Agenda — Indio City Council, January 18, 2023 (part 4 of 4)

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 338 of 446 ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Resolution No.10338_PalmeraDevelopmentProject Attachment 2: Palmera (TPM 38493 Site A)
Attachment 3: Palmera (TPM 38494 Site B&C)
Attachment 4: CEQA15183 Checklist_Palmera

APPROVAL(S):

Steven Graham, City Attorney Approved - 05 Jan 2023
Rob Rockwell, Asst. City Manager & Dir. Of Finance Approved - 10 Jan 2023 Bryan H. Montgomery, City Manager Approved - 10 Jan 2023

Page 9 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 339 of 446 1 RESOLUTION NO. 10338
A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP S 38493 and 38494 (TTM 22-06-470)

FOR THE PALMERA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15162, 15168, and 15183 THAT NO

FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT W
HEREAS, Indio South Business LLC/ Indio North Business LLC, 484 S. San Vicente Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90048, submitted an initial application on June 13, 2022, for Tentative Parcel Maps 384 and 38494 for the Palmera Development Project (“Project”) which spans across six legal lots with APN’S 611- 110-39 (Site A1), 611 -420-001 (Site A2), 611-420-003 (Site A3), located along the north side of Requa Avenue; and 611-110- 047 (Site B), 611-110-046 (Site C1), 611-110-043 (Site C2) located along the southeast corner of Requa Avenue and Rubidoux Street (hereafter “Project Site”); and W
HEREAS, the proposed Tentative Parcel Maps will subdivide the aforementioned parcels into two separate maps; and
WHEREAS, the first map, Tentative Parcel Map 38493, is comprised of two parcels. Parcel 1 is located north of Requa Avenue and is on the eastern portion of the project site. Parcel 1 is 8.90 acres. Parcel 2 is located north of Requa Avenue and is on the western portion of the project site. Parcel 2 is 5.27 acres; and WHEREAS, the second map, Tentative Parcel Map 38494, is comprised of two parcels. Parcel 1 is located on the northern portion of the proposed map and is south of Requa Avenue and east of Rubidoux Avenue. Parcel 1 is 4.49 acres. Parcel 2 is located on the southern portion of the proposed map and is south of Requa Avenue and east of Rubidoux Avenue. Parcel 2 is 6.25 acres; and
WHEREAS, approval of Tentative Parcel Maps 38493 and 38494 is considered a “project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 specifies that when an environmental impact report (“EIR”) has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that substantial changes are proposed that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects , or substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (c)(2) specifies that if the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency

Page 10 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 340 of 446 2 can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental documentation would be required; and WHEREAS, Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, subsection (a) also states that additional environmental review is not required for projects “which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified,” except as might be necessary to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects; and WHEREAS, on September 18, 2019, the City certified a General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”) in conjunction with the adoption of the General Plan 2040, which comprehensively evaluated environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of the General Plan 2040, including information related to existing site conditions, analyses of the types and magnitude of project -level and cumulative environmental impacts, and feasible mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2022, the City adopted the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan and made a Finding of Consistency (“FOC”), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2) and Section 15183, that the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan was consistent with the PEIR for the General Plan 2040 and was within programmatic scope covered by the PEIR and that there was no substantial evidence that the adoption of the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan would require additional environmental analysis; and WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with and intended to implement the vision of the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan and the General Plan 2040 pertaining to land use patterns, intensities, densities, building and site design and public right -of-way improvements; and
WHEREAS, all potentially significant effects of the Project have been analyzed adequately in the previously -certified FOC for the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan pursuant to the applicable standards, have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to the previously certified FOC , in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 , and the Project elements do not propose any new or substantially more significant effects, nor do they require any new mitigation measures of alternatives; and WHEREAS, the Project proposes no substantial changes that will require major revisions to the previous PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, nor will substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous PEIR; and WHEREAS, the applicant’s environmental consultant Recon Environmental Inc., has analyzed the Project and found the Project to be consistent with the previously certified PEIR (“Section 15183 Exemption Checklist ”), and the report detailing those

Page 11 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 341 of 446 3 findings is provided in the agenda backup materials for the January 18, 2023 City Council meeting and is incorporated by reference as if set forth in this Resolution in full; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168, the Project is within the scope of the project covered by the PEIR as the Project will substantively implement the General Plan 2040's vision, intent, policies and goals; and WHEREAS, the Subdivision Map Act also requires that, prior to any map approval, the City must find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement of any tentative map or a parcel map, is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan, and that the site is physically suitable for that t ype of development and the proposed density, and that the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems, conflict with easements, or cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat (Government Code Section 66473.5); and
WHEREAS, the Tentative Parcel Maps are consistent with the General Plan 2040 and meet the M idtown land use designation requirements and are consistent with the requirements outlined in Section 3.4.C.1 of the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Tentative Parcel Maps will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed parcel subdivision as all such improvements will be constructed to be adequate for the Project, and it will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat; and
WHEREAS, the required conditions of approval ensure the Project from being detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare and actually protect and promote the public health, safety, and welfare, and the conditions prevent material injury to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended the approval to City Council for this Resolution for the Tentative Parcel Maps 38493 and 38494 (TPM 22-06-470) for the Palmera Development Project with the motion vote 5-0 at the December 12, 2022, Planning Commission meeting.

WHE
REAS, in accordance with Gover nment Code Section 65090, on January 6, 2023, City staff published a legal notice of public hearing in the Desert Sun, the newspaper of record, and mailed notices of public hearing to all property owners within the boundaries of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the public hearing and discussion, the City Council approved this Resolution for the Tentative Parcel Maps 38493 and 38494 (TPM 22-06-470) for the Palmera Development Project with the motion vote outcome specified in the meeting minutes for the January 18, 2022, City Council meeting.

Page 12 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 342 of 446 4 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES, FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the recitals of this Resolution are true and correct, are incorporated into the following findings by reference, and constitute a material part of this Resolution.

Section 2 . E nvironmental Findi ngs. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Finding of Consistency and administrative record for the Project, including all oral and written comments received during the public hearing, the staff report, and all attac hments thereto, including the CEQA review document prepared by Recon Environmental, Inc., which are all incorporated herein by reference, and the City Council finds that:
a. The Project complies with CEQA based on the CEQA exemption/streamlining provisions contained in Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
b. The Finding of Consistency has been completed in compliance with CEQA. c. All environmental impacts of the Project have been previously addressed and mitigated under the General Plan 2040 PEIR.
d. The Project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan, and General Plan 2040 policies for which the PEIR was certified because the Project is consistent with the Mi d- Town land use designation identified for the Project Site in the General Plan 2040 and Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan.
e. There are no project -specific effects which are peculiar to the Project or Project Site and which the General Plan 2040 PEIR failed to analyze as significant effects because the Property does not contain any peculiar environmental features and would not result in peculiar effects to the surrounding area. f. There are no significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the General Plan 2040 PEIR failed to evaluate because the Section 15183 Exemption Checklist analyzed this issue and did not identify any significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts that the General Plan 2040 PEIR failed to evaluate. g. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the General Plan 2040 PEIR because the Section 15183 Exemption Checklist analyzed this issue and did not identify new information which would result in a determination of a more severe impact than what had been anticipated by the General Plan 2040 PEIR.
h. The Project will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the General Plan 2040 PEIR because the Project will undertake General Plan 2040 PEIR mitigation measures through project design, compliance with regulations and ordinances, or through the Project’s conditions of approval.

Page 13 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 343 of 446 5 Section 3 . Map Findings . Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, including the staff report and written and verbal testimony, the City Council hereby finds:

a. The Tentative Parcel Maps 38493 and 38494 (TPM 22 -06-470) are in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act.

b. The proposed maps are consistent with applicable general and specific plans in that the Project is proposing to develop horizontal apartments and townhomes that are 12 to 16.5 dwelling units per acre and is consistent with the General Plan 2040 and the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan.

c. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans in that the proposed parcel subdivision will be in conformance with the General Plan land use designation of the MT land use designation, and with the policies and specific actions in the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan and General Plan 2040.

d. The site is physically suitable for the type of development in that adequate access and infrastructure exist or will be provided. Furthermore, the site has no topographical constraints. Additionally, the Project will be conditioned to comply with the Public Works division comments requiring frontage improvements along the north side and south side of Requa Avenue and east side of Rubidoux Street. Therefore, as conditioned, it can be determined that the proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the site.

e. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the M idtown designation calls for vertical and horizontal mixed- use development with residential densities of up to 40 dwelling units per acre, and t he Project is proposing to develop horizontal apartments and townhomes that are 12 to 16.5 dwelling units per acre and are consistent with the General Plan 2040 and the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan.

f. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that the Project Site is surrounded by heavily disturbed lands and there is no presence of fish or wildlife or their habitat on this property. There are no watercourses, streams, or wetlands present on the property. The Project is therefore not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and within the City and provides no fish or significant wildlife habitat.

g. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that adequate sewer and water systems will be available to the two resultant parcels. The parcels have the necessary infrastructure to adequately serve the proposed apartments and townhome buildings and all proposed uses as allowed by the zoning

Page 14 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 344 of 446 6 ordinances that regulate the Project Site. Accordingly, compliance with the conditions of approval will prevent the Project from being detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

h. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision in that p ublic utilities for electricity, water, sewer, telecommunications, and gas service have all been assessed for availability. The access points to Project have been reviewed and approved by the Fire and Public Works Departm ents as part of the overall approval of the Project. There are no known public easements traversing the subject site that would be adversely affected by the Project.

Therefore, the parcel subdivision will not conflict with easements acquired or required by the public at large, for access through or use of the property.

Section 4. Recommendation. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby APPROVES Tentative Parcel Maps 38493 and 38494 (TPM 22-06-470), subject to the conditions of approval contained herein. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance to ALL conditions of approval, listed in the Resolution. Failure to demonstrate compliance to these conditions of approval may result in the delay of the p roposed use or the rescinding of the City of Indio’s project approval. Where the term “Applicant” is used in any condition of approval, this term shall apply also to the Property owner, any developer, or any successor in the interest of the Applicant. It is the Applicant’s or Applicant’s successor in interest responsibility to fully comply with the conditions of approval unless subsequently modified in accordance with the City’s required processes and procedures:

Prior to Final Map Approval:

Prior to the recording of the final map, the Applicant shall demonstrate full compliance with the following conditions of approval:

1. Applicant shall submit a copy of the Final Map to Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for their review and shall obtain a clearance letter from CVWD prior to recordation of the Final Map.

2. Tentative Parcel Map shall be submitted along with the following items:

a. Soils report
b. Title Report
c. Preliminary grading plan (Topo/contour on map)
d. Hydrology report

3. Applicant shall submit for City approval the following items:

Page 15 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 345 of 446 7 a. Final Parcel Map
b. Title report (updated within at least 60 days)
c. Final map closure calculations
d. Auto CAD & GIS Shape File for Final Parcel Map
e. All back-up information for map references (easement documents, maps, etc.)

4. Final Parcel map shall include:

a. Street names
b. Subdivision Improvement Agreement
c. Improvement bonds

Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit:

Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate full compliance with the following conditions of approval:

5. Applicant shall comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements per state regulations, contact information is as follows:

California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Colorado River Basin Region,
73-720 Fred Waring Drive #100
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 346-7491
www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver

*Please note: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, a copy of the NOI (Notice of Intent) and the WDI D# (Waste Discharge Identification No.), shall be filed with the City of Indio’s Engineering Division.

6. Applicant shall submit PM10 (Dust Control) implementation plans for City approval. Also to South Coast Air Quality Ma nagement District (SCAQMD) for grading plans greater than 10 acres in size. For further information contact the:

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
21865 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
(800) CUT-SMOG (288-7664)

7. Applicant shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan for City approval prior to the issuance of any grading permit.

Page 16 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 346 of 446 8 8. Applicant shall submit for City approval the following items:

a. Precise grading plans – shall include the street address for e ach lot and building foot print
b. Rough grading plans
c. Soils report
d. Hydrology Report
e. Street Improvement Plans
f. Street Light Plans

9. Retaining walls shall be required at elevational differences greater than 12 inches between lots throughout the project and in relation to adjacent boundary properties (if applicable) unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

10. Applicant shall use Riverside County Flood Control District standards and submit local on-site and regional hydrology, hydraulic storm calculations for City review and approval.

11. Applicant shall provide on-site storm water retention basin(s) or system(s) designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Each retention basin shall include a sufficient number of underground vert ical drywells, Maxwell Plus or equivalent, designed to eliminate standing water in the basin. The retention basin(s) or system(s) shall be sized to retain all post-development storm water runoff within the limits of the project based on a 100- year storm event of 24- hour duration and shall completely drain/percolate any storm event within 72 hour s. All upstream runoff from adjacent properties that has historically been directed onto the proposed project may be considered to pass through the project with the exception of historical retention that occurred on-site. The retention basin shall be designed, per Standard Plan No. 130. with a maximum depth of 5 feet (with a one foot minimum freeboard) and maximum side slopes of 3:1 and shall not be used for purposes other than for the collection of storm water, nuisance water and well blow-off water.

12. The design of the project lot pads, street improvements and storm drainage improvements shall be design coordinated with all adjacent projects or properties to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

13. All grading and pad elevations will be subject to approval of the Community Development Director and the City Engineer based on grading plans and additional information to be submitted during plan check.

Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:

Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall demonstrate full compliance with the following conditions of approval.

14. Applicant shall:

Page 17 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 347 of 446 9 a. Dispose of all concrete and asphalt removals from the proposed project to an approved recyclable site.
b. Applicant shall provide City of Indio Public Works Department with a copy of receipt showing tonnage for the disposal of recyclable concrete and asphalt. c. Dispose of all material removals from the proposed project to an approved disposal site.

15. Applicant shall submit landscape and irrigation plans for City approval.

16. Applicant shall submit for City approval the following items:

a. Street improvement plans
b. Streetlight plans
c. Signage and Striping plans

17. Applicant shall construct full off-site street improvements on the following streets:

a. Requa Avenue, north half street improvements along the property f rontage.
b. R ubidoux Street, east half street improvements along the property frontage.

18. The improvements shall include construction of asphalt concrete pavement, curb/gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, storm drain system (catch basins, storm drain pipe, etc.), along the property frontage.

19. Applicant shall remove the existing asphalt pavement along Requa Avenue (North side and South Side ), property frontage and construct a minimum of 4 inches of asphalt pavement over 6 inches of class 2 aggregate base.

20. All off -site street improvements including energizing of street lights and installation of irrigation and landscaping along:

a. Requa Avenue and Rubidoux Street shall be constructed and accepted by the City prior to issuance of a temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy.

21. Dedicate the required right -of-way along: Requa Avenue and Rubidoux Street and per City of Indio General Plan Mobility Element Requirements.

22. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit prior to starting any street improvements within public right-of-way.

23. Applicant shall submit for review and approval a Lot merger application. After approval by the City the document shall be recorded at the Riverside County Recorder’s Office.

Page 18 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 348 of 446 10 24. The proposed entrances located off of Requa Ave shall have a minimum stacking room for five vehicles with acceptable turn around.

25. T he proposed access from Monroe Street shall be for emergency vehicles only.

26. The proposed access from Requa Avenue most eastern to the property shall be for emergency vehicles only.

27. The proposed access from Rubidoux Street most northern to the property shall be for emergency vehicles only.

28. The minimum grade on all proposed streets shall be 0.50%.

29. The corner cutback at the intersection of Requa Avenue and Monroe Street, and Rubidoux Street and Requa Avenue shall be per City of Indio Standard Plan No. 143

30. The minimum curb return radius for public streets shall be:

a. R = 35 feet and for
b. Private streets R=20 feet

31. Applicant shall remove and replace any damaged or broken asphalt concrete pavement, concrete curb/gutter and sidewalk on Requa Avenue, Rubidoux Street, and Monroe Street along the projects property frontage

32. The proposed project shall comply with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

33. Street addresses shall be shown on Precise Grading Plans.

34. All improvements shall comply with City standards, requirements and policies. Applicant is required to construct all transition and missing links between existing and proposed improvements.

35. All overhead utilities less than 92kv, located on Rubidoux Street fronting the project shall be underground.

36. Applicant shall remove all existing driveways fronting the project along Rubidoux Street.

37. Applicant shall remove and replace the existing handicap ramps at the intersections of Monroe Street and Requa Avenue and Rubidoux Street and Requa Avenue to comply with American with Disabilities Act Standards.

Page 19 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 349 of 446 11 38. Applicant shall construct driveways per City of Indio Standard Plan No 130 with a radius of 20 feet.

39. Applicant shall install/construct all measured mitigations listed on the approved Traffic Study by the City of Indio.

40. No parking will be allowed on Requa Avenue along the property frontage.

41. Applicant shall coordinate with Sunline Transit Agency to determine the need of a bus turnout on Requa Avenue. All measured mitigations listed on the approved traffic study by the City of Indio will need to be installed/constructed.

42. Existing asphalt pavement along the east side of Rubidoux Street shall be cold mill to the minimum depth of two (2) inches and new pavement shall be placed from center line to curb/gutter along the frontage of the project.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of January 2023, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

OSCAR ORTIZ

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF INDIO

ATTEST:

SABDI SANCHEZ

CITY CLERK

Page 20 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 350 of 446 \A1;15'MONROE STREET

REQUA AVENUE
SHEET NO.
5 SCALE:

SG
ED
SG
NO. DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

DATE BY
Avoid cutting underground
utility lines. It's costly.
1-800-422-4133
OR
SHT.

