPU does not propose changes to the existing circulation pattern throughout the City. The main corridor in the City is Highway 111, which provides regional access to the surrounding cities within the Coachella Valley.
The GPU would not conflict or burden the regional goods mobility across the SCAG region.
RTP/SCS G3: Enhance the
preservation, security, and
resilience of the regional
transportation system.
Not applicable but consistent. As stated above, the GPU does not propose changes to the existing circulation pattern throughout the City. The GPU would not conflict with the security and resilience of the regional transportation system.
RTP/SCS G4: Increase
person and goods
movement and travel
choices within the
transportation system.
Consistent: The aspect of person and goods movement will not change with the development of the GPU, since the GPU does not propose changes to the existing circulation pattern throughout the City. As previously stated, Highway 111 is the main travel corridor throughout the City, connecting Indian Wells to the surrounding cities.
Fred Waring Drive, Washington Street, and Cook Street are also main corridors within the City. Pertaining to travel choices within the transportation system, the GPU will continue to support multi -modal transportation options, such as bicycle lanes, and golf cart access, allowing various travel choices within the City. The GPU would not conflict with the SunLine Transit Agency's periodic adjustments to service coverage or implementation of SunLine Transit network, as these are a function of demand.
RTP/SCS G5: Reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
and improve air quality.
Consistent: The GPU incorporates project design features aimed at reducing VMT, GHG, and criteria air pollutant emissions, including various options for non -motorized transportation. Combined with any applicable mitigation measures for future development projects, these measures will work toward attainment of the approved Air Quality Management Plan applicable in the South Coast AQMD jurisdiction.
RTP/SCS G6: Support
healthy and equitable
communities.
Consistent: The GPU protects the environment and health of residents by providing extensive non -motorized transportation facilities, including sidewalks, multipurpose trails, bicycle lanes and cart routes/neigiboriooc, c cctric vciic c ancs golf
throughout the City. The GPU's land use configurations reduce vehicular traffic and vehicles miles traveled by maximizing interactions between adjacent or nearby land uses and providing pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjacent streets to assure that infrastructure and amenities accommodate pedestrian and bicycle use.
RTP/SCS G7: Adapt to a
changing climate and
support an integrated
regional development
pattern and
transportation network.
Not applicable but consistent: This goal relates to adapting to a changing climate and supporting an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network.
The GPU does not propose changes to the existing transportation network throughout the City. Additionally, a majority of the City is built out with residential, resort, recreational, commercial, and office spaces. The remaining properties to be developed will be consistent with the existing development pattern throughout the City by providing more residential and non-residential opportunities.
As previously stated, Highway 111 is the main travel corridor throughout the City, connecting Indian Wells to the surrounding cities. Fred Waring Drive, Washington Street, and Cook Street are also main corridors within the City. Pertaining to travel choices within the transportation system, the GPU will continue to support multi - modal transportation options, such as bicycle lanes, and golf cart access, allowing various travel choices within the City. The GPU land use configurations reduce vehicular traffic and VMTs by maximizing interactions between adjacent or nearby land uses and providing pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjacent streets.
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 3-20
January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
RTP/SCS G8: Leverage
new transportation
technologies and data-
driven solutions that result
in more efficient travel.
Not applicable: The adoption of transportation technologies, primarily pertaining to electric vehicles or emission reductions, will be a function of state and federal requirements to which residents will be required to adapt as applicable.
RTP/SCS G9: Encourage
development of diverse
housing types in areas
that are supported by
multiple transportation
options.
Consistent: The GPU encourages the development of diverse housing types within developable areas of the City. As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the proposed GPU is intended to accommodate the City's fair share of statewide housing needs, which are allocated by the SCAG, based on regional numbers provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development on a regular basis (every five to eight years). State law requires the Housing Element to included quantified objectives for the maximum number of units that can be constructed, rehabilitated or conserved. The new construction objectives shown in Table 4.14-10 (above) represents the City's overall RHNA for the 2021-2029 planning period for all income levels. The objective identified for each income level is based on historic trends and patterns of development; units affordable to lower -income households are historically more difficult to develop due to extremely limited available funding for affordable housing projects. Moderate- and above -moderate income units are more likely to be developed by the private market. As indicated in Table 4.14-10, the City of Indian Wells will develop a total of 382 homes to satisfy the 2021-2029 RHNA allocation, consisting of 58 extremely -low income, 59 very low income, 81 low income, 91 moderate income, and 93 above moderate income units.
The varying residential product types will be integrated with non -motorized transportation facilities consisting of sidewalks, bicycle lanes and golf cart routes /nciglaorlooc c cctric vciic c (\EV) ones in addition to the street improvements for motorized travel. Therefore, the GPU would support the integration of housing and diverse transportation options.
RTP/SCS G10: Promote
conservation of natural
and agricultural lands and
restoration of habitats.