APRD

STA TE OF CA FORN
A
NO. 65194
C
R
E
E
N
G
N
E

ANOSSEFORP
DER
E
T
S
G
E
R
S
C
O
T T P. G
BE
R
T

ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300

PLANS PREPARED
SCOTT P. GILBERT
R.C.E. #65194
DATE
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:

Drawing Name: Z:\\10.106_Palmera - Indio\\Drawings\\Tract Maps\\A1A2 Entitlement Package\\SHT 01-TITLE-A1A2.dwgPlotted: Sep 23, 2022 - 11:50am by: e_devoe 1 CITY OF INDIO
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 38493

PALMERA SITE ENTITLEMENT
{\W0.9734;TITLE SHEET}

SITE MAP
- SHEET MATCHLINE
FS
- FINISHED GRADE
- FINISHED SURFACE
EP
TW

EG - EXISTING GROUND
TF
TR
5 10.5
EG
(10.5)

EX - EXISTING

1.28%
2%%%

MONROE STREET

EXISTING DIMENSIONS

SECONDARY
\A1;86'\A1;64'
2%%%
\A1;12' \A1;10'
\A1;32' \A1;32'
\A1;6'
6'
SDWK
\A1;27' \A1;5' \A1;6' \A1;21'
5'
BIKE
6'
SDWK

REQUA AVENUE

EXISTING DIMENSIONS

COLLECTOR
\A1;66'
\A1;10' \A1;23' \A1;23' \A1;10'
6'
SDWK
\A1;6' \A1;6' \A1;6'
2%%% 2%%%
5'
SDWK
5'
SDWK
\A1;64'
19'
PARKING \A1;26' 19'
PARKI
SITE
1%%% 2%%%2%%%
2%%% 1%%%
\A1;88'\A1;19' \A1;46'
\A1;23'
5'
SDWK
5'
SDWK
\A1;20' \A1;20'
SITE A1,
\A1;6'

TITLE SHEET
484 S SAN VICENTE BLVD

VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT
(760) 238-5400
%%USEWER:
(760) 391-4140
(760) 339-9232
(909) 335-7507
(760) 864-1726
(760) 346-3714(760) 398-2651
11,950 CY <FILL>
2,285 CY <FILL>
2,620 CY <FILL>
14,725 CY <CUT>
14,725 CY <CUT> 18,325 CY <FILL>
3,600 CY <FILL>
NTS

STD - STANDARD

Page 21 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I...Page 351 of 446 SUN GOLD PARK UNIT NO. 6 MB 25/74-75
LOT 2
TRACT NO. 28360
BK 257/99-100
284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 31 32 33

DEGLET GROVE
ADDITION NO. 1
MB 20/13-14

RUBIDOUX DRIVE
14 13

BRANDONS PALM

HEIGHTS
MB 19/74
PARCEL 2
REC. 10/05/2017
INST. NO. 2017-0413756 O.R.

POR. PARCEL 1
REC. 10/05/2017
INST. NO. 2017-0413756 O.R. APN: 611-084-004APN: 611-084-003APN: 611-084-002APN: 611-084-001 APN: 611-093-001 \A1;15'

REQUA AVE

MONROE AVENUE

EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOTS EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOTS EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOTS

RUBIDOUX AVENUE
\A1;66'\A1;33'\A1;33'
\A1;42'\A1;42'
\A1;84'
\A1;66'\A1;33'\A1;33'

REMAINDER PARCEL
M.B. 136/45-46
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 38494
SUN GOLD PARK UNIT NO. 6 MB 25/74-75
LOT 2
TRACT NO. 28360
BK 257/99-100
284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 31 32 33

DEGLET GROVE
ADDITION NO. 1
MB 20/13-14

RUBIDOUX DRIVE
14 13

BRANDONS PALM

HEIGHTS
MB 19/74
PARCEL 2
REC. 10/05/2017
INST. NO. 2017-0413756 O.R.

POR. PARCEL 1
REC. 10/05/2017
INST. NO. 2017-0413756 O.R. APN: 611-084-004APN: 611-084-003APN: 611-084-002APN: 611-084-001 APN: 611-093-001 PA
PA
SHEET NO.
5 SCALE:

SG
ED
SG
NO. DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

DATE BY
Avoid cutting underground
utility lines. It's costly.
1-800-422-4133
OR
SHT.

APRD

STA TE OF CA FORN
A
NO. 65194
C
R
E
E
N
G
N
E

ANOSSEFORP
DER
E
T
S
G
E
R
S
C
O
T T P. G
BE
R
T

ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300

PLANS PREPARED
SCOTT P. GILBERT
R.C.E. #65194
DATE
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:

Drawing Name: Z:\\10.106_Palmera - Indio\\Drawings\\Tract Maps\\A1A2 Entitlement Package\\SHT 02-TPM-A1A2.dwgPlotted: Sep 23, 2022 - 11:51am by: e_devoe 0 1" = 60'
30 60 120 180
2 EXISTING ZONING:

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP # 38493

Page 22 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I...Page 352 of 446 MATCHLINESEE SHEET 4
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS200 South Main Street, Suite 300 Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300 SECTION 'A-A'SECTION 'B-B'UTILITY LAYOUT (TYP.)

Page 23 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I...Page 353 of 446 K-4972-RSTANWELL
C_URINALSVITREOUS CHINA
K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA
K-4972-RSTANWELL
C_URINALSVITREOUS CHINA
K-4972-RSTANWELL
C_URINALSVITREOUS CHINA
K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA
K-4972-RSTANWELL
C_URINALSVITREOUS CHINA
MATCHLINESEE SHEET 3
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS200 South Main Street, Suite 300 Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300 SECTION 'A-A'SECTION 'B-B'UTILITY LAYOUT (TYP.)

Page 24 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I...Page 354 of 446 SUN GOLD PARK UNIT NO. 6 MB 25/74-75
LOT 2
TRACT NO. 28360
BK 257/99-100
284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 31 32 33

DEGLET GROVE
ADDITION NO. 1
MB 20/13-14

RUBIDOUX DRIVE
14 13

BRANDONS PALM

HEIGHTS
MB 19/74
PARCEL 2
REC. 10/05/2017
INST. NO. 2017-0413756 O.R.

POR. PARCEL 1
REC. 10/05/2017
INST. NO. 2017-0413756 O.R. APN: 611-084-004APN: 611-084-003APN: 611-084-002APN: 611-084-001 APN: 611-093-001 DC
DC
DC
DC

REQUA AVE

MONROE AVENUE

RUBIDOUX AVENUE

REQUA AVE
\A1;15'
\A1;20'\A1;20'
\A1;26' \A1;150'\A1;145'
\A1;42'\A1;42'
\A1;84'
\A1;66'\A1;33'\A1;33'
\A1;66'\A1;33'\A1;33'
\A1;33'\A1;33'
\A1;66'
\A1;26'
DC
DC
DC
DC
SUN GOLD PARK UNIT NO. 6 MB 25/74-75
LOT 2
TRACT NO. 28360
BK 257/99-100
284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 31 32 33

DEGLET GROVE
ADDITION NO. 1
MB 20/13-14

RUBIDOUX DRIVE
14 13

BRANDONS PALM

HEIGHTS
MB 19/74
PARCEL 2
REC. 10/05/2017
INST. NO. 2017-0413756 O.R.

POR. PARCEL 1
REC. 10/05/2017
INST. NO. 2017-0413756 O.R. APN: 611-084-004APN: 611-084-003APN: 611-084-002APN: 611-084-001 APN: 611-093-001 \A1;20'
\A1;20'
SHEET NO.
5 SCALE:

SG
ED
SG
NO. DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

DATE BY
Avoid cutting underground
utility lines. It's costly.
1-800-422-4133
OR
SHT.

APRD

STA TE OF CA FORN
A
NO. 65194
C
R
E
E
N
G
N
E

ANOSSEFORP
DER
E
T
S
G
E
R
S
C
O
T T P. G
BE
R
T

ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300

PLANS PREPARED
SCOTT P. GILBERT
R.C.E. #65194
DATE
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:

Drawing Name: Z:\\10.106_Palmera - Indio\\Drawings\\Tract Maps\\A1A2 Entitlement Package\\SHT 05-FMP-A1A2.dwgPlotted: Sep 23, 2022 - 11:52am by: e_devoe 0 1" = 60'
30 60 120 180
5 FIRE ACCESS ROAD TURNAROUND DIMENSIONS
\A1;26'
\A1;26'
\A1;80'
\A1;20'\A1;12'
\A1;40'
\A1;40'\A1;20'\A1;20'

“ ”

∂
∂
∂

Page 25 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I...Page 355 of 446 PARCEL 2
PM 27775
PMB 186/60-61

REQUA AVENUERUBIDOUX AVENUE
1 {\W0.9734;TITLE SHEET}
- SHEET MATCHLINE
FS
- FINISHED GRADE
- FINISHED SURFACE
EP
TW

EG - EXISTING GROUND
TF
TR
5 10.5
EG
(10.5)

EX - EXISTING

1.28%

REQUA AVENUE

EXISTING DIMENSIONS

SITE B &
\A1;6'

TITLE SHEET

RUBIDOUX STREET
EXISTING DIMENSIONS-1 CURB SECTION

COLLECTOR

RUBIDOUX STREET
EXISTING DIMENSIONS-2 CURB SECTION

COLLECTOR
\A1;66'\A1;12'\A1;21' \A1;23'\A1;10'
\A1;6'
\A1;16' \A1;5' \A1;13' \A1;3'
2%%%
\A1;66' \A1;10'\A1;23'\A1;23'\A1;10'
\A1;6'
\A1;16' \A1;5' \A1;18'
2%%%
\A1;6'
2%%%
SHEET NO.
5 SCALE:

SG
ED
SG
NO. DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

DATE BY
Avoid cutting underground
utility lines. It's costly.
1-800-422-4133
OR
SHT.

APRD

STA TE OF CA FORN
A
NO. 65194
C
R
E
E
N
G
N
E

ANOSSEFORP
DER
E
T
S
G
E
R
S
C
O
T T P. G
BE
R
T

ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300

PLANS PREPARED
SCOTT P. GILBERT
R.C.E. #65194
DATE
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:

Drawing Name: Z:\\10.106_Palmera - Indio\\Drawings\\Tract Maps\\BC Entitlement Package\\SHT 01-TITLE-B&C.dwgPlotted: Sep 23, 2022 - 11:46am by: e_devoe 484 S SAN VICENTE BLVD

VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT
(760) 238-5400
%%USEWER:
(760) 391-4140
(760) 339-9232
(909) 335-7507
(760) 864-1726
(760) 346-3714(760) 398-2651
4885 CY <FILL>
885 CY <FILL>
2,325 CY <FILL>
8,840 CY <CUT>
8,840 CY <CUT> 18,035 CY <FILL>
9,195 CY <FILL>
8,200 CY <FILL>

CITY OF INDIO
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 38494

PALMERA SITE ENTITLEMENT
NTS

STD - STANDARD

Page 26 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I...Page 356 of 446 PARCEL 2
PM 16735
PMB 83/77
PARCEL 3
PARCEL MAP NO. 21541
BK 136/45-46
PARCEL 2
PARCEL MAP NO. 21541
BK 136/45-46
PARCEL 1
PARCEL MAP NO. 21541
BK 136/45-46
PARCEL 2
PM 27775
PMB 186/60-61
PARCEL 1
PM 17710
PMB 93/42-43
APN: 611-110-006

RUBIDOUX AVENUE
\A1;66'\A1;33'\A1;33'
M.B. 257/99-100
LOT 2
M.B. 257/99-100
LOT 1
PARCEL 6
PARCEL 5
PARCEL 4
M
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
\A1;30'
\A1;30'
\A1;30'

REMAINDER PARCEL
M.B. 136/45-46
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP # 38493
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 2

REQUA AVENUE
PARCEL 2
PM 16735
PMB 83/77
PARCEL 3
PARCEL MAP NO. 21541
BK 136/45-46
PARCEL 2
PARCEL MAP NO. 21541
BK 136/45-46
PARCEL 1
PARCEL MAP NO. 21541
BK 136/45-46
PARCEL 2
PM 27775
PMB 186/60-61
PARCEL 1
PM 17710
PMB 93/42-43
APN: 611-110-006
\A1;30'
\A1;30'
\A1;30'
=
6 6
1 8
'
4 6
0 0
"
=
1 6
0 0 '
=
19 3
2 8
'
PA
PA
\A1;33'\A1;33'
\A1;66'
0 1" = 60'
30 60 120 180
2 EXISTING ZONING:

ASSESSOR PARCEL #S:

SHEET NO.
5 SCALE:

SG
ED
SG
NO. DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

DATE BY
Avoid cutting underground
utility lines. It's costly.
1-800-422-4133
OR
SHT.

APRD

STA TE OF CA FORN
A
NO. 65194
C
R
E
E
N
G
N
E

ANOSSEFORP
DER
E
T
S
G
E
R
S
C
O
T T P. G
BE
R
T

ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300

PLANS PREPARED
SCOTT P. GILBERT
R.C.E. #65194
DATE
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:

Drawing Name: Z:\\10.106_Palmera - Indio\\Drawings\\Tract Maps\\BC Entitlement Package\\SHT 02-TPM-B&C.dwgPlotted: Sep 23, 2022 - 11:47am by: e_devoe TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP # 38494

Page 27 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I...Page 357 of 446 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 3

SECTION 'A-A'SECTION 'B-B'
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS200 South Main Street, Suite 300 Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300 SECTION 'C-C'UTILITY LAYOUT (TYP.)

Page 28 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I...Page 358 of 446 FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
DC
DC
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
RH
LHLH
48 56
64 72
48 48
40 16
24 32
8 CONC

1.2 1.4

0.9 0.9

0.6 0.1

0.8 0.5
-1.7
-0.5

0.5 1.5

1.5 0.9
-0.2

0.6 1.5

1.6 1.5

1.5 2.1

1.7 1.5

1.4 1.4

1.6 1.5

1.6 0.3
-0.3

0.5 1.5

1.6 2.2

1.5 1.3

0.7 1.6

0.5 0.4

0.2 1.6

0.4 2.1

0.9 2.3

1.4 -0.1

1.9 1.2

2.6 0.6

1.8 0.9

2.3 1.7

0.7 2.5

1.5 2.4

0.4 0.5

0.5 2.6

3.1 1.4

2.6 1.7

1.7 1.5

0.6 1.4

1.8 1.5

2.2 1.6

1.5 1.1

0.9 1.2

1.6 1.6

2.3 1.8

1.4 2.3

1.6 1.6

1.6 0.8
-0.3
-0.1

0.2 0.5

0.9 2.42.1

1.3 1.5

1.3 0.8

0.8 1.2

0.7 1.6

1.8 1.5

3.9 0.2

2.1 2.4

1.6 0.9

1.61.7 1.3

1.7 3.6

2.2 0.8

0.1 0.9

1.3 1.5

1.4 1.81.51.2
CONC
CONC
ASPH
ASPH
ASPH
ASPH
DEBRIS
WALL
WALL
0 0
0 \A1;26'
\A1;24'\A1;24'\A1;24'\A1;19'
\A1;26'
\A1;26'
\A1;19'
\A1;24'
\A1;19'
\A1;26'
\A1;20'\A1;6'\A1;20'
\A1;46'
\A1;26'
\A1;19'
\A1;24'
\A1;26'
\A1;26'
\A1;13'\A1;13'
\A1;19'
\A1;26'
\A1;66'\A1;12'\A1;21' \A1;23'\A1;10'
\A1;65'
\A1;35'RUBIDOUX ST
1 1
1 2
2 3
3 3
34 4
4 5
5 5
5 6
6 8
8 8
9 9
9 9
10 10
1010
12 12
12 1212
12 10
10 11
11 11
11 11
11 12
14 14
14 141414
14 14
14 14
14 13
13 13
13 11
= 25
'
=
2 5
'
= 2
0 '
=
2 0
'
= 2 5
'
\A1;51'
\A1;15'
\A1;15'\A1;21'\A1;21'
\A1;21'\A1;15'
\A1;15'
19 19
19 19
=
2 0
' =2
0 '
= 2
0 '
=
2 0 '
=
2 0 '
=
2 0 '
= 2 0
'
(0.8)
EG
(0.8)
EG
EG
(0.9)
EG
(0.8)
(0.4)
(0.2)
(0.5)
EG
(0.0)
EG
(0.7)
EG
(0.7)
EG
(0.5)
EG
(0.2)
EG
(0.9)
FF=2.87 FF=2.77 FF=2.97 FF=2.97
FF=2.77 FF=2.37 FF=2.77 FF=2.77
FF=2.67FF=2.67
FF=2.97
FF=2.87
FF=2.57 FF=2.57
FF=2.67
FF=3.37 FF=2.97 FF=2.47
FF=2.67

2.2 FS-0" FS-0"
HP

2.3 FS-0"

2.3 FS-0"FS-0"

2.0 FS-0"FS-0"
FS-0"FS-0"
FS

2.0 FS
HP

2.3 FS-0"
FS-0"
2%%% 2%%%
2%%% 2%%%
2%%%
2%%%

0.2FL
1%%%
1%%%
FS-0"
FL
FL
FS
FL
FS-0"
FL

0.5%

0.7%

0.6%
(0.2%)
(0.3%)
(0.4%)
(0.3%)
FS
FS

2.2 FS

2.5 FS

2.0 2.0
(0.8)

2.5 FS-0"
1 1
30'
PR P.U.E.
30'
PR P.U.E.
8" SEWER LINE (PRIVATE)
6" CURB
0" CURB
1 2
3 4
5 6
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 19
13 1515
15 15
15 15
SHEET NO.
5 SCALE:

SG
ED
SG
NO. DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

DATE BY
Avoid cutting underground
utility lines. It's costly.
1-800-422-4133
OR
SHT.

APRD

STA TE OF CA FORN
A
NO. 65194
C
R
E
E
N
G
N
E

ANOSSEFORP
DER
E
T
S
G
E
R
S
C
O
T T P. G
BE
R
T

ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300

PLANS PREPARED
SCOTT P. GILBERT
R.C.E. #65194
DATE
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:

Drawing Name: Z:\\10.106_Palmera - Indio\\Drawings\\Tract Maps\\BC Entitlement Package\\SHT 04-PLG-B&C.dwgPlotted: Sep 23, 2022 - 11:48am by: e_devoe

SECTION 'A-A'
N.T.S.

SECTION 'B-B'
N.T.S.

EX APN
EG
0 1" = 30'
15 30 60 90
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2
4 SITE BSITE C

SECTION 'C-C'
N.T.S.
16 16
16
\A1;6' \A1;6'\A1;2'
\A1;13' \A1;13'
N'LY
E'LY
S'LY
UTILITY LAYOUT (TYP.)
N.T.S.

Page 29 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I...Page 359 of 446 PARCEL 3
PARCEL MAP NO. 21541
BK 136/45-46
PARCEL 2
PARCEL MAP NO. 21541
BK 136/45-46
PARCEL 1
PARCEL MAP NO. 21541
BK 136/45-46

RUBIDOUX AVENUE

REQUA AVE
\A1;24'
\A1;167'
\A1;66'\A1;33'\A1;33'
\A1;66'\A1;33'\A1;33'
\A1;33'\A1;33'
\A1;66'
PARCEL 3
PARCEL MAP NO. 21541
BK 136/45-46
PARCEL 2
PARCEL MAP NO. 21541
BK 136/45-46
PARCEL 1
PARCEL MAP NO. 21541
BK 136/45-46
PARCEL 3
PARCEL MAP NO. 21541
BK 136/45-46
PARCEL 2
PARCEL MAP NO. 21541
BK 136/45-46
PARCEL 1
PARCEL MAP NO. 21541
BK 136/45-46
0 1" = 60'
30 60 120 180
5 FIRE ACCESS ROAD TURNAROUND DIMENSIONS
SHEET NO.
5 SCALE:

SG
ED
SG
NO. DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

DATE BY
Avoid cutting underground
utility lines. It's costly.
1-800-422-4133
OR
SHT.

APRD

STA TE OF CA FORN
A
NO. 65194
C
R
E
E
N
G
N
E

ANOSSEFORP
DER
E
T
S
G
E
R
S
C
O
T T P. G
BE
R
T

ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
200 South Main Street, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92882 (951) 280-3300

PLANS PREPARED
SCOTT P. GILBERT
R.C.E. #65194
DATE
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:

Drawing Name: Z:\\10.106_Palmera - Indio\\Drawings\\Tract Maps\\BC Entitlement Package\\SHT 05-FMP-B&C.dwgPlotted: Sep 23, 2022 - 11:49am by: e_devoe \A1;80'
\A1;20'\A1;12'
\A1;40'
\A1;40'\A1;20'\A1;20'
\A1;24'
\A1;30'
\A1;24'
\A1;24'
\A1;24'\A1;24'\A1;20'\A1;20'
\A1;26'
\A1;26'
\A1;146.3'
\A1;26'
\A1;26'
\A1;20'\A1;20'

“ ”

∂
∂
∂

Page 30 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I...Page 360 of 446

CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
for the Palmera Development Project
Indio, California

Prepared for
Indio South Business, LLC
484 S. San Vicente Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90048

Prepared by
RECON Environmental, Inc.
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92108
P 619.308.9333

RECON Number 10098
June 13, 2022

Page 31 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 361 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of Reasons for Exemption from Additional Environmental Review and 15183 Checklist (Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15183) ................................................................................ . 1 Overview of 15183 Checklist ........................................................................................................................... 5 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report ........................................................... 7 Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 7 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist ................................................................................... 10 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 10

1. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 10

2. Agriculture/Forestry Resources ................................................................................................... 14

3. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................... 16

4. Biological Resources ....................................................................................................................... 22

5. Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................. 27

6. Energy Use ......................................................................................................................................... 31

7. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................ 34

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................... 37

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................. 46

10. Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 50

11. Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................................. 53

12. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................ 54

13. Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 56

14. Population and Housing ................................................................................................................ 68

15. Public Services and Recreation .................................................................................................... 69

16. Transportation and Traffic ............................................................................................................. 73

17. Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................................ 76

18. Wildfire ................................................................................................................................................ 78

Page 32 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 362 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

FIGURES
1: Regional Location ............................................................................................................................................. 2 2: Project Location on USGS Map .................................................................................................................... 3 3: Project Location on Aerial Photograph ..................................................................................................... 4 4: Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 5: Existing Biological Resources and Land Cover Types ........................................................................ 24 6: Noise Measurement Locations .................................................................................................................. 58 7: Construction Noise Contours ..................................................................................................................... 59 8: Vehicle Traffic Contours ................................................................................................................................ 61 9: HVAC Noise Contours .................................................................................................................................. 65 TABLE
1: Maximum Daily Construction Emissions .................................................................................................. 18 2: Summary of Project Operational Emissions ........................................................................................... 18 3: Localized Constr uction Emissions .............................................................................................................. 18 4: Localized Operations Emissions ............................................................................................. .................... 19 5: Impacts to Land Cover Types ................................................................................................ ..................... 25 6: CAP Development Review Checklist ........................................................................................... ............. 38 7: Project GH G Emissions .................................................................................................................................. 41 8: Project Consistency with Connect SoCal Strategies ........................................................................... 43 9: Construction Noise Levels at Off-site Receivers ................................................................................... 57 10: On-Site Vehicle Tr affic Noise Levels ........................................................................................................ 62 11: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ..................................................................................... 64 12: HVAC Noise Levels at Adjacent Property Lines ................................................................................... 66

APPENDICES
A: List of Project-Specific Technical Studies
B: A Summary of Determinations and Mitigation within the GPU PEIR

Page 33 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 363 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 1 ends

Statement of Reasons for Exemption from Additional Environmental Review and 15183 Checklist (Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15183) Project Name: Palmera Development Project
APN(s): 611-110-039, 611-110-043, 611 -110-046, 611 -110-047, 611-420-001, 611 -420-003, 611- 084-005
Lead Agency Name and Address:

Community Development
100 Civic Center Mall
Indio, CA. 92201
City Staff Contact:

Kevin H. Snyder, AICP
[email protected]
(760) 541-4255
Project Location:

The Palmera Development Project ( project) is located within the city of Indio of the county of Riverside, California, situated south of Interstate 10 and north of State Route 111 (Figure 1). The project area is located within Township 5 South, Range 7 East on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

7.5-minute topographical map Indio quadrangle (Figure 2). The project site consists of approximately

24.9 acres of vacant land located northwest, northeast, and southeast of the intersection of Requa Avenue and Rubidoux Street (Figure 3). The project site consists of six legal lots with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 611-110-039 (Site A1), 611-420-001 (Site A2), and 611-110-003 (Site A3) located along the north side of Requa Avenue, and APNs 611-110-047 (Site B), 611-110-046, and 611-110-043 (Site C) located southeast of the intersection of Requa Avenue and Rubidoux Street. The approximately

24.9-acre project site is currently undeveloped.

Project Applicant Name and Address:

Mitch McCarthy
Indio Southern Business, LLC
484 S. San Vicente Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90048
General Plan Designation: Mid-Town (MT)
Zoning Designation: Midtown (MT)

Page 34 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 364 of 446 FIGURE 1
Regional Location
kj
Mecca Hill s
Wilderness
Coachella
Valley Nati onal
Wildlife Ref uge
Pinto Mountains
Wilderness
Salton Sea
San Bernardino
National Forest
Joshua Tree
National
Park Linkage
Joshua Tree
National Park
W
hi t e
w
a
t e
r
R
iv
e
r
C
o
a
c
he l l a
C
an
a
l
C o l o r a d o R i v e r
A q u e d u c t
Augustine
Tribal Lands
Torres-Martinez
Tribal Lands
Cabazon
Tribal
Lands
Santa Rosa
Tribal Lands
Agua Caliente
Tribal Lands
Bermuda
Dunes
Desert Edge
Desert
Palms
Garnet
Indio Hills
Mecca
Oasis
Sky Valley
Thermal
Thousand
Palms
Vista
Santa
Rosa
UV195
UV111
UV86
UV74
§¨¦10

R I V E R S I D E

C O U N T Y
Cathedral
City
Palm Desert
Coachella
Indian Wells
La Quinta
Rancho Mirage
Desert Hot
Springs
Palm
Springs
Indio
kj
Mecca Hill s
Wilderness
Coachella
Valley Nati onal
Wildlife Ref uge
Pinto Mountains
Wilderness
Salton Sea
San Bernardino
National Forest
Joshua Tree
National
Park Linkage
Joshua Tree
National Park
W
hi t e
w
a
t e
r
R
iv
e
r
C
o
a
c
he l l a
C
an
a
l
C o l o r a d o R i v e r
A q u e d u c t
Augustine
Tribal Lands
Torres-Martinez
Tribal Lands
Cabazon
Tribal
Lands
Santa Rosa
Tribal Lands
Agua Caliente
Tribal Lands
Bermuda
Dunes
Desert Edge
Desert
Palms
Garnet
Indio Hills
Mecca
Oasis
Sky Valley
Thermal
Thousand
Palms
Vista
Santa
Rosa
UV195
UV111
UV86
UV74
§¨¦10

R I V E R S I D E

C O U N T Y
Cathedral
City
Palm Desert
Coachella
Indian Wells
La Quinta
Rancho Mirage
Desert Hot
Springs
Palm
Springs
Indio
0 5 Miles [
M:\JOBS6\10098\common_gis\MXD\fig1.mxd 04/21/2022 bma

IMPERIAL
LOS

ANGELES

ORANGE RIVERSIDE
SAN

BERNARDINO

SAN DIEGO
MEXICO
Project Locationkj

Page 35 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 365 of 446 FIGURE 2
Project Location on USGS Map
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, Indio quadrangle, 1972, T05S R07E 0 2,000 Feet [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS6\10098\common_gis\MXD\fig2_USGS.mxd 04/21/2022 bma

Page 36 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 366 of 446 FIGURE 3
Project Location on Aerial Photograph
Sierra
Shadow Palm
Ara
bia
46 Rubidoux
Miles
Paseo Real
Lancer
Gate
Entrada
Viola
Rubidoux
Magnolia
Rose
Sereno
San Gorgonio
Del Mar
Lassen
Mari
go
ld
46th
Lancer
Lar
ksp
ur
Arabi
a
Las Palmas
Plaza
Sun
Go
ld
Rubidoux
Pal
m
Santa Rosa
San Jacinto
Bliss
Requa
Miles
Merlin
Monro
e
UV111
UV111
Sierra
Shadow Palm
Ara
bia
46 Rubidoux
Miles
Paseo Real
Lancer
Gate
Entrada
Viola
Rubidoux
Magnolia
Rose
Sereno
San Gorgonio
Del Mar
Lassen
Mari
go
ld
46th
Lancer
Lar
ksp
ur
Arabi
a
Las Palmas
Plaza
Sun
Go
ld
Rubidoux
Pal
m
Santa Rosa
San Jacinto
Bliss
Requa
Miles
Merlin
Monro
e
UV111
UV111
Image Source: NearMap (flown July 2021)
0 500 Feet [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS6\10098\common_gis\MXD\fig3_aerial.mxd 05/02/2022 bma

Page 37 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 367 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 5 ends

Description of Project:

The project would develop 346 multi-family for-rent and for-sale residential units in one-story and two-story buildings. The one -story buildings would be built around a sequence of courtyards that would be connected to Requa Avenue with pedestrian pathways, and the two -story townhomes would be built in a sequence of greenbelts that link to Rubidoux Street and alleys. The project would develop one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three- bedroom units ranging in size from 685 square feet to 1,440 square feet. The project would include passive and active amenities throughout the property including several club houses, s wimming pools, sports courts, open space, parkettes, dog parks, and various site- specific amenities. The project would include 649 parking spaces and additional parking is proposed on-street along Requa Avenue. The project would also process a lot line adjustment to incorporate Site A3 into the northwest corner of the project site. Figure 4 shows the proposed site plan.

Discretionary Actions:

Tentative Parcel Map
Lot Line Adjustment
Lot Merger
Overview of 15183 Checklist
California Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183 provide an exemption from additional environmental review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that examination of environmental effects shall be limited to those effects that: (1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, and were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent ; (2) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or (3) are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. Section 15183(c) of the CEQA Guidelines further specifies that if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the proposed project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mit igated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for that project solely on the basis of that impact.

Page 38 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 368 of 446 M:\JOBS6\10098\env\graphics\ﬁg4_15183exempt.afdesign 06/09/22 bma Map Source: Bassenian Lagoni Architects
FIGURE 4
Site Plan
20'
7' 5' 7' 6'
20' 7' 5'
11'
40' 17'
10'
10'
10'
26'
10'
10'
10'
9'
20' 6' 20'
7' 5' 10' 7' 5' 10'
10'
10'
10'
10'
10'
10'
40' 10'
15'
20' 20'
26'
12'
15'
13'
4' 13'
15'
15'
15' 15'
20' 26'
26'
26'
26'
24'
26'
12'
12' 26'
10'
18'
N o r t h
Original Scale :
1"= 60'
Sites A1, A2, A3: Horizontal Apartments
Total Homes : 188
Site Area : ± 14.2 Acres
Density : ± 13.2 Home per Acre
Unit Mix:

Plan 1 (1BR/685 SF) : 58 (30.9%)
Plan 2 (2BR/950 SF) : 87 (46.3%)
Plan 2A (2BR/1,200 SF) : 14 (7.4%)
Plan 3 (3BR/1,245 SF) : 29 (15.4%)
Total : 188
Parking Required:

1.5 Spaces / 1BR x 58 : 87

2.0 Spaces / 2BR x 101 : 202

2.0 Spaces / 3BR x 29 : 58

0.2 Guest / Unit x 188 : 37.6
Total Required : 384.6 = 385 (2.05:1)
Parking Provided:

Garage Spaces : 70
Carport Spaces : 138
Uncovered Spaces : 125
Total Provided : 333 (1.77:1)
*N ote: Additional 45 parallel parking spaces available along north side of Requa Avenue for a grand total of 378 spaces (2.01:1) Resident Only
Entry/Exit
Site B: Horizontal Apartments
Total Homes : 53
Site Area : ± 4.42 Acres
Density : ± 12.0 Home per Acre
Unit Mix:

Plan 1 (1BR/685 SF) : 10 (18.9%)
Plan 2 (2BR/950 SF) : 30 (56.6%)
Plan 2A (2BR/1,200 SF) : 3 (5.7%)
Plan 3 (3BR/1,245 SF) : 10 (18.9%)
Total : 53
Parking Required:

1.5 Spaces / 1BR x 10 : 15

2.0 Spaces / 2BR x 33 : 66

2.0 Spaces / 3BR x 10 : 20

0.2 Guest / Unit x 53 : 10.6
Total Required : 111.6 = 112 (2.1:1)
Parking Provided:

Garage Spaces : 15
Carport Spaces : 38
Uncovered Spaces : 40
Total Provided : 93 (1.75:1)
*Note: Additional 17 parallel parking spaces available along south side of Requa Avenue for a grand total of 110 spaces (2.08:1) Site C: 2-Story Row Townhomes
Total Homes : 105
Site Area : ± 6.35 Acres
Density : ± 16.5 Home per Acre
Unit Mix:

Plan 1 (1BR/910 SF) : 35 (33.3%)
Plan 2 (2BR/1,155 SF) : 35 (33.3%)
Plan 3 (3BR/1,440 SF) : 35 (33.3%)
Total : 105
Parking Required:

1.5 Spaces / 1BR x 35 : 52.5

2.0 Spaces / 2BR x 35 : 70

2.0 Spaces / 3BR x 35 : 70

0.2 Guest / Unit x 105 : 21
Total Required : 213.5 = 214 (2.04:1)
Parking Provided:

Garage Spaces : 175
Uncovered Spaces : 48
Total Provided : 223 (2.12:1)
Primary Gated Entry
Dog Park
Recreation Area w/
Pool + Spa
Pocket Park
2-Story 6-Plex, typical
2-Story 3-Plex, typical
Primary Gated Entry
Adults O nly
Amenity Area
Resident Only
Right-in/Right-out
Primary Gated Entry
Primary Recreation Area
w/ Pool + Spa
Site A2 Site A1
Site B
Site C
Proposed E.V.A.

Leasing O fﬁce /
Recreation Building
Existing utility easement
Proposed realignment
of utility easement
Future Pedestrian
Connection
Pedestrian Access Point, typical
Dog Park / Pickle Ball
Pocket Park
Previous Boundary
Pedestrian Access
Resident-only
Entry/Exit
Proposed Right-out Only
Site A3

Page 39 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 369 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 7 ends

General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report The City of Indio (City) General Plan Update ( GPU) included a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan, which was adopted in 1993, and the development of a Climate Action Plan (CAP). The General Plan is a state-mandated document that outlines goals, policies, and programs that provide the framework for future development in the City and its Sphere of Influence (SOI). The 1993 General Plan had a horizon year of 2020. The General Plan update has a horizon year of 2040. The analysis contained in the GPU Program EIR (PEIR) focuses on both the GPU and the CAP, addressed together as the GPU. The GPU addresses land use, all modes of transportation, housing, safety, includes a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan, which was adopted in 1993, and the development of a CAP. The City’s General P lan was reorganized into ten elements (Land Use and Urban Design, Mobility, Economic Development, Housing, Health and Equity, Parks and Recreation, Conservation, Infrastructure and Public Facilities, Safety, and Noise). The City adopted a new Housing Eleme nt on January 15, 2014. New policies in the GPU were proposed that emphasize mobility, healthy communities, and sustainability. The GPU includes 13 land use place types/designations, which are organized into three broad place type categories: neighborhoods, centers, and districts. Each place type may contain a mix of land use uses (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses, at a variety of scales and intensities) and each place type provides direction on use, intensity/density, form, and character.

The passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act, in 2006 was a key reason behind cities and counties developing plans to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2020 and beyond. As a result, the GPU must provi de measures to mitigate its GHG emissions impacts in order to demonstrate that the City is doing its part to meet state law (AB 32). Thus, the purpose of developing a CAP for the City is to align the City’s General Plan with the state’s GHG emissions reduction efforts. The CAP is a blueprint for reducing GHG emissions associated with GPU buildout and meeting mandated GHG reduction targets. The CAP addresses climate change at the local level by focusing on the major sources of GHG emissions in the City; esta blishing a detailed long-term strategy to achieve GHG emissions reduction targets; and providing a framework for compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. Ultimately, the CAP identifies reasonable and effective GHG reduction measures and informs mitigation strategies for the PEIR.

The GPU P EIR was certified in conjunction with adoption of the GPU on September 18, 2019. The Indio General Plan 2040 replaces the previously adopted Indio General Plan 2020. The GPU P EIR comprehensively evaluated env ironmental impacts that would result from implementation of the General Plan, including information related to existing site conditions, analyses of the types and magnitude of project-level and cumulative environmental impacts, and feasible mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid environmental impacts.

Summary of Findings
The project is consistent with the analysis performed for the GPU PEIR. Further, the GPU PEIR adequately anticipated and described the impacts of the project, identified applicable mitigation measures necessary to reduce project specific impacts, and the project implements these mitigation measures (see Table S-1 of the GPU PEIR for complete list of GPU Mitigation Measures).