Consistent: The GPU does not propose changes to the natural open space or natural preserve land uses within the City, which occupies 4,320 acres and 195 acres of land in the City, respectively. Therefore, the GPU would promote conservation of natural lands as applicable.
Table 4.11-6 2024 SCAG Consistency Analysis
Goal
Consistency Analysis
RTP/SCS G1: Mobility. Build and maintain
Consistent: As stated in Table 4.11-5, Goal 4, pertaining to travel an integrated multimodal transportation
choices within the transportation system, the GPU will continue to network.
support multi -modal transportation options, such as bicycle lanes, - Support investments that are well
and golf cart access, allowing various travel choices within the City. maintained and operated, coordinated,
resilient and result in improved safety,
improved air quality and minimized
greenhouse gases.
The GPU would not conflict with the SunLine Transit Agency's periodic adjustments to service coverage or implementation of SunLine Transit network, as these are a function of demand. - Ensure that reliable, accessible,
affordable and appealing travel options
are readily available, while striving to
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
3-21 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
enhance equity in the offerings in high -
need communities.
- Support planning for people of all ages,
abilities and backgrounds.
RTP/SCS G2: Communities. Develop,
connect and sustain communities that are
livable and thriving.
- Create human -centered communities in
urban, suburban and rural settings to
increase mobility options and reduce
travel distances.
- Produce and preserve diverse housing
types in an effort to improve
affordability, accessibility and
opportunities for all households.
Consistent: A majority of the City is built out with residential, resort, recreational, commercial, and office spaces. The remaining properties to be developed will be consistent with the existing development pattern throughout the City by providing more residential and non-residential opportunities. As indicated in Section
4.13, Population and Housing, the City of Indian Wells forecasts the housing types as required to meet RHNA standards. See also Goal 9 in Table 4.11-5, above.
RTP/SCS G3: Environment. Create a healthy
region for the people of today and
tomorrow.
- Develop communities that are resilient
and can mitigate, adapt to and respond
to chronic and acute stresses and
disruptions, such as climate change.
- Integrate the region's development
pattern and transportation network to
improve air quality, reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, and enhance more
sustainable use of energy and water.
- Conserve the region's resources.
Consistent. As stated in Table 4.11-5, Goal 6, the GPU protects the environment and health of residents by providing extensive non - motorized transportation facilities, including sidewalks, multipurpose trails, bicycle lanes and cart routes /ncigiboriooc golf
c cctric vciic c ancs throughout the City. The GPU's land use configurations reduce vehicular traffic and vehicles miles traveled by maximizing interactions between adjacent or nearby land uses and providing pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjacent streets to assure that infrastructure and amenities accommodate pedestrian and bicycle use.
RTP/SCS G4: Support a sustainable,
efficient and productive regional economic
environment that provides opportunities for
all residents.
- Improve access to jobs and educational
resources.
- Advance a resilient and efficient goods
movement system that supports the
economic vitality of the region,
attainment of clean air and quality of life
for our communities.
Consistent: As stated in Table 4.11-5, Goal 1, the City of Indian Wells currently provides a desirable resort destination, with its various hotels and resorts and the Indian Wells Tennis Gardens, which hosts the BNP tennis tournament for two weeks in March, attracting thousands of people to the City. Currently, buildout of the General Plan would result in 5,132,104 square feet of nonresidential space.
The GPU proposes a total of 5,159,667 square feet of nonresidential space (approximately 27,563 square feet more than the current General Plan). The GPU will provide additional resort, commercial and recreational facilities to continue to attract visitors and employment opportunities.
As indicated in Goal 4 above, the aspect of person movement will not change with the development of the GPU, since the GPU does not propose changes to the existing circulation pattern throughout the City. As previously stated, Highway 111 is the main travel corridor Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR
3-22 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
throughout the City, connecting Indian Wells to the surrounding cities. Fred Waring Drive, Washington Street, and Cook Street are also main corridors within the City. Pertaining to travel choices within the transportation system, the GPU will continue to support multi -modal transportation options, such as bicycle lanes, and golf cart access, allowing various travel choices within the City. The GPU would not conflict with the SunLine Transit Agency's periodic adjustments to service coverage or implementation of SunLine Transit network, as these are a function of demand.
As stated in Goal 6 above, the GPU protects the environment and health of residents by providing extensive non -motorized transportation facilities, including sidewalks, multipurpose trails, bicycle lanes and golf cart routes /ic.giboriooc c cctric vci.c c ancs throughout the City. The GPU's land use configurations reduce vehicular traffic and vehicles miles traveled by maximizing interactions between adjacent or nearby land uses and providing pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjacent streets to assure that infrastructure and amenities accommodate pedestrian and bicycle use.
Location & Page
Section 4.12, Noise,
pages 4.12-38 and
4.12-39
Section 4.13,
Population and
Housing, Page 4.13-
11 Revision
Revisions to pages 4.14-12 and 4.14-13 in Section 4.14, Public Services, of the PDEIR corrects policy PS -6.9 and action PS -6d, as referenced in the PDEIR to be consistent with the correction in the General Plan Update document. The policy and action has been updated to the following:
"PS -6.9 Interjurisdictional and Multiagency Coordination.
Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and
transportation providers such as Caltrans, Coachella
Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to minimize
noise conflicts between land uses along the City's
boundaries.
PS -6d
Coordinate with Ca trans (CVAG) to reduce the speed limit on State Highway 111, in concert with synchronized
intersections, to reduce noise levels along the corridor." Revisions to page 4.13-11 of Section 4.13, Population and Housing, is indicated by the text below. This revision corrects the typo related to the number of residential units proposed by the GPU from 6,217 to 6,271 units.
"Housing
Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 3-23 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Location & Page
Section 4.14, Public
Services, pages 4.14-
12 and 4.14-13
Revision
The number of estimated housing units in the City of Indian Wells was 5,395 housing units, according to Indian Wells' 2021-2029 Housing Element; however, approximately 2,905 (53.8 percent) were occupied (see Table 4.13-3, Housing Stock by Type and Vacancy (2020), above).
Buildout of the current General Plan would result in 5,455 single family units and 816 multifamily units, for a total of 6,271 residential units. The proposed GPU also proposes 6,217 6,271 residential units at total buildout of the Planning Area."
Revisions to pages 4.14-12 and 4.14-13 in Section 4.14, Public Services, of the PDEIR corrects policy PS -1.7, as referenced in the PDEIR to be consistent with the correction in the General Plan Update document. The policy has been updated to the following:
"In addition, multiple City policies and actions are to be implemented by the City to maintain and improve fire safety. Policy PS -1.1 states that the City would maintain contracted essential service agreements through established State and county agencies, including CAL FIRE, RCFD, and RCSD. Policy PS -1.2 mandates the periodic update of local emergency plans, such as the City's Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). The City will conduct coordination with the Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) under Policy PS -1.6 to enhance school emergency planning. Action PS -lc states that the City would maintain an EOP that defines the actions and roles necessary to provide a coordinated response within the City before, during, and following extraordinary emergencies associated with natural, manmade, and technological disasters. To strengthen community fire safety, Policy PS -2.5 requires the City and RCFD to provide public education programs, particularly for at -risk populations, on fire hazards, safety measures, and evacuation routes. Policy PS -1.3 states the City should provide sufficient levels of all emergency response services to protect the health, safety, and welfare of all persons and to protect property in the City. Policy PS -
1.7 states that the City should continue to participate in automatic and mutual aid agreements with adjacent service providers and regional agencies, such as Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and the Cove Commission, to ensure efficient and adequate resources, facilities, and support services before, during, and after emergencies; further cooperate with regional agencies and the general public to inform citizens of available protective services. Policy PS -1.8 encourages emergency preparedness to be the combined responsibility of the City, in conjunction with the County, CVAG, and the State as well as City residents and the business community. Action PS -le states that the City Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 3-24 January 2025
Council Agenda- February 13, 2025
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Location & Page
Revision
will provide community education and self-help programs. In cooperation with CVAG and other communities in the Valley, distribute periodic safety publications, that discuss available protective services, to the public. Policy PS -2.6 states that the City should uphold locally and regionally adopted fire protection plans, including the City of Indian Wells Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and regularly renew such plans as new information becomes available."
"PS -1.7 Regional Support System. Continue to participate in automatic and mutual agreements with adjacent service
providers and regional agencies, such as Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and the Cove
Commission, to ensure efficient and adequate resources, facilities, and support services before, during and after emergencies; further cooperate with regional agencies and the general public to inform citizens of available protective services."
Section 4.16, Revisions to Section 4.16, Transportation, revises text on page 4.16-3, as Transportation, Page requested by Caltrans in their comment letter (see Comment and
4.16-3 Response 2-c in Chapter 2.0 of this Final EIR). The revisions are as follows:
• "Principle Principal Arterials. Principal arterials are high -capacity inter -city thoroughfare that carries traffic traveling through the City and provides regional travel. Its primary function is to move vehicles and carry high traffic volumes. They consist of four lanes with a landscaped a raised or painted median with limited direct access and great spacing between intersections.
• Major Arterials. Major arterials serve as high -capacity thoroughfares.
Their primary function is to move vehicles at higher speeds with a mix of local and inter -city traffic. They consist of six travel lanes with a raised or painted median. As a major traffic carrier, curbside parking is prohibited.
• Primary Arterials. Primary Arterials serve primarily as traffic carriers while also accommodating bicycle lanes. They provide local and regional travel and consist of four travel lanes with a raised or painted median.
• Collector and Private Collectors. Collectors and Private Collectors are intended to carry low to moderate local traffic between the street network and local streets. They consist of two to four travel lanes. • Local Streets. Local Streets provide direct access and parking to adjacent land uses. Local Streets are intended to carry local traffic, Indian Wells General Plan Update Final EIR 3-25 January 2025