Page 40 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 370 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 8 ends

A comprehensive environmental evaluation has been completed for the project as documented in the attached §15183 Exemption Checklist. This evaluation concludes that the project qualifies for an exemption from additional environmental review because it is consistent with the development density and use characteristics established by the City General Plan, as analyzed by the City GPU PEIR (SCH #2015081021), and all required findings can be made.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15183, the project qualifies for an exemption because the following findings can be made:

1. The project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an PEIR was certified.

The project would be consistent with the Mid -Town land use designation identified for the site in the GPU. Similarly, the project would be consistent with the Midtown zoning designation identified for the site in the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan.

2. There are no project specific effects which are peculiar to the project or its site, and which the GPU PEIR Failed to analyze as significant effects.

The subject property is no different than other properties in the surrounding area, and there are no project-specific effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. The project site is located in an area developed with similarly sized, estate resid ential lots with associated accessory uses. The property does not support any peculiar environmental features, and the Project would not result in any peculiar effects.

In addition, as explained further in the §15183 Exemption Checklist below, all project impacts were adequately analyzed by the GPU PEIR. Applicable mitigation measures specified within the GPU PEIR have been applied to the project.

3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the GPU PEIR failed to evaluate.

Preparation of the §15183 Exemption Checklist did not identify any significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the GPU PEIR failed to evaluate.

4. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

As explained in the §15183 Exemption Checklist below, no new information has been identified which would result in a determination of a more severe impact than what had been anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

5. The project will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the GPU PEIR.

As explained in the § 15183 Exemption Checklist below, the project will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the GPU PEIR. These GPU PEIR mitigation measures will be undertaken through project design, compliance with regulations and ordinances, or through the project’s conditions of approval.

Page 41 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 371 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 9 ends

Signature Date

Printed Name Title

Page 42 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 372 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 10 ends

CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Overview
This checklist provides an analysis of potential environmental impacts resulting from the project .

Following the format of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, environmental effects are evaluated to determine if the project would result in a potentially significant impact triggering additional review under CEQA Guidelines §15183.
• Items checked “Significant Project Impact” indicates that the project could result in a significant effect which either requires mitigation to be reduced to a less than significant level or which has a significant, unmitigated impact.
• Items checked “Impact not identified by GPU PEIR” indicates the project would result in a project specific significant impact (peculiar off -site or cumulative that was not identified in the GPU PEIR.
• Items checked “Substantial New Information” indicates that there is new information which leads to a determination that a project impact is more severe than what had been anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

A project does not qualify for a §15183 exemption if it is determined that it would result in the following: 1) a peculiar impact that was not identified as a significant impact under the GPU EIR; 2) a more severe impact due to new information; or 3) a p otentially significant off -site impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the GPU PEIR.

A summary of each potential environmental effect is provided below the checklist for each subject area. A list of references, significance guidelines, and technical studies used to support the analysis is attached in Appendix A. Appendix B contains a list of GPU PEIR mitigation measures.

1. Aesthetics
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Page 43 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 373 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 11 ends

Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?

Discussion
1(a) The GPU P EIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Scenic vistas or public views are defined as views of scenic resources from public locations.

Scenic viewpoints can be defined as singular vantage points that offer an unobstructed view of expansive visible landscape components. There are no adopted designated scenic views, scenic corridors, or vista points/viewpoints in the City. However, due to the City’s physical setting in the Coachella Valley, scenic views of the Santa Rosa, San Jacinto and Little San Bernardino Mountains, Indio Hills, and other undeveloped hilly areas are available throughout the city.

There are no adopted designated scenic views, scenic corridors, or vista points/viewpoints in the City. The project site consists of vacant land within a relatively flat area surrounded by existing development. Direct views to the project site are minimal and brief, and development of the project would not obstruct, interrupt, or detract from an existing scenic vista.

Furthermore, the project would not obstruct views of the Santa Rosa, San Jacinto and Little San Bernardino Mountains, or Indio Hills due to the relatively flat nature of the project site and surrounding area.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts on scenic vistas to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. As the p roject would have a less -than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis provided within the GPU PEIR because it would not increase impacts identified within the GPU PEIR.
1(b) The GPU P EIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Although no state-designated scenic highways occur in the City’s Planning Area, the County of Riverside Western Coachella Valley Area Plan (WCVAP ) identifies Interstate 10 (I-10) and Dillon Road as County of Riverside (County) eligible scenic highways. Both highways provide expansive views of the desert and mountains located in the SOI. Within the Planning Area, scenic resources include elements of both the natural and the built environment, including open space, areas of native vegetation, mature trees, rural lands, and historic landmarks.

Aesthetic value is not limited to open space and rural lands, but can also consist of historic structures and districts, architectural design, streetscapes, and manufactured landscapes.

As previously discussed above the project site is not within the vicinity of a State Designated Scenic Highway. The project site is approximately 2 .0 miles south of the I-10 and 2.5 miles northwest of Dillon Road , neither of which would afford views of the project site due to

Page 44 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 374 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 12 ends

distance and intervening topography and land uses. There are no rock outcroppings or historic buildings located on the project site. Additionally, the existing trees on -site are in poor condition and would not qualify as heritage trees.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts on scenic resources to be less than significant with no mitigation is required . As the project would have a l ess-than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the p roject would be consistent with the analysis provided within the GPU PEIR because it would not increase impacts identified within the GPU PEIR.
1(c) The GPU P EIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Visual character is the objective composition of the visible landscape within a viewshed. Visual character is based on the organization of the pattern elements line, form, color, and texture.

Visual character is commonly discussed in terms of dominance, scale, diversity and continuity.

Visual quality is the viewer’s perception of the visual environment and varies based on exposure, sensitivity and expectation of the viewers.

The community character of the city reflects a suburban atmosphere located in the Coachella Valley. The majority of the c ity’s urban areas are built out and developed with a number of buildings, structures, and hardscape improvements. A mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial uses occur amidst the largely urbanized and residential community in the central portion of the city. Recreational areas are scattered throughout the central portion of the city, and include several city parks containing a variety of amenities, including walking paths, sports fields, picnic areas, and/or playground equipment. Landscaping and palm trees are planted along medians and roadsides of streets, creating a pleasant and scenic environment.

Natural open space is primarily located to the north of the city within the SOI, and provides distant views of desertscape and mountains throughout much of the city. These open space areas are virtually undeveloped and are a result of natural conservation efforts that contribute to the community character of the city.

The project site is located within the Midtown District of the city of Indio, which encourages mixed use and multi -family development. The existing visual character and quality of the surrounding area consists of multi-story, mixed use buildings and mu lti-family residential developments. The visual character of the proposed multi-family units would be similar and would not detract from, or contrast with the existing visual character and/or quality of the surrounding areas. Additionally, the location, si ze and design of the project would be compatible with uses in the immediate area. Furthermore, the project would be consistent with the policies and design guidelines of the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts on visual character or quality to be less than significant with no mitigation is required. The project would have a less -than significant impact with no required mitigation for the reasons detailed above. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis provided within the GPU PEIR because it would not increase impacts identified within the GPU PEIR.
1(d) The GPU P EIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Existing sources of light and glare in the Planning Area are found mostly within the city limits.

Page 45 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 375 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 13 ends

Large commercial centers and car dealerships are located throughout the Planning Area and produce light and glare from parking lots, signs, and streetlamps . Major roads throughout the city also produce light and glare from streetlamps , signalized intersections, and vehicle headlights. Other sources of light and glare result from overhead lights at sports fields and other facilities, including the c ity's night -lighted municipal golf course in the northeast portion of the city. The western portion of the city is located in the Mount Palomar Nighttime Lighting Policy Area. Nighttime lighting in this area is identified as having the potential to affect the Mount Palomar Observatory. The SOI area is largely vacant, with the exception of a minor amount of agricultural and mining operations. This area provides lower levels of light than the urbanized area of the city due to the lack of development, such as streetlights, traffic signals, and other facilities with overhead lighting.

The project is located along Requa Avenue, a major road in the Planning Area and within the Midtown District. There is no natural open space areas in close proximity to the project site.

The surrounding existing land uses produce light and glare from parking lots, signs, streetlamps and nearby signalized intersections. The project site is approximately 104 miles from the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will not adversely affect nighttim e views or astronomical observations because the project will prepare a lighting plan to ensure it is in compliance with best practices for nigh sky protection and nuisance prevention pursuant to Section 3.02.11 Outdoor Lighting of the City’s Unified Development Code. Compliance with the Code would be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Thus, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts from light or glare to be to be less than significant with no mitigation is required. However, the p roject would have a less than significant impact with no required mitigation for the reasons detailed above. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis provided within the GPU P EIR because it would not increase impacts identified within the GPU PEIR.

Conclusion
With regard to the issue area of Aesthetics, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures are required within the GPU PEIR. The project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Page 46 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 376 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 14 ends

2. Agriculture/Forestry Resources
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
or other agricultural resources, to a non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production?

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

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Important Farmland or other agricultural
resources, to non-agricultural use?

Discussion
2(a) The GPU P EIR concluded this impact to be significant and unavoidable . The GPU P EIR concluded this impact to be significant and unavoidable. The GPU does not designate any lands f or agricultural use; however, development facilitated by the GPU could ultimately eliminate all commercial agricultural activity and preclude fallow agriculture land from future production in the Planning Area. Rising land values, water costs, increasing t axes, “edge effects,” and other land use conflicts have contributed to a substantial reduction in agricultural viability within the Planning Area. The adopted General Plan and other planning efforts have contemplated the conversion of agricultural lands in the city’s core to non-agricultural uses. Extensive agricultural operations in the city are generally surrounded by existing or planned urban land uses. There are no viable agricultural lands near the periphery of the city that would be available to provide agricultural conservation easements

Page 47 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 377 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 15 ends

through a conventional easement purchase mitigation program. While GPU policies support small scale agricultural uses in residential areas, there are no policies or mitigation measures available to mitigate the irreplaceable loss of Prime, Unique, and Locally Important Farmland.

The Department of Cons ervation “California Important Farmland Finder” classifies portions of Sites A1 and B as Prime Farmland (State of California Department of Conservation 2016).

However, this area currently is not in agricultural production and does not possess an agricultural resources land use or zoning designation. As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts from direct and indirect conversion of agricultural resources to be significant and unavoidable. The project would have a less-than-significant direct and indirect impact for the reasons detailed above. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 2(b) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be significant and unavoidable. There are 30 acres of designated lands under Williamson Act Contract in the c ity, the GPU does not identify land use types to support agricultural production. The GPU allows agricultural activities within the Desert Estates (DE) designation. The designation is intended to help preserve the character of natural features while allowing the lowest intensity and amount of residential neighborhood development. The proposed land use designations that allow agricultural uses, also include other non -agricultural uses (Desert Estates designation); therefore, implementation of the GPU could result in the direct conversion of agricultural land.

Th project site is zoned, Midtown (MT), which does not allow for agricultural uses. In addition, the project site is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract or agricultural preserve. None of the properties surrounding the project site are subject to a Williamson Act Contract o r agricultural p reserve. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract.

As previously discussed, the GPU EIR determined impacts on scenic resources to be less than significant with mitigation. As the proposed project would have a less than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no n ew information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 2(c) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be not significant. The Planning Area of the city of Indio does not have any areas of forest land or timberland. As a result, no areas are zoned as forest land in Indio and there would be no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Implementation of the GPU would not result in rezoning of existing zoning of forest land or timberland as defined by Public Resourc es Code, Sections 12220(g) or 51104(g).

As previously discussed, there are no areas zoned as forest land in th e city; therefore, the project will not impact any forest lands. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.

Page 48 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 378 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 16 ends

2(d) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be not significant. As indicated in response 2(c), the project site, or any off-site improvements, are not located near any forest lands. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis provided within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance.
2(e) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant with no mitigation.

As mentioned above in responses 2(a) and 2(b), the project site is not currently in agricultural production and is not zoned for agricultural uses . Additionally, the project site is not surrounded by any active agricultural uses and development of the project would be consistent with the surrounding land uses. Therefore, no indirect impacts are expected to occur to any offsite resources, and mitigation would not be required.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts from land use conflicts to be less than significant with no mitigation. The project would have less than significant impacts to agricultural resources. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.

Conclusion
With regard to the issue area of Agricultural/Forestry Resources, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU P EIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

3. Air Quality
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) V iolate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality

Page 49 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 379 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 17 ends

violation or result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative threshol
ds for
ozone precursors)?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?

Discussion
The following technical study related to air quality was prepared for the project:

Air Quality Analysis for the Palmera Development Project, prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON), dated June 2022.
3(a) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant because the C ity’s growth projections for population and housing u nder the GPU did not exceed the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) regional forecasts. Therefore, growth under the GPU was accounted for in t he growth forecasting for the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AWMP).

Growth forecasting is based in part on the land uses established by local general plans. Thus, if a project is consistent with land use as designated in the local general plan, it can normally be considered consistent with the 2016 AQMP. Projects that propose a different la nd use than is identified in the local general plan may also be considered consistent with the 2016 AQMP if the proposed land use is less intensive than buildout under the current designation.

The project site is designated as Mid -Town in the City’s Genera l Plan. This designation provides for a mixed -use center by allowing multi -story, mixed -use buildings at higher intensities, community gathering spaces, and land uses to support residents and visitors. The maximum density in the Mid- Town designation is 40 dwelling units per acre. The project would be consistent with the Mid-Town land use designation, and therefore would not result in an exceedance of the growth forecasting used to develop the 2016 AQMP.

Another factor used to determine if a project would conflict with implementation of the 2016 AQMP is determining if the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) or interim emissions reductions specified in the 2016 AQMP. NAAQS and CAAQS violations could occur if project emissions would exceed regional significance thresholds or Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). As shown

Page 50 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 380 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 18 ends

in Tables 1 and 2, construction and operational emissions would not exceed the regional significance thresholds. Additionally, as shown in T ables 3 and 4, construction and operational emissions would not exceed the Localized Significance Threshold. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the 2016 AQMP or applicable portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) , and impacts would be less than significant.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts on air quality plans to be less than significant. As the proposed project would have a less than significant for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis provided within the GPU PEIR because it would not increase impacts identified within the GPU PEIR.

Table 1
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Year
Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2023 4 40 42 <1 10 6
2024 34 15 46 <1 5 2
Maximum Daily Emissions1 34 40 46 <1 10 6
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
1Emissions were rounded to the nearest whole number. Emissions reported as <1 indicate that emissions were calculated to be less than 0.5 pound per day.

Table 2
Summary of Project Operational Emissions
(pounds per day)
Source
Emissions
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources 16 7 62 <1 4 1
Area Sources 10 <1 20 <1 <1 <1
Energy Sources <1 2 1 <1 <1 <1
Total 27 8 82 <1 4 1
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
NOTE: Totals may vary due to independent rounding.

Table 3
Localized Construction Emissions
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation (3.5 acres per day)
Maximum On-Site Daily Emission 39.7 35.5 9.5 5.6
LST Threshold 243.8 1,779.9 10.4 6.3
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Grading (5.0 acres per day)
Maximum On-Site Daily Emission 37.3 31.4 5.2 2.9
LST Threshold 304 2,292 14 8
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No

Page 51 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 381 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 19 ends

Table 4
Localized Operations Emissions
Operations
Pollutant
(pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources 0.19 19.80 0.01 0.01
Energy Sources 1.50 0.64 0.12 0.12
Maximum On-Site Emissions 1.69 20.44 0.13 0.13
Operations LST Threshold1 132 878 1 1
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
NOTE: Totals may vary due to independent rounding.
1 Emissions are assessed against the threshold for 1-acre project sites with sensitive receptors within 25 meters of the project site boundary.

3(b) The GPU PEIR concluded that development under the GPU would exceed SCAQMD thresholds, and impact would be significant and unavoidable. The Riverside County/Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) is designated as a nonattainment area for federal and state Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for the 8hour ozone and particulate matter l ess than 10 microns in diameter ( PM 10) standards.

Ozone is not emitted directly, but is a result of atmospheric activity on precursors. NOX and ROG are known as the chief “precursors” of ozone. These compounds react in the presence of sunlight to produce ozone. The project would contribute to particulate pollution ( PM 10),
nitrogen oxide gases (NO X), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emiss ions from construction/grading activities; however, the incremental increase would not exceed established screening thresholds.

As shown in Tables 1 and 2 above , emissions of ozone precursors ( reactive organic gases [ROG] and NO
X), PM10, and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) from construction and operation would be below the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. These thresholds are designed to provide limits below which project emissions from an individual project would not signif icantly affect regional air quality or the timely attainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions of ozone or PM
10, and impacts would be less than significant.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality violations. However, the project would have a less than significant impact to air quality violations with the incorporation of project conditions for construction. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis provided within the GPU PEIR because it would not increase impacts identified within the GPU PEIR.
3(c) The GPU PEIR concluded that mitigation would not be able to fully avoid impacts related to sensitive receptors, and impact would be significant and unavoidable. The Air Quality Analysis evaluated the potential for the project to impact sensitive receptors. For purposes of analyzing construction-related toxic air contaminant emissions and their impact on sensitive receptors, the maximum annual PM
10 emissions from equipment exhaust were used to
develop an average daily emission rate. The exhaust emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model ( CalEEMod), and the maximum annual diesel

Page 52 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 382 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 20 ends

particulate matter ( DPM) concentration was calculated using AERSCREEN. AERSCREEN calculates a worst -case maximum 1 -hour concentration at a specific distance and specific angle from the source. The maximum 1 -hour concentration is then converted to an annual concentration using a 0 .08 conversion factor (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S.

EPA] 1992).

Once the dispersed concentrations of diesel particulates are estimated in the surrounding air, they are used to evaluate estimated exposure to people. Cancer risk is calculated b y multiplying the daily inhalation or oral dose, by a cancer potency factor, the age sensitivity factor, the frequency of time spent at home and the exposure duration divided by averaging time, to yield the excess cancer risk. In this analysis, non-carcinogenic impacts are evaluated for chronic exposure inhalation exposure. Estimates of health impacts from non-carcinogenic concentrations are expressed as a hazard quotient (HQ) for individual substances, such as DPM. An HQ of one or less indicates that adver se health effects are not expected to result from exposure to emissions of that substance.

Based on the CalEEMod calculations for project construction, the project would result in on-site maximum annual emissions of 0.09 ton of PM
10 exhaust. This maximum a nnual
emissions rate was modeled over the entire 20-month construction period, and therefore is a conservative assessment. Based on AERSCREEN modeling results, the maximum 1 -hour ground-level DPM concentration from construction activities would be 0.01448 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). This was converted to an annual average concentration of 0.00116 µg/m3 using a conversion factor of 0.08 (U.S. EPA 1992). The resulting annual concentration was used in the equations discussed above. Using this methodolo gy, it was calculated that the excess cancer risk would be 0.34 in a million. AERSCREEN and cancer risk calculations are provided in Attachment 2 of the Air Quality Analysis. DPM generated by project construction is not expected to create conditions where the probability is greater than 10 in 1 million of contracting cancer. Additionally, the HQ would be 0.0002, which is less than one. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with diesel particulate matter during construction that could result in excess cancer risks, and impacts would be less than significant.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) handbook indicates that siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway or urban roads with 100,000 or more vehicles per day should be avoided when possible. The project site is located adjacent to Monroe Street, Requa Avenue, Rubidoux Street, and Highway 111. However, based on the future traffic projections provided in the City’s General Plan (City of Indio 2019) and GPU PEIR, traffic volumes on these roadways would be well less than 100,000 vehicles per day. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with diesel particulate matter during operation, and impacts would be less than significant.

A carbon monoxide (CO) hot spot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near congested intersections where idling and queuing occurs. Due to increased requirements for cleaner vehicles, equipment, and fuels, CO levels in the state have dropped substantially. All air basins are attainment or maintenance areas for CO. Therefore, more recent screening procedures based on more current methodologies have been developed. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

Page 53 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 383 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 21 ends

Management District developed a screening threshold in 2011, which states that any project involving an intersection experiencing 31,600 vehicles per hour or more will require detailed analysis. In addition, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District developed a screening threshold in 2010 which states that any project involving an intersection experiencing 44,000 vehicles per hour would require detailed analy sis. This analysis conservatively assesses potential CO hot spots using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District screening threshold of 31,600 vehicles per hour.

The project would generate 2,359 average daily trips (ADTs). Future year 2040 traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic analysis and GPU PEIR. Based on this analysis, at General Plan buildout, Monroe Street would carry 29,100 to 34,600 ADT, Requa Avenue would carry 11,200 ADT, and Highway 11 would carry 32,400 to 36,000 ADT in the vicinity of the project site. Peak hour volumes are typically 10 percent of the ADT. Based on this, the hourly turning volumes at nearby intersections are projected to be well less than 31,600 vehicles per hour even with the addition of project traffic. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with a CO hot spot, and impacts would be less than significant.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined significant and unavoidabl e impacts to sensitive receptors. However, the project would have a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis provided within the GPU PEIR because it would not increase impacts identified within the GPU PEIR. 3(d) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The potential for an odor impact is dependent on a number of variables, including the nature of the odor source, distance between the receptor and odor source, and local meteorological conditions. During construction, construction equipment may generate some nuisance odors. Sensitive receptors near the project site include residential uses and a church; however, exposure to odors associated with project constructio n would be short term and temporary in nature.

Further, p er CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measures 13 (California Code of Regulations Chapter 10 Section 2485), the applicant shall not allow idling time to exceed 5 minutes unless more time is required per engine manufacturers’ specifications or for safety reasons.

Therefore, project construction would not generate odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant. Once operational, the project would not include any uses or activities that would result in potentially significant operational-source odor impacts. Therefore, the project would not generate substantial amounts of odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined less than significant impacts from objectionable odors. As the project would have a less than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.

Page 54 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 384 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 22 ends

Conclusion
With regard to the issue area of Air Quality, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

4. Biological Resources
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) H ave a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

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

c) H ave a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Page 55 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 385 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 23 ends

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

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

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (i.e., MSCHP and other Riverside
County plans)?

Discussion
The following technical study related to biological resources was prepared for the project:

Biological Technical Report for the Palmera Project Site, prepared by RECON, dated June 2022. 4(a) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant . Biological resources on the project site were evaluated in a Biological Technical Report prepared by RECON, dated June 2022. As shown in Figure 5 and Table 5, two land cover types were mapped within the survey area: disturbed land and developed land. Appro ximately half of the project area has been cleared and is devoid of significant vegetation, with the other half containing planted date palms with little to no other vegetation. An area in the southern portion of the survey area contains an asphalt parking lot and the concrete foundation of a since-demolished structure.

The project has a total of 309 trees located on-site. All trees on site were date palm (Phoenix dactylifera), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), or California fan palm (W. filifera). The project area is located within the Plan Area of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and is considered a Private Non-conservation Land. The project area is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP Reserve Lands, Conservation Lands, Core Habitats, Essential Ecological Process areas, or Biological Corridors and Linkages. The project site will impact disturbed land and developed land. Impacts to disturbed land and developed land would not be considered significant under the CVMSHCP and would not require mitigation.

No sensitive plant species were observed in the project area, and none are expected to occur.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation would be required.

Page 56 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 386 of 446 FIGURE 5
Existing Biological Resources
and Land Cover Types
RubidouxSt
Rubidoux Dr
San Gorgonio Dr
Lassen
Ct
46th Ave
Sun Gol
d St
Rubidoux St
Palm St
Sierra Ave
Bliss Ave
Requa Ave
Monroe St
UV111
RubidouxSt
Rubidoux Dr
San Gorgonio Dr
Lassen
Ct
46th Ave
Sun Gol
d St
Rubidoux St
Palm St
Sierra Ave
Bliss Ave
Requa Ave
Monroe St
UV111
Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2022)
0 300 Feet [Project Boundary
Land Cover Type
Developed Land
Disturbed Land
M:\JOBS6\10098\common_gis\MXD\15183_Exempt\fig5.mxd 06/13/2022 bma

Page 57 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 387 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 25 ends

Table 5
Impacts to Land Cover Types
(acres)
Land Cover Types Existing within Survey Area
Disturbed Land 19.7
Developed Land 5.2
TOTAL 24.9

No sensitive wildlife species were detected in the survey area; however, there is moderate potential for southern yellow bat to occur within the survey area and be directly impacted.

In addition, the project area has the potential to support nesting migratory birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5. To avoid potential direct impacts to nesting birds and raptors a pre-construction nest survey would be required prior to the start of construction during the breeding season (February 1 to September 15). If nests are detected, an avoidance buffer of appropriate radius and biological monitoring would be required.

As previously discuss ed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts to special status species as significant and unavoidable. However, the project determined impacts to be less than significant with the incorporation of project avoidance measures for nesting migratory birds and raptors. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 4(b) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. As previously discussed above in 4(a) based on the Biological Technical Report, two land cover types were mapped within the survey area: disturbed land and developed land. Neither of these land cover types qualify as riparian habitat or a or other sensitive natural community . No impact would occur .

Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and ther e is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 4(c) The GPU P EIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. Based on the Biological Technical Report, two land cover types were mapped within the survey area: disturbed land and developed land. Neither of these land cover types qualify as a wetland. There are no channels, waterways, or wetlands observed within the project area. Most of the project area is level and either significantly disturbed or previously developed. No indicators of water flow, such as ordinary high water marks, breaks in slope, or evidence of sediment sorting were present. The vegetation is dominated by upland species, and no areas were identified as potential wetlands. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation would be required. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 4(d) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The Biological Technical Letter Report determined that the site is not part of a regional linkage/corridor as identified on

Page 58 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 388 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 26 ends

CVMSHCP maps nor is it in an area considered regionally important for wildlife dispersal. As previously discussed in 4(a) n o sensitive wildlife species were detected in the survey area; however, there is moderate potential for southern yellow bat to occur within the survey area and be directly impacted. In addition, the project area has the potential to support nesting migratory birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5. To avoid potential direct impacts to nesting birds and raptors a pre-construction nest survey would be required prior to the start of construction during the breeding season (February 1 to September 15). If nests are detected, an avoidance buffer of appropriate radius and biological monitoring would be required.

As previously discussed, the GPU EIR determined impacts to wildlife movement corridors as significant and unavoidable. However, p roject impacts were determined to be less than significant for the reasons detailed above. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU EIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU EIR. 4(e) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts on local policies and ordinances as well as MSHCP as less than significant. A total of 309 trees larger than four inches diameter at breast height were mapped. Each tree was identified to species, assessed for general health, categorized by size, and assessed for bird nesting potential. All trees on site were date palm (Phoenix dactylifera), Mexican fan palm ( Washingtonia robusta), or California fan palm ( W. filifera). Due to the declining quality of the trees located on site, they would not qualify for protection as Heritage Trees. As described in Sections 4(a) through 4(d) above, all impacts on biological resources would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy/ordinance, and impacts would be less than significant.

As previously discussed, the GPU EIR determined impacts to loc al policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new inform ation of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.

4(f) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project area is located within the Plan Area of the CV MSHCP and is considered a Private Non -conservation Land.

The project area is not within or adjacent to any CVMSHCP Reserve Lands, Conservation Lands, Core Habitats, Essential Ecological Process areas, or Biological Corridors and Linkages.

The project site will impact disturbed land and developed land. Impacts to d isturbed land and developed land would not be considered significant under the MSHCP and would not require mitigation. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts on local policies and ordinances as well as habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans as less than

Page 59 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 389 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 27 ends

significant. As the project would have a less than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.

Conclusion
The project could result in potentially significant impacts to biological resources; however, further environmental analysis is not required because:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

5. Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) D irectly or indirectly d estroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?

Page 60 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 390 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 28 ends

Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.?

Discussion
The following technical study was prepared for the project:

Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Palmera Development Project, prepared by RECON, dated June 2022.
5(a) The GPU PEIR concluded that growth accommodated by the GPU would have the potential to impact historical resources even after implementation of Mitigation Framework MM-CR-1 and MM -CR-2. Therefore, impacts on historical resources would remain significant and unavoidable. The Cultural Resources Survey completed for the project requested cultural resources records and literature searches of the area of potential effect (APE) with a one-mile search radius buffer from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) located at University of California Riverside , The records search indicated 68 archaeological investigations were completed within one mile of the APE, two of which include the project. The EIC also identified 50 previously recorded cultural resources within one mile of the APE. Confidential Attachment 1 of the Cultural Resources Survey Report provides the EIC records search summary, a list of the indicated archaeological investigations, as well as a map of the previously recorded resources occurring within the requested search buffer. Of t he 50 resources, one is a prehistoric site, one is a prehistoric isolated artifact, one is a historic

Page 61 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 391 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 29 ends

isolated artifact, 46 are historic-era sites, and one multicomponent site which contains both prehistoric and historic components. The historic -era sites consist of apartment and commercial buildings, single-family houses, hotels, a mobile home park, a theater, structures, foundations, palm trees, the Coachella Canal, and a portion of the Union/Southern Pacific Railroad. None of these previously recorded cultural resources occur within the APE.

RECON also conducted a pedestrian reconnaissance investigation of the APE, which identified one previously unrecorded resource consisting of a remnant palm tree orchard along with a series of possible ancillary structure concrete foundations. The extant portion of the orchard measures 855 feet (north -south) by 655 feet (east- west), occurs within the eastern portion of the current project APE, and is currently bisected by Requa Avenue. The trees are arranged in a cardinal direction alignment and spaced approximately 33 feet apart providing ample canopy room and understory access for irrigation and maintenance. The series of concrete foundations are located at the southwest corner of the orchard and front the east side of the current alignment of Rubidoux Street (10098-NDY-01).

Based on current research and pending results from the title search report, site 10098-NDY-01 is recommended not eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. The orchard and foundations could not be associated with a significant event or person important to Indio history and therefore do not qualify for criteria 1 and 2. Review of the title search will confirm or change this conclusion. The resource does not qualify for criterion 3 because it does not embody a unique method of construction or represent the work of a master or have high artistic value. Additionally, the resource does not qualify under criterion 4 because the current recording of this resource has exhausted its data potential. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5, and impacts would be less than significant. 5(b) The GPU P EIR concluded that implementation of GPU Mitigation Framework MM -CR-3 would reduce impacts on archaeological resources to a level less than significant. Review of Figure 4.5-1 of the GPU PEIR determined that the project is located within an area identified as having a high sensitivity area for prehistoric/ ethnohistoric cultural resources. Therefore, a Cultural Resources Survey Report was prepared for the project consistent with GPU Mitigation Framework MM-CR-3. As described in Section 5(a) above the record search did not identify any previously recorded archaeological resources within the APE. Similarly, RECON contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting a search of their Sacred Lands File to identify spiritually significant and/or sacred sites or traditional use areas, and to provide a list of local Native American tribes, bands, or individuals who may have concerns about the project. The NAHC responded on May 23, 2022 indicating that their search of the Sacred Lands File was negative. Furthermore, the pedestrian reconnaissance investigation of the APE did not identify any previously unrecorded archaeological resources.

Because the APE has been highly disturbed, the likelihood of intact subsurface features being inadvertently discovered during construction is considered low, and construction monitoring is not recommended. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse cha nge in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5, and impacts would be less than significant.

Page 62 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 392 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 30 ends

5(c) The GPU PEIR concluded that there are no known areas of human remains in the Planning Area and compliance with existing laws and regulations would reduce impacts to a level less than significant . Because the APE has been highly disturbed, the likelihood of intact subsurface features being inadvertently discovered during construction is considered low. In the unlikely event that unknown human remains are encountered during project grading and construction, they would be handled in accordance with procedures of California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; and Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, which mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accid ental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered on a project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to t heir authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human rema ins to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC. Adherence to these procedures would ensure that the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resourc e pursuant to §15064.5, and impacts would be less than significant.
5(d) The GPU P EIR concluded that implementation of GPU M itigation Framework MM-CR-4 would reduce impacts on paleontological resources to a level less than significant. Review of Figure 4.5 -3 of the GPU FEIR determined that the project site is located within an area identified as having high potential for paleontological resources. Therefore, the project would either conduct a paleontological field survey or conduct paleontological monitorin g consistent with GPU Mitigation Framework MM-CR-4, which would reduce impacts to a level less than significant.
5(e) The GPU EIR concluded that adherence to Conservation Element Policies CE-8.4: Monitoring and CE-8.6: Coordination with local Tribes would ensure that impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant . RECON will complete this section once the City conducts AB 52 consultation.

Conclusion
With regard to the issue area of cultural/paleontological resources, the f ollowing findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

Page 63 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 393 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 31 ends

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. Feasible mitigation measures contained within the GPU P EIR (MM-CR-3 and MM-CR-4) has be applied to the project to reduce impacts to a level less than significant.

6. Energy Use
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?

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

Discussion
Energy use was not specifically analyzed within the GPU PEIR as a separate issue area under CEQA.

At the time, Energy Use was contained within Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines and since then has been moved to the issue areas within Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. However, the issue of energy use in general was discussed within the GPU and the GPU P EIR. For example, within the Conservation Element of the GPU, Goal CE-3 promotes energy efficiency, conservation, renewables, energy-efficient buildings and vehicles that use energy from renewable sources. Policies focus on sustainable architecture and building techniques that reduce emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs, while protecting public health and contributing to a more sustainable environment. Policies CE-3.2, CE -3.3, CE-3.4, CE -3.6, and CE-3.8 would support this goal by encouraging design and construction of new buildings and upgrades of existing buildings to maximize energy efficiency and reduce GHG. Policy CE -3.12 promotes explorations of future renewable energy sources . Policies CE-3.13 and CE -3.14 would support the goal of promoting energy efficiency by identifying opportunities to implement innovative infrastructure systems that utilize natural ecological processes and working with Sustainability Commission to identify and develop energy efficiency and sustainability programs. The analysis below specifically analyzes the energy use of the project. 6(a) The project would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas at the project site, and gasoline consumption in the project area during construction and operation relative to existing conditions. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary” energy usages (Public Resources Code Section 21100, subdivision [b][3]).

Neither the Public Resources Code nor the CEQA Guidelines establish criteria that define

Page 64 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 394 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 32 ends

wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use. Compliance with the California Code of Regulations 2019, Title 24, Part 6 Building Code would result in highly energy-efficient buildings. However, compliance with building codes does not adequately address all potential energy impacts during construction and operation. It can be expected that energy consumption, outside of the building code regulations, would occur through the transport of construction materials to and from the site during the construction phase, the use of personal vehicles by residents, and the operation of delivery vehicles to service the new residential units. Potential impacts associated with construction and operation of the project are evaluated below.

Construction
During the grading and construction phases of the project, the primary energy source utilized would be petroleum from construction equipment and vehicle trips. To a lesser extent, electricity would also be consumed for the temporary electric power for as necessary lighting and electronic equipment. Activities including electricity would be temporary and negligible; therefore, electricity use during grading and construction would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the project. An y minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed as a result of the project construction would be temporary and negligible and would not have an adverse effect; therefore, natural gas used during grading and construction would also not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The energy needs for the project construction would be temporary and are not anticipated to require additional capacity or increase peak or base period demands for electricity or other forms of energy. Construction equipment use and associated energy consumptions would be typical of that associated with the construction of residential projects of this size in a midtown district setting. Additionally, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Un ified Development Code. Therefore, the project’s energy consumption during the grading and construction phase would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational
Operation of the project would be typical of residential land uses requiring natural gas for space and water heating and landscape maintenance activities. The project would meet the California Code of Regulations Title 24 Standards for energy efficiency that are in effect at the time of construction. Furthermore, the project would generate 2,359 ADT, which would not be expected to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary petroleum usage throughout project operations. The project is consistent with the General Plan density al lowance and Unified Development Code designation and would result in roughly equivalent or less operational petroleum usage than what has been anticipated within the General Plan. The project would also comply with the City’s Streets and Highways Code Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 and the water use application using prescriptive compliance option to reduce overall water use on-site. Therefore, the project would not be expected to result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary petroleum usage throughout project operations. Over the lifetime of the project, fuel efficiency of vehicles is expected to increase as older vehicles are replaced with newer, more efficient models. As such, the amount of petroleum consumed as a result

Page 65 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 395 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 33 ends

of vehicle trips to and from the project site during operation would decrease over time. State and federal regulations regarding standards for vehicles (e.g., Advanced Clean Cars Program, Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards) are designed to reduce wasteful, unnecessary, and inefficient use of fuel. The coupling of various State policies and regulations such as the Zero-Emission Vehicles Mandate and Senate Bill 350 would result in the deployment of electric vehicles which would be powered by an increasingly renewable electrical gri d.

Therefore, operational energy consumption would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, and impacts would be less than significant. 6(b) As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR did not analyze Energy as a separate issue area under CEQA. Energy was analyzed under the GPU and GPU PEIR and has been incorporated within General Plan Elements. Many of the regulations regarding energy efficiency are focused on increasing the energy efficiency of buildings and renewable energy generation, as well as reducing water consumption and reliance on fossil fuels. The p roject includes the following energy conservation measures:
• Installation of low-flow indoor water fixtures and at least one energy-efficient appliance in all residential units, reducing water and energy consumption.

In addition, the p roject would be consistent with energy reduction policies of the City’s General Plan including policies CE-3.2, CE-3.3, CE-3.4, CE-3.6, and CE-3.8. Further, the project would achieve energy reduction through compliance with the most recent Title 24 standards at the time of project construction. Therefore, the project would implement energy reduction design features and comply with the most recent energy building standards consistent with applicable plans and policies. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
With regard to the issue area of Energy, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which w ere not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU P EIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Page 66 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 396 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 34 ends

7. Geology and Soils
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i ) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the state geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault; (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; (iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction; or (iv) Landslides?

b) R esult in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located or occur on a geologic un it or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of water?

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

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems w
here sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?

Discussion
The following technical study was prepared for the project: Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation Proposed Single Family Residential Development, prepared by GeoTek, Inc, dated October 2021. 7(a)(i) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project is not located in a fault rupture hazard zone identified by the Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,

Page 67 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 397 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 35 ends

Special Publication 42, Revised 1997, Fault -Rupture Hazards Zones in California, or located on any known active, potentially active, or inactive fault traces. The nearest known active fault is the San Andreas fault zone located about 2.4 miles to the northeast. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, and impacts would be less than significant.
7(a)(ii) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. To ensure the structural integrity of all buildings and structures, the p roject must conform to the Seismic Requirements as outlined within the California Building Code (CBC). In addition, a soils compaction report with proposed foundation recommendation would be required to be approved before the issuance of a building permit. Therefore, compliance with the CBC and the County Building Code would ensure that the project would not result in a significant impact.
7(a)(iii) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. Review of Figure 4-6.4 of the GPU PEIR determined that the project siter is located in an area designated as having high potential for liquefaction. However, the Geotechnical Report analysis concludes that the groundwater well records from both the California Water Data Library and GeoTracker indicates that historic high groundwater in the site region is deeper than 50 feet. Thus, the potential for liquefaction is considered very low . To ensure the structural integrity of all buildings and structures, the project must conform to the Seismic Requirements as outlined within the CBC . In add ition, a soils compaction report with proposed foundation recommendation would be required to be approved before the issuance of a building permit.

Therefore, compliance with the CBC and the County Building Code would ensure that the project would not result in a significant impact.
7(a)(iv) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. Based on the Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation, due to the general flat terrain, the potential for seismic induced landslides or slope instabilities is negligible due to site topography and location ; therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined less than significant impacts from exposure to seismic-related hazards and soil stability. As the project would have a less than significant impact, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU P EIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 7(b) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. Based on site reconnaissance, the exploratory excavations , and review of published geologic maps completed for the Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation, the project site is underlain by alluvial soils that is locally overlain by undocumented fill. Undocumented fill was encountered below the asphalt concrete pavement sections within the southernmost parcel (APN 611 -110-043) comprising the site, which was used as a commercial property. The fill consisted of poorly graded sand, which was grayish brown, dry to moist, and in a medium dense state. Alluvium was encountered in beneath the fill within the southern region of the site and near the ground

Page 68 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 398 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 36 ends

surface across the rest of the property. The alluvium generally consist of interbedded layers of silty sand, poorly graded sand and sandy silt.

However, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil because the project wou ld be required to comply with the grading ordinances of the City , County, and the CBC. Additionally, the p roject would be required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) per the Standard Development Project Storm Water Quality Management Plan to prevent fugitive sediment. As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts from soil erosion and topsoil loss to be less than significant. As the project would have a less than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
7(c) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. As previously discussed in 7(a)(iii), due to the general flat terrain, the potential for seismic induced landslides or slope instabilities is negligible due to site topography and location. Lateral spreading is a principal effect from liquefaction. As indicated in response 7a(iii), although the project site is located within a “ high” liquefaction potential zone, the Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation determined that that historic high groundwater in the site region is deeper than 50 feet.

Consequently, the potential for liquefaction is considered very low. Therefore, there will be no potentially significant impact related to lateral spreading or liquefaction.

In order to assure that any proposed buildings are adequately supported, a Soils Engineering Report is required as part of the b uilding permit process. This report would evaluate the strength of underlying soils and make recommendations on the design of building foundation systems. The Soils E ngineering Report must demonstrate that a proposed building meets the structural stability standards required by the CBC.

The Soils Engineering Report must be approved by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. With this standard requirement, in addition to compliance with the City/County Grading Ordinance and CBC and implementation of standard engineering techniques, impacts would be less than significant.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts from soil stability to be less than significant. As the project would have a less than significant impact with the incorporation of standard conditions, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 7(d) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project is not underlain by expansive soils. In addition, the project would not result in a significant impact because compliance with the CBC, preparation of a Soils Engineering Report, and implementation of standard engineering techniques would ensure structural safety. As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts from expansive soils to be less than significant. As the project would have a less-than-significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts,

Page 69 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 399 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 37 ends

increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
7(e) The GPU EIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.

Conclusion
With regard to the issue area of Geology and Soils, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or c umulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU P EIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?

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

Discussion
The following technical stud y related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was prepared for the project: Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the Palmera Development Project, prepared by RECON, dated June 2022.
8(a) The GPU PEIR concluded that GHG emissions under the GPU would be less than all applicable significance thresholds, and impacts would be less than significant. Concurrent with adoption of the GPU, the City adopted a CAP that identifies strategies to reduce GHG emissions

Page 70 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 400 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 38 ends

consistent with state- level emissions reduction targets for 2020 and 2030. A project that complies with a qualified GHG reduction strategy would be considered to have less than significant impact related to GHG emissions. Pursuant with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), the City's CAP is considered a qualified GHG reduction strategy that will allow developments to tier off and streamline the GHG analyses under CEQA. The CAP includes a Development Review Checklist to demonstrate if new developments are consistent with reduction strategies from the City’s CAP. The purpose of the City’s CAP checklist is to streamline project-level CEQA requirements by identifying clear GHG reduction strategies that all new developments would need to implement for compliance with the GHG reduction strategies. The GHG Analysis identifies the project’s consistency with the Development Review Checklist. If a project meets the checklist criteria, then it would be considered to have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions. Table 6 demonstrated the project’s consistency with the Development Review Checklist.

Table 6
CAP Development Review Checklist
Project Design Feature Yes/No Explanation
Will the project include bicycle
facilities (e.g., bike lanes,
parking)?
Yes The project site is located adjacent to Monroe Street which is a Class 2 Bike Lane, and Requa Avenue which is a Class 3 Bike Route. These bike routes connect to Class 1 Bike Paths and Class 4 Cycle Tracks (Separated Bikeways). The project would provide on-site bicycle parking spaces and would provide connections to theses adjacent bicycle facilities.

Will the project include
sidewalks along all roadways?
Yes The project area consists of complete sidewalks along all adjacent and nearby roadways. The project would include internal sidewalks that connect to those in the existing right-of-way. Residential units would be mostly one-story structures built around a sequence of courtyards that are connected to Requa Avenue with pedestrian pathways; and two-story townhomes built in a sequence of greenbelts connected to Rubidoux Street and alleys.

Will the project support bike
sharing or rental programs?
No The project would not include bike sharing or rental programs.

However, the City has recently initiated a pilot program for electric scooters in the City. Project residences would have access to these scooter rentals.

Will there be transit stop
within ¼ mile of the project?
Yes An existing bus stop is located adjacent to the project site at the intersection of Monroe Street and Requa Avenue. Sunline Transit Agency Route 6 provides service adjacent to the project site, and connects to major transfer points at Coachella City Hall to the east and the Desert Crossing Shopping Center to the west.

Will the install provide traffic
calming elements?
Yes Traffic calming elements would be provided on all internal project streets/driveways.

Will the project’s pedestrian
and/or bicycle infrastructure
connect to the external
network?
Yes The project site is located adjacent to existing bicycle routes and complete sidewalks along all adjacent and nearby roadways. The project would include internal sidewalks that connect to those in the existing right-of-way. Residential units would be mostly one-story structures built around a sequence of courtyards that are connected to Requa Avenue with pedestrian pathways; and two-story townhomes built in a sequence of greenbelts connected to Rubidoux Street and alleys. The project is designed to enhance the street edge, visually and physically connect with the public right-of-way, and meet the intent of the proposed Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan.

Page 71 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 401 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 39 ends

Table 6
CAP Development Review Checklist
Project Design Feature Yes/No Explanation
If the project provides streets,
will the streets meet the City’s
Complete Streets standards?
Yes All internal streets would meet the City’s Complete Streets standards.

Will the project include high-
density housing? A range of
housing types? Affordable
housing? Be mixed-use?
Yes The project would include high density housing, up to 30 dwelling units per acre. The project is intended to be an inclusive mixed-income residential community. The project would develop one-bedroom, two- bedroom, and three-bedroom units ranging in size from 685 square feet to 1,440 square feet. Sites A1, A2, and A3 are intended to attract a younger tenant mix, while Site B is intended to attract a mature tenant mix. Site C is intended to attract a homebuyer seeking homeownership near downtown Indio. The project would include in-site amenities including pools, clubhouses, sports courts, dog parks, and playgrounds that would reduce the need for residences to use vehicle trips for recreational purposes. The project does not include on-site retail uses; however, the project site is located immediately adjacent to a regional shopping center, a mall, restaurants, and other retail uses within the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan area.

Will the project provide shared
or reduced parking?
Yes The project would provide reduced parking compared to the currently proposed City parking standards.

Will the project be designed to
maximize solar orientation?
Yes The project has been designed to maximize solar orientation.

Will the buildings be designed
to incorporate passive solar
design?
Yes The project has been designed to incorporate passive solar design as required by 2019 Title 24.

Will the project include
transportation demand
management measures?
Not
Applicabl
e
The project is a residential use that would generate less traffic than required for a Transportation Demand Management Plan.

Will the project provide
electric vehicle charging
stations?
Yes The project would provide on-site electric vehicle charging stations.

Will the project pre-wire for
electric vehicle charging
stations to be added at a later
date?
Yes The project would provide pre-wire for electric vehicle charging stations as required by City Code and 2019 Title 24.

Will the project use all electric
appliances and HVAC
systems?
No The project would provide both electric and natural gas appliances and HVAC systems.

Will the project seek LEED or
similar green building
certification?
No The project would not seek LEED certification; however, the project would be constructed in accordance with 2019 Title 24 Energy Code requirements as well as all mandatory CalGreen measures and applicable voluntary measures for residential uses.

Will the project increase the
number of trees on site?
Yes The project would include tree planting throughout the project site, converting an undeveloped and disturbed project site into a landscaped neighborhood with trees, courtyards, and greenbelts.

Will renewable energy systems
be installed as part of the
project?
Yes The project has been designed to maximize solar orientation and to incorporate passive solar design as required by 2019 Title 24.

Residential buildings would include solar photovoltaic systems as required by 2019 Title 24.

Page 72 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 402 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 40 ends

Table 6
CAP Development Review Checklist
Project Design Feature Yes/No Explanation
Will construction waste and
debris be diverted from the
landfill consistent with City
requirements?
Yes All construction waste and debris will be recycled in accordance with CalGreen and City requirements, as applicable.

Will the project collect
recycling? Compost?
Yes The project would collect recycling and compost.

Will the project use low-water
or drought-tolerant species for
landscaping?
Yes The project’s landscape plan includes low-water and drought-tolerant plant species. The project’s landscaping would be consistent with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, as well as all City landscaping ordinance requirements.

Will the project use smart
irrigation?
Yes The project would include the use of smart irrigation.

Will rainwater be captured on
site?
Yes The project would include on-site rainwater capture systems.

Will all units have separate
water and energy meters? Or
be sub-metered?
Yes The project units would be sub-metered.

Will the project be connected
to the recycled water system?
Does the project use recycled
water?
No The project does not include the use a recycled water. However, the project’s landscaping would be consistent with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, as well as all City landscaping ordinance requirements.

Will the project use low-
impact development
practices?
Yes The project would use low-impact development practices.

For further support, the GHG emissions associated with the project were calculated and compared to the SCAQMD screening threshold. The SCAQMD published its Interim CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans in 2008 (SCAQMD 2008, 2010). Consistent with the SCAQMD guidance, the recommended tiered approach for land use development projects in SCAQMD jurisdiction is assessment against the applicable screening levels. The SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2E) was used. This screening level is intended to exempt projects that are too small to have significant impacts from further analysis.

Emissions from all construction and operational sources were calculated and compared to the screening threshold.

The project’s GHG emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod Version 2022.1 (Californ ia Air Pollution Control Officers Association [CAPCOA] 2022). GHG emissions were calculated for construction, mobile sources, energy use, area sources, water and wastewater, and solid waste.

Table 7 summarizes the total GHG emissions associated with the project.

Page 73 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 403 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 41 ends

Table 7
Project GHG Emissions
Source
Project GHG Emissions
MT CO2E
Mobile 1,857
Energy Source 814
Area Sources 4
Water/Wastewater Sources 33
Solid Waste Sources 25
Refrigerants <1
Construction (Amortized over 30 years) 47
Total 2,781
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 3,000

As shown in Table 7 , construction and operation of the project would generate 2,781 MT CO2E annually, which would be less than the applicable SCAQMD screening level of 3,000 MT CO2E. Further, the project would be consistent with the service population thresholds established in the CAP. The service population threshold is developed by dividing City’s emissions targets for 2020 and 2030 by the projected service population in the same years. Based on this calculation, the City’s threshold targets for future development would be 7.4 MT CO
2E per service population in 2020 and 4.2 MT CO 2E per service population in 2030, consistent with Senate Bill (SB 32) and the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, the Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target (2017 Scoping Plan) . The project’s anticipated population is approximately 700 residences. Thus, the project would result in GHG emissions of 4.0 MT CO2E per service population. Because the project would be consistent with the CAP, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and impacts would be less than significant.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts to be less than significant with mitigation. As the project would have a less than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
8(b) The GPU PEIR concluded that the GPU would be consistent with the Scoping Plan and SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and that impact would be less than significant.

State Plans
As discussed under Section 8(a) above, the project would be consistent with the City’s CAP, which is a qualified GHG re duction plan that is consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan and emission reduction targets per SB 32. Because the project would be consistent with the CAP, it would not conflict with the Scoping Plan or SB 32. Furthermore, project GHG emissions would be below the screening level of 3,000 MT CO2E. This threshold is based on the concept of establishing a 90 percent GHG emission capture rate. A 90 percent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified stationary source projects

Page 74 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 404 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 42 ends

would be subject to a CEQA analysis, which includes analyzing feasible alternatives and imposing feasible mitigation measures. The market capture rate is based on guidance from the CAPCOA report CEQA & Climate Change , dated January 2008, which identifies several potential approaches for assessing a project’s GHG emissions (CAPCOA 2008). Following the market capture rate approach, a lead agency defines an acceptable capture rate and identifies the corresponding emissions level. Following rationale pr esented in the CAPCOA Guidance, the aggregate emissions from all projects with individual annual emissions that are equal to or less than the identified market capture rate would not impede achievement of the state GHG emissions reduction targets codified by AB 32 (2006) and SB 32 (2016).

Therefore, impacts under CEQA associated with projects with individual annual emissions that are equal to or less than the identified capture rate would be less than cumulatively considerable. A 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions.

Furthermore, project emissions would decline beyond the buildout year of the project, 2025, as a result of continued implementation of federal, state, and local reduction measures such as increased federal and state vehicle efficiency standards, and the Imperial Irriga tion District’s ( IID’s) increased renewable sources of energy in accordance with Renewable Portfolio Standard ( RPS) goals. Based on currently available models and regulatory forecasting, project emissions would continue to decline through at least 2050. Gi ven the reasonably anticipated decline in project emissions, once fully constructed and operational, the project is in line with the GHG reductions needed to achieve the 2050 GHG emission reduction targets identified by Executive Order S-3-05.

The 2017 Scoping Plan identifies state strategies for achieving the state’s 2030 interim GHG emissions reduction target codified by SB 32. Measures under the 2017 Scoping Plan scenario build on existing programs such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Ca rs Program, RPS, SCS, Short -Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, and the Cap -and- Trade Program. The project would comply with all applicable provisions contained in the 2017 Scoping Plan since the adopted regulations would apply to new development o r the emission sectors associated with new development.
• Transportation – State regulations and 2017 Scoping Plan measures that would reduce the project’s mobile source emissions include the California Light- Duty Vehicle GHG Standards (AB 1493/Pavley I and II), and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and the heavy-duty truck regulations. These measures are implemented at the state level and would result in project-related mobile source GHG emissions. • Energy – State regulations and 2017 Scoping Plan measures that would reduce the project’s energy-related GHG emissions include RPS, Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The project would be served by IID, which has achieved 28.6 percent renewables as of 2017 and is required to achieve 44 percent by 2024. The project’s energy related GHG emissions would decrease as IID increases its renewables procurement towards the 2030 goal of 60 percent.

Page 75 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 405 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 43 ends

• Water – State regulations and 2017 Scoping Plan measures that would reduce the project’s electricity consumption associated with water supply, treatment, and distribution, and wastewater treatment include RPS, CALGreen, and the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
• Waste – State regulations and 2017 Scoping Plan measures that would reduce the project’s solid waste -related GHG emissions are related to landfill methane control, increases efficiency of landfill methane capture, and high recycling/zero waste. The project would be subject to CALGreen, which requires a diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfills. Additionally, the project would include recycling storage and would divert waste from landfills in accordance with Assembly Bill 341.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable state GHG reduction plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Regional Plans
In addition to being consistent with the CAP and meeting the SCAQMD screening thresholds, the project was evaluated for consistency with the SCS strategies contained in Connect SoCal.

As discussed in Table 8 below, the project would be consistent with applicable Connect SoCal strategies, particularly by constructing a high density residential use adjacent to existing transit. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable regional plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 8
Project Consistency with Connect SoCal Strategies
Project Consistency
Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options
• Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate multimodal access to work, educational, and other destinations.
• Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to reduce
commute times and distances and expand job
opportunities near transit and along center-focused main streets.
• Plan for growth near transit investments and support
implementation of first/last mile strategies.
• Promote the redevelopment of underperforming retail
developments and other outmoded nonresidential uses.
• Prioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized land to accommodate new growth, increase amenities and
connectivity in existing neighborhoods.
• Encourage design and transportation options that reduce the reliance on and number of solo car trips (this could include mixed uses or locating and orienting close to
existing destinations).
• Identify ways to “right size” parking requirements and promote alternative parking strategies (e.g., shared parking or smart parking).

The project would be consistent with Connect
SoCal’s strategies to focus growth near
destinations and mobility options. The project site
is currently undeveloped. The project would
construct a high-density residential use adjacent to
an existing transit route.

Sunline Transit Agency
Route 6 is located adjacent to the project site at
the intersection of Monroe Street and Requa
Avenue. Route 6 provides service adjacent to the
project site, and connects to major transfer points
at Coachella City Hall to the east and the Desert
Crossing Shopping Center to the west. The project
would therefore be consistent with these strategies
by accommodating new residential growth near a
transit route that provides access to commercial
and job centers.

Page 76 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 406 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 44 ends

Table 8
Project Consistency with Connect SoCal Strategies
Project Consistency
Promote Diverse Housing Options
• Preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing and prevent displacement.
• Identify funding opportunities for new workforce and
affordable housing development.
• Create incentives and reduce regulatory barriers for
building context sensitive accessory dwelling units to
increase housing supply.
• Provide support to local jurisdictions to streamline and lessen barriers to housing development that supports
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

The project would support this strategy by
providing much needed housing to the region. The
project would include high density housing, up to
30 dwelling units per acre. The project is intended
to be an inclusive mixed-income residential
community. The project would develop one-
bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units
ranging in size from 685 square feet to 1,440
square feet. Sites A1, A2, and A3 are intended to
attract a younger tenant mix, while Site B is
intended to attract a mature tenant mix. Site C is
intended to attract a homebuyer seeking
homeownership near downtown Indio.

Leverage Technology Innovations
• Promote low emission technologies such as neighborhood electric vehicles, shared ride hailing, car sharing, bike sharing and scooters by providing supportive and safe
infrastructure such as dedicated lanes, charging and
parking/drop-off space.
• Improve access to services through technology, such as telework and telemedicine as well as other incentives such as a mobility wallet.
• Identify ways to incorporate micro-power grids in
communities, for example solar energy, hydrogen fuel cell power storage and power generation.

These strategies are not directly applicable to the
project. The project would not interfere with
SCAG’s efforts to promote low emission
technologies, improve access to telework and
telemedicine, or incorporate micro-power grids in
communities. The project would provide on-site
electric vehicle parking. Additionally,
the City has
recently initiated a pilot program for electric
scooters in the City. Project residences would have
access to these scooter rentals.

Support Implementation of Sustainable Policies
• Pursue funding opportunities to support local sustainable development implementation projects that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
• Support statewide legislation that reduces barriers to new construction and that incentivizes development near transit corridors and stations.
• Support local jurisdictions in the establishment of EIFDs, CRIAS, or other tax increment or value capture tools to finance sustainable infrastructure and development
projects including parks and open space.
• Work with local jurisdictions/communities to identify opportunities and assess barriers for implementing
sustainability strategies.
• Enhance partnerships with other planning organizations to promote resources and best practices in the SCAG region. • Continue to support long range planning efforts by local jurisdictions.
• Provide educational opportunities to local decisions
makers and staff on new tools, best practices and policies related to implementing the Sustainable Communities
Strategy.

These strategies are not directly applicable to the
project. The project would not interfere with
SCAG’s efforts to work with local jurisdictions,
communities, and other planning organizations to
implement sustainable policies. The project would
result in less than significant GHG emissions and
would be located near high-quality transit.

Page 77 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 407 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 45 ends

Table 8
Project Consistency with Connect SoCal Strategies
Project Consistency
Promote a Green Region
• Support development of local climate adaptation and
hazard mitigation plans as well as project implementation that improves community resiliency to climate change and natural hazards.
• Support local policies for renewable energy production, reduction of urban heat islands and carbon sequestration. • Integrate local food production into the regional
landscape.
• Promote more resource efficient development focused on conservation, recycling and reclamation.
• Preserve, enhance and restore regional wildlife
connectivity.
• Reduce consumption of resource areas, including
agricultural land.
• Identify ways to improve access to public park space.

Strategies regarding climate adaptation, food
production, wildlife connectivity, agricultural lands,
and park space are not applicable to the project.

The project would be served by IID, which has
achieved 28.6 percent renewables as of 2019, and
is required to achieve 44 percent by 2024. The
project’s energy-related GHG emissions would
decrease as IID increases its renewables
procurement beyond 2020 towards the 2030 goal
of 60 percent.

Local Plans
As described in Section 8(a) above, the project would be consistent with the City’s CAP.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable local plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts to applicable regulation compliance to be less than significant. As the proposed p roject would have a less than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the p roject would be consistent with the analysis provided within the GPU PEIR because it would not increase impacts identified within the GPU PEIR.

Conclusion
With regard to the issue area of GHG Emissions, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitig ation measures contained within the GPU P EIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Page 78 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 408 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 46 ends

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the p ublic or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?

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

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

f) For a project near a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

g) I mpair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including whe re wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Page 79 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 409 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 47 ends

Discussion
The following technical studies were prepared for the project related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Assessment ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER’S (APN’S) 611-110-039, -043, -046 AND -047, prepared by Geotek, Inc. dated, October 2021, and Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Assessment ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 611-420-001 prepared by Geotek, Inc., dated April 2022.
9(a) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment because it does not propose the storage, use, transport, emission, or disposal of Hazardous Substances, nor are Hazardous Substances proposed or currently in use in the immediate vicinity. In addition, the project does not propose to demolish any existing structures on-site and therefore would not create a hazard related to the release of asbestos, lead -based paint or other hazardous materials from demolition activities. Project construction would require the transport, temporary storage, and use of asphalt fuels, oils, paints, and solvents. However, these materials are not acutely hazardous, and use of these common hazardous materials in small quantities would not represent a significant hazard to the public or environme nt. Additionally, project construction would be required to be undertaken in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the proper use of these common hazardous materials.

Operation of the project would include the use a nd storage of cleaning supplies for the residential uses and clubhouse building. However, these materials are not acutely hazardous, and the project would handle and store these materials consistent with all applicable regulations.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts from transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials and accidental release of hazardous materials to be less than significant. As the project would have a less than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
9(b) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. As described in Section 9(a) above, the project would handle all hazardous materials in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Furthermore, project construction would be conducted consistent with all applicable safety regulations and would not introduce accident conditions that could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, the project would not create upset and accident conditions that could result in the release of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant.

Page 80 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 410 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 48 ends

9(c) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The Springs Charter Schools (Palm Academy) is located 0.16 mile southwest of the project site. As stated in Section 9(a) above, operation of the apartment complex would not involve the use of substantial amounts of hazardous materials and would comply with all federal, state, and local regulations governing the storage and use of hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school, and impacts would be less than significant.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts from transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials and accidental release of hazardous materials to be less than significant. As the project would have a less than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
9(d) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. Based on a comprehensive review of regulatory databases, the project site has not been subject to a release of hazardous substances. Additionally, the project does not propose structures for human occupancy or significant linear excavation within 1,000 feet of an open, abandoned, or closed landfill, is not located on or within 250 feet of the boundary of a parcel identified as containing burn ash (from the historic burning of trash), and is not on or within 1,000 feet of a Formerly Used Defense Site.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts from existing hazardous materials sites to be less than significant. As the proposed project would have a less -than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be con sistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 9(e) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project is located 4 miles southeast from the Bermuda Dunes Airport and is within the Bermuda Dunes Airport Compatibility Zone. The project does not propose construction of any structure equal to or greater than 150 feet in height that w ould constitute a safety hazard to aircraft and/or operations from an airport or heliport. As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts on public airports to be less than significant. As the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
9(f) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact would occur.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts from existing hazardous materials sites to be less than significant. As the project would have a less -than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU

Page 81 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 411 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 49 ends

PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase im pacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 9(g) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project is required to be reviewed and approved by the City of Indio Fire Depar tment prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that it would not preclude or interfere with emergency access or fail to comply with fire department standards. Specific policies in the GPU, such as policies SE-2.2 and SE-2.3, would ensure that the City’s emergency response plan and City Ordinances are updated regularly to reflect current evacuation and emergency procedures. In addition, Policy SE-2.1 would ensure that the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is maintained and updated to reflect up to date emergency response and disaster preparedness information, and applicable evacuation procedures. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an emergency response plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

As the project would have a less-than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
9(h) The GPU EIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The Planning Area is not prone to any major wild land fires due to its desert environment, which does not support large amounts of brush. According to the Riverside County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the city of Indio is not affected by wildfires and risk is generally considered “moderate” throughout the city. Based on the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, wildfire probability is low, with moderate severity. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands, and impacts would be less than significant.

As the project would have a less than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial import ance than identified within the GPU PEIR.

Conclusion
With regard to the issue area of Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially sign ificant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

Page 82 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 412 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 50 ends

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant by adhering to the project conditions of approval, which are consistent with the GPU PEIR.

10. Hydrology and Water Quality
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or substantially degrade water quality of ground or surface waters?

b) S ubstantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site?

d) course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off- site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater dr
ainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

e) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map. Place within a 100 -year flood hazar
d area
structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

f) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Page 83 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 413 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 51 ends

Discussion
10(a) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. Development projects have the potential to generate pollutants during both the construction and operational phases.

During the construction phase, the project would prepare and implement a preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) The WQMP would implement source control, site design and treatment control BMPs. The WQMP would be prepared in accordance with Order No. 2009-009-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Order CAS000002 Construction General Permit (CGP) adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on September 2, 2009.

During the post-construction phase, as outlined in the WQMP, the project would implement site design, source control and structural BMPs to prevent potential pollutants from entering storm water runoff. The project’s conformance to the waste discharge requirements of both the CGP and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) storm water permits listed above ensures the project would not create cumulatively considerable water quality impacts and addresses human health and water quality concerns. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to water quality from waste discharges. As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined significant and unavoidable impacts to water quality standards and requirements. As the project would have a less than significant impact to water quality standards through regulation compliance as detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
10(b) The GPU P EIR concluded this impact to be less than significant . The project is within the service area of the Indio Water Authority. The project would not use groundwater for its potable water supply. In addition, the project does not involve operations that would interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined significant and unavoidable impacts to groundwater supplies and recharge. As the project would have a less than significant impact to groundwater recharge, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 10(c) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. As stated in responses 10(a) and 10(b) above, implementation of BMPs and compliance with NPDES MS4 permit requirements would ensure that p roject impacts are less than significant. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
10(d) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off -site because storm water quality management

Page 84 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 414 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 52 ends

plans are prepared for both the construction and post- construction phases of the development project. The WQMP specifies and describes the implementation process of all BMPs that would address equipment operation and materials management, prevent the erosion process from occurring, and prevent sedimentation in any on-site and downstream receiving waters. T he redevelopment of the project site will modify the on -site drainage patterns, but the discharge point locations will remain unchanged. The p roject is not anticipated to alter runoff in a manner that would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- site or off-site. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 10(e) The GPU EIR concluded this impact to be less than significant . No Federal Emergency Management Agency -mapped floodplains were identified on the project site or off -site improvement locations. The project is not within a 100 -year flood hazard area no r within a dam inundation zone. The project would not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area nor would the project propose structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk o f loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam . Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new informa tion of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
10(f) The GPU EIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The Salton Sea is approximately 17 miles southeast of the project site. Additionally, the natural slope and elevation profile gradually decreases away from the city towards the Salton Sea. Therefore, any flow of water resulting from a seiche in the Salton Sea would not flow uphill to the northwest, towards to the project site. There are n o other bodies of water located in proximity of the project site with potential to cause seiche hazards. The project site is located approximately 80 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and is well outside the tsunami hazard zone. The project site and surrounding area is flat, and has a low risk for landslides that could generate mudflows.

Therefore, the project would not result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact would occur. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.

Conclusion
With regard to the issue area of Hydrology and Water Quality, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

Page 85 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 415 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 53 ends

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant by adhering to the project cond itions of approval, which are consistent with the GPU PEIR.

11. Land Use and Planning
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU EIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

Discussion
11(a) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project would develop multi-family residential units within an urban environment. The project site is surrounded by single-family residential uses to the north, multi-family residential uses to the east and west, a church to the northwest, and commercial uses to the south. The project would be consistent with the Mi d-Town land use designation identified for the site in the GPU. Similarly, the project would be consistent with the Midtown zoning designation identified for the site in the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan. The project would be constructed entirely within the project site and would be consistent in character with surrounding properties and the overall existing and planned land use pattern. Changes to the existing circulation network would be limited to driveway connections to Requa Avenue and Rubidoux Street. The project would connect to utilities that are already serving the surrounding development. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community, and impacts would not be significant.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts related to divisions of an established community to be less than significant. As the project would have a less -than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 11(b) The GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant, because the GPU would be consistent with, and supplement, adopted plans and regulations governing land use and

Page 86 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 416 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 54 ends

development in the Planning Area in regard to SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG’s Sustainability Planning Grant Program, and the City’s adopted Specific Plans . The project would be consistent with the Mid-Town land use designation identified for the site in the GPU. Similarly, the project would be consistent with the Midtown zoning designation identified for the site in the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan. As described in Section 4( f) above, the project would be consistent with the CVMSHCP . As described in Section 8(a) above, the project would be consistent with the City’s adopted CAP. As described throughout environmental document, all other impacts not requiring mitigation would be less than significant or would have no impact. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts to conflicts with land use plans, policies, regulations to be less than significant. As the project would have a less -than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.

Conclusion
With regard to the issue area of Land Use and Planning, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU P EIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

12. Mineral Resources
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Page 87 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 417 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 55 ends

Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

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

Discussion
12(a) The GPU EIR concluded that conversion of Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ) 2 lands to a residential land use that inhibits their availability for mineral resource extraction would be a significant impact. The GPU EIR also determined that No feasible mitigation is available for the loss of mineral resources as the location of significant mineral deposits and resources are site specific, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Review of Figure 4.11-1 of the GPU EIR determined that the project site is identified as MRZ-1, which are areas where available geologic information indicates that little likelihood exists for the presence of significant mineral resources. Land classified as MRZ-3 is not considered a significant mineral resource. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. No impact would occur.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts to mineral resources to be significant and unavoidable. As the project would have no impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
12(b) The GPU EIR concluded that conversion of MRZ -2 lands to a residential land use that inhibits their availability for mineral resource extraction would be a significant impact . The GPU EIR identified eight active mines located within the City’s SOI. Review of Figure 4.11-2 of the GPU EIR determined that the project site is not designated as a mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan. No impact would occur.

Conclusion
With regard to the issue area of Mineral Resources, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

Page 88 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 418 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 56 ends

2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU P EIR would be required because no project specific impacts would occur.

13. Noise
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) R esult in exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?

c) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the
project)?

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

e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion
The following technical studies were prepared for the project related to Noise.

Noise Analysis for Palmera Development Project, prepared by RECON, dated June 2022.

Page 89 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 419 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 57 ends

13(a) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant . Noise measurements were taken to obtain typical ambient noise levels at the project site and in the vicinity. The weather was warm and sunny with a slight breeze. Four 15 -minute measurements were taken, as described below. The measurement locations are shown on Figure 6.

Construction Noise
The project site is surrounded by single -family residential uses to the north, multi -family residential uses to the east and west, a church to the northwest, and commercial uses to the south. Noise levels were modeled at a series of 25 receivers located at the adjacent uses. The results are summarized in Table 9. Modeled receiver locations and construction noise contours are shown in Figure 7.

Table 9
Construction Noise Levels at Off-site Receivers
Receiver Land Use
Construction Noise Level
[dB(A) Leq]
1 Multi-Family Residential 59
2 Multi-Family Residential 62
3 Church 63
4 Single Family Residential 68
5 Single Family Residential 69
6 Single Family Residential 69
7 Single Family Residential 69
8 Single Family Residential 69
9 Single Family Residential 70
10 Single Family Residential 70
11 Single Family Residential 69
12 Single Family Residential 66
13 Multi-Family Residential 62
14 Multi-Family Residential 63
15 Multi-Family Residential 68
16 Multi-Family Residential 70
17 Multi-Family Residential 69
18 Undeveloped 70
19 Commercial 64
20 Commercial 69
21 Commercial 64
22 Commercial 63
23 Commercial 67
24 Undeveloped 67
25 Undeveloped 66
dB(A) Leq = A-weighted decibels equivalent noise level

Page 90 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 420 of 446 FIGURE 6
Noise Measurement Locations
!(
!(
!(
!(
Sierra Ave
Shadow Palm Ave
Arab
ia
St
Rubidoux
St
46 Miles Ave
Paseo Real Ave
LancerGate
Entrada
Rubidoux Dr
Rose Ct
Sereno
San Gorgonio Dr
Ma
rigold St
Del Mar
Lassen
Ct
46th Ave
La
rksp
ur S
t
Lancer Way
Las Palmas Rd
Arabia
St
Plaza Ave
Sun
G
old St
Rubidoux
St
Palm
St
Santa Rosa Ave
San Jacinto Ave
Bliss Ave
Requa Ave
Miles Ave
Dr
Merlin
Monr
oe St
UV111
1 2
3 4
!(
!(
!(
!(
Sierra Ave
Shadow Palm Ave
Arab
ia
St
Rubidoux
St
46 Miles Ave
Paseo Real Ave
LancerGate
Entrada
Rubidoux Dr
Rose Ct
Sereno
San Gorgonio Dr
Ma
rigold St
Del Mar
Lassen
Ct
46th Ave
La
rksp
ur S
t
Lancer Way
Las Palmas Rd
Arabia
St
Plaza Ave
Sun
G
old St
Rubidoux
St
Palm
St
Santa Rosa Ave
San Jacinto Ave
Bliss Ave
Requa Ave
Miles Ave
Dr
Merlin
Monr
oe St
UV111
1 2
3 4
Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2022)
0 500 Feet [
Project Boundary
!( Noise Measurements Locations
M:\JOBS6\10098\common_gis\MXD\15183_Exempt\fig6.mxd 06/13/2022 bma

Page 91 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 421 of 446 FIGURE 7
Construction Noise Contours
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Sierra Ave
Arab
ia St
Rubidoux
St
Shadow Palm Ave
46 Miles Ave
Paseo Real Ave
Entrada
Rubidoux Dr
Rose Ct
Sereno
Mari
gold St
San Gorgonio Dr
Cielo
Del Mar
Lassen
Ct
Larks
pur
St
46th Ave
Lancer Way
Las Palmas Rd
Arabia
St
Plaza Ave
Sun
Go
ld St
Rubidoux
St
Palm
St
Santa Rosa Ave
San Jacinto Ave
Bliss Ave
Requa Ave
Miles Ave
Dr
Merlin
Monr
oe St
UV111
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 !(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Sierra Ave
Arab
ia St
Rubidoux
St
Shadow Palm Ave
46 Miles Ave
Paseo Real Ave
Entrada
Rubidoux Dr
Rose Ct
Sereno
Mari
gold St
San Gorgonio Dr
Cielo
Del Mar
Lassen
Ct
Larks
pur
St
46th Ave
Lancer Way
Las Palmas Rd
Arabia
St
Plaza Ave
Sun
Go
ld St
Rubidoux
St
Palm
St
Santa Rosa Ave
San Jacinto Ave
Bliss Ave
Requa Ave
Miles Ave
Dr
Merlin
Monr
oe St
UV111
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2022)
0 500 Feet [Project Boundary
!( Receivers
Construction Noise Contours
60 dB(A) Leq
65 dB(A) Leq
70 dB(A) Leq
75 dB(A) Leq
M:\JOBS6\10098\common_gis\MXD\15183_Exempt\fig7.mxd 06/13/2022 bma

Page 92 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 422 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 60 ends

As shown in Table 9, noise levels generated by project -related construction activities are projected to range from 59 to 70 A-weighted decibels equivalent noise level (dB(A) Leq). The City does not specify a numerical noise level limit applicable to construction activities, however, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA’s) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment manual indicates that 80 dB(A) L eq is reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise levels at residential uses (FTA 2018). Construct ion noise levels are not projected to exceed 80 dB(A) L eq at the adjacent residential uses. Although the adjacent residences would be exposed to construction noise levels that could be heard above ambient conditions, the exposure would be temporary. The City regulates construction noise through Section 95C.08.B of the Municipal Code by limiting construction activities to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays during pacific standard time, and 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays during pacific daylight time. Construction activities would only occur during the hours permitted under Section 95C.08.B of the Municipal Code. The on- site construction activities would not generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not increase impacts identified within the GPU PEIR.

On-site Noise Compatibility
The project site is exposed to vehicle traffic noise from Monroe Street and Requa Avenue, and to a lesser degree Rubidoux Street and I- 111. Multi-family land uses are “acceptable” with noise levels up to 65 community noise equivalent level ( CNEL), “conditionally acceptable” with noise levels from 65 to 75 CNEL, and “unacceptable” with noise levels above 75 CNEL (City of Indio 2019). The interior noise level standard is 45 CNEL.

Exterior Noise
Vehicle traffic noise level contours across the project site were calculated using SoundPLAN.

These noise contours are shown in Figure 8. Contours take into account shielding provided by proposed buildings. As shown on Figure 8, noise levels are projected to be less than 65 CNEL across a majority of the project site. Noise levels are projected to exceed 65 CNEL at the western project boundary closest to Monroe Street. Ground floor noise levels at all proposed buildings are not projected to exceed 75 CNEL.

Noise levels were also modeled at the exterior use area which include pools, dog parks, pocket parks, sports courts, and seating areas. Noise levels were also modeled around the building façades. Noise levels were modeled at the exterior use area to determine exterior noise compatibility with City standards. Noise levels were modeled at building façades in order to determine the necessary noise reduction measures needed to reduce interior noise levels to 45 CNEL or less. Exterior noise levels are summarized in Table 10.

Page 93 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 423 of 446 FIGURE 8
Vehicle Traffic Noise Contours
!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Del
46 Rubidoux St
Rubidoux Dr
San Gorgonio Dr
Lassen
Ct
46th Ave
Su
n Gol
d
St
Rubidoux St
Pal
m
St
Sierra Ave
Miles Ave
Bliss Ave
Requa Ave
Monroe
St
UV111
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 121314
15 16
17 18192021 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
353637383940
41 42
43 44
45 !(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Del
46 Rubidoux St
Rubidoux Dr
San Gorgonio Dr
Lassen
Ct
46th Ave
Su
n Gol
d
St
Rubidoux St
Pal
m
St
Sierra Ave
Miles Ave
Bliss Ave
Requa Ave
Monroe
St
UV111
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 121314
15 16
17 18192021 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
353637383940
41 42
43 44
45 Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2022)
0 330 Feet [Project Boundary
Site Plan
Buildings
!( Receivers
Vehicle Traffic Noise Contours
50 CNEL
55 CNEL
60 CNEL
65 CNEL
70 CNEL
M:\JOBS6\10098\common_gis\MXD\15183_Exempt\fig8.mxd 06/13/2022 bma

Page 94 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 424 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 62 ends

Table 10
On-Site Vehicle Traffic Noise Levels
Receiver Location
Exterior Noise Level (CNEL)
1st Floor 2nd Floor
1 Exterior Use Area – Dog Park 48 --
2 Exterior Use Area – Pickle Ball 49 --
3 Exterior Use Area – Pool 43 --
4 Exterior Use Area – Seating Area 51 --
5 Exterior Use Area – Pool 45 --
6 Exterior Use Area – Pocket Park 46 --
7 Exterior Use Area – Pool 40 --
8 Exterior Use Area – Pocket Park 61 --
9 Exterior Use Area – Pocket Park 61 --
10 Exterior Use Area – Dog Park 61 --
11 Exterior Use Area – Seating Area 58 --
12 Building Façade 61 --
13 Building Façade 63 --
14 Building Façade 66 --
15 Building Façade 71 --
16 Building Façade 71 --
17 Building Façade 72 --
18 Building Façade 72 --
19 Building Façade 69 --
20 Building Façade 67 --
21 Building Façade 66 --
22 Building Façade 64 --
23 Building Façade 65 --
24 Building Façade 64 --
25 Building Façade 63 --
26 Building Façade 63 --
27 Building Façade 63 --
28 Building Façade 63 --
29 Building Façade 63 --
30 Building Façade 63 --
31 Building Façade 63 --
32 Building Façade 63 --
33 Building Façade 63 --
34 Building Façade 64 --
35 Building Façade 64 --
36 Building Façade 64 --
37 Building Façade 64 --
38 Building Façade 64 --
39 Building Façade 64 --
40 Building Façade 63 --
41 Building Façade 63 --
42 Building Façade 62 --
43 Building Façade 59 62
44 Building Façade 63 65
45 Building Façade 58 60
CNEL = community noise equivalent level

Page 95 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 425 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 63 ends

As shown in Table 10, exterior noise levels at the exterior use areas (Receivers 1 through 11) would range from 40 to 61 CNEL, which would be less than the City’s “normally acceptable” compatibility standard of 65 CNEL. Therefore, the project would not be exposed to exterior noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Interior Noise
Interior noise levels can be reduced through standard construction techniques. When windows are closed, standard construction techniques provide various exterior -to-interior noise level reductions depending on the type of structure and window. According to the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidance, buildings with masonry façades and double glazed windows can be estimated to provide a noise level reduction of 35 dB, while light -frame structures with double glazed windows may provide noise level reductions of 20 to 25 dB (FHWA 2011).

The interior noise level standard for residential uses is 45 CNEL. As shown in Table 10, exterior noise levels would range from 40 to 72 CNEL. Standard light- frame construction would reduce exterior to interior noise levels by at least 20 dB. This analysis conservatively assumes that standard construction techniques would achieve 20 dB exterior to interior noise reduction. Using this assumption, interior noise levels would be reduced to 45 CNEL or less in buildings exposed to exterior noise levels of 65 CNEL or less. Noise levels would exceed 65 CNEL at the buildings located adjacent to Monroe Street (Receivers 14 through 21).

The sound transmission class (STC) rating of windows, walls, and roofs is an integer value that rates how well a building component attenuates noise. The STC rating general reflects the decibel reduction that a building component can achieve. Therefore, because a noise reduction of up to 27 dB(A) is required to achieve interior noise levels of 45 CNEL or less, building components with an STC rating of up to 27 are required. Standard walls and roofs typically have STC ratings greater than 40, therefore, this analysis focuses on the minimum required window STC ratings.

Table 11 summarizes the required composite STC ratings that need to be achieved in each location exceeding 65 CNEL. The provision of windows that have an STC equal to or greater than the values shown in Table 11 would be sufficient to reduce interior noise levels to 4 5 CNEL or less. Therefore, the project would not be exposed to interior noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Page 96 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 426 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 64 ends

Table 11
Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Receiver
Maximum Exterior Noise
Level (CNEL)
Required Window STC
Rating
14 66 21
15 71 26
16 71 26
17 72 27
18 72 27
19 69 24
20 67 22
21 66 21

Off-site Vehicle Traffic Noise
The project would increase traffic volumes on local roadways. However, the project would not substantially alter the vehicle classifications mix on local or regional roadways, nor would the project alter the speed on an existing roadway or create a new roadway. Thus, the primary factor affecting off-site noise levels would be increased traffic volumes. While changes in noise levels would occur along any roadway where project -related traffic occurs, for noise assessment purposes, noise level increases are assumed to be greatest nearest the project site, as this location would represent the greatest concentration of project- related traffic. A substantial noise increase is defined as an increase of 3 dB above existing conditions. An off- site traffic noise analysis will be completed once the traffic analysis is complete.

On-site Generated Noise
The primary noise sources on-site would be heating, ventilations, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Using the on-site noise source parameters discussed in Section 4.3, noise levels were modeled at a series of 25 receivers located at the adjacent uses. Modeled receivers and HVAC noise contours are shown in Figure 9. Future projected noise levels are summarized in Table 12.

As shown in Table 12, HVAC noise levels are anticipated to range from 36 to 48 dB(A) Leq, and would not exceed the applicable County of Riverside Municipal Code noise level limits that were used for the purposes of this noise analysis. Noise generated by the project would be consistent with the existing surrounding development and would not result in unacceptably high noise levels at the adjacent land uses. Therefore, operational HVAC noise would not generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant.

Page 97 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 427 of 446 FIGURE 9
HVAC Noise Contours
" ""
"""" ""
" "" " " ""
"
""
"
""
"
"
"" ""
"
"
"
"
"" "
"
""
"
"
""
"
"" ""
"
"" ""
"
"
""
"
""
"
"
""
"
""
"
"
" "" "
"
"" ""
"
"
"" ""
"
"
"" ""
"
"
""
"
""
""
"
""
"
"
""""
"
"
" """"" ""
"
"
""" "
"
"
""
""
""""
"
"
""""" "
"
"
""" "
"
"
"" ""
"
"
""" "
"
"
"
"
" """""
"
""""
""
"
" """""
"
" " " "
"
" " "
"
" "" "
"
""
"
" " "
"
" ""
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
" "
" "" "
" "
"
"
" "
" "
"
""
"
" " " "
" "" """ " "" "" " " "" "" " " " " " " "
""" """
" " " " """"" """
" "" """""" """""" """
" "" " " "
"""
""" "" "
" "" """
" " " " " "
""" "" "
""" "" "
""" """
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
SR-111
Sierra Ave
Shadow Palm Ave
Arabia
St
46 Rubidoux
St
Miles Ave
Paseo Real Ave
Magnolia
Ct
LancerGate
Entrada
Rubidoux Dr
Rose Ct
Sereno
San Gorgonio Dr
Mari
gold St
Del Mar
Lassen
Ct
46th Ave
Lancer Way
La
rksp
ur S
t
Arabia St
Las Palmas Rd
Plaza Ave
Sun
Gold
St
Rubidoux StPal
m
St
Santa Rosa Ave
Bliss Ave
Requa Ave
Miles Ave
Monroe St
UV111
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 " ""
"""" ""
" "" " " ""
"
""
"
""
"
"
"" ""
"
"
"
"
"" "
"
""
"
"
""
"
"" ""
"
"" ""
"
"
""
"
""
"
"
""
"
""
"
"
" "" "
"
"" ""
"
"
"" ""
"
"
"" ""
"
"
""
"
""
""
"
""
"
"
""""
"
"
" """"" ""
"
"
""" "
"
"
""
""
""""
"
"
""""" "
"
"
""" "
"
"
"" ""
"
"
""" "
"
"
"
"
" """""
"
""""
""
"
" """""
"
" " " "
"
" " "
"
" "" "
"
""
"
" " "
"
" ""
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
" "
" "" "
" "
"
"
" "
" "
"
""
"
" " " "
" "" """ " "" "" " " "" "" " " " " " " "
""" """
" " " " """"" """
" "" """""" """""" """
" "" " " "
"""
""" "" "
" "" """
" " " " " "
""" "" "
""" "" "
""" """
!(
!(
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
SR-111
Sierra Ave
Shadow Palm Ave
Arabia
St
46 Rubidoux
St
Miles Ave
Paseo Real Ave
Magnolia
Ct
LancerGate
Entrada
Rubidoux Dr
Rose Ct
Sereno
San Gorgonio Dr
Mari
gold St
Del Mar
Lassen
Ct
46th Ave
Lancer Way
La
rksp
ur S
t
Arabia St
Las Palmas Rd
Plaza Ave
Sun
Gold
St
Rubidoux StPal
m
St
Santa Rosa Ave
Bliss Ave
Requa Ave
Miles Ave
Monroe St
UV111
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2022)
0 500 Feet [Project Boundary
Site Plan
Buildings
!( Receivers
6-foot Wall
" HVAC
HVAC Noise Contours
40 dB(A) Leq
45 dB(A) Leq
50 dB(A) Leq
M:\JOBS6\10098\common_gis\MXD\15183_Exempt\fig9.mxd 06/13/2022 bma

Page 98 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 428 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 66 ends

Table 12
HVAC Noise Levels at Adjacent Property Lines
[dB(A) Leq]
Receiver Land Use
Applicable Limit
Daytime/Nighttime1 HVAC Noise Level
1 Multi-Family Residential 55/45 36
2 Multi-Family Residential 55/45 40
3 Church 55/45 41
4 Single-Family Residential 55/45 43
5 Single-Family Residential 55/45 44
6 Single-Family Residential 55/45 45
7 Single-Family Residential 55/45 45
8 Single-Family Residential 55/45 39
9 Single-Family Residential 55/45 41
10 Single-Family Residential 55/45 44
11 Single-Family Residential 55/45 44
12 Single-Family Residential 55/45 44
13 Multi-Family Residential 55/45 37
14 Multi-Family Residential 55/45 38
15 Multi-Family Residential 55/45 43
16 Multi-Family Residential 55/45 42
17 Multi-Family Residential 55/45 45
18 Undeveloped 65/55 39
19 Commercial 65/55 43
20 Commercial 65/55 48
21 Commercial 65/55 40
22 Commercial 65/55 39
23 Commercial 65/55 42
24 Undeveloped 65/55 43
25 Undeveloped 65/55 42
dB(A) Leq = A-weighted decibels equivalent noise level
1Refer to Section 2.2.

13(b) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. Human reaction to vibration is dependent on the environment the receiver is in, as well as individual sensitivity. For example, vibration outdoors is rarely noticeable and generally not considered annoying.

Typically, humans must be inside a structure for vibrations to become noticeable and/or annoying. Based on several federal studies, the threshold of perception is 0.035 inch per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV), with 0.24 in/sec PPV being a distinctly perceptible (Caltrans 2013). The FTA thresholds for architectural damage are 0.12 in/sec PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and

0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry.

Construction activities produ ce varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. While ground vibrations from typical construction activities very rarely reach levels high enough to cause damage to structures, special consideration must be made when sensitive or historic land uses are near the construction site. The construction activities that typically generate the highest levels of vibration are

Page 99 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 429 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 67 ends

blasting and impact pile driving and the use of a vibratory roller. However, the project would not require blasting, pile driving, or vibratory rollers. The largest piece of vibration-generating equipment that could be used for project construction is a large bulldozer. Large bulldozers generate a vibration level of 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet. The nearest structures are located approximately 15 feet from the project boundary. A vibration level of 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet would be 0.156 in/sec PPV at 15. These vibration levels would be less than the FTA threshold for non- engineered timber and masonry bui ldings. Additionally, construction equipment would move throughout the entire site and would only be located near the project boundaries for short periods of time. Thus, vibration levels at the receptors located near the project boundaries would be less th an these maximum levels for a majority of the construction period. Although vibration levels may be perceptible for short periods of time, maximum vibration levels would not exceed FTA thresholds. Therefore, project construction would not generate excessiv e ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels , and impacts would be less than significant. Once operational, the project would not be a source of ground borne vibration or ground borne noise. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not increase impacts identified within the GPU PEIR.
13(c) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. As described in Section 13(a) above, the project would not result in any temporary or permanent increases in the ambient noise level that would be considered a significant impact. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new inform ation of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
13(d) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project is located four miles southeast from the Bermuda Dunes Airport and is within the Bermuda Dunes Airport Compatibility Zone. Due to this distance, noise at Bermuda Dunes Airport would not affect residents at the project site. As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts be less than si gnificant. As the project would have a less than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new informa tion of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
13(e) The GPU EIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact would occur.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts to be less than significant. As the proposed project would have a less-than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.

Page 100 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 430 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 68 ends

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Noise, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. A feasible mitigation measure contained within the GPU (MM -NOS-1) has been applied to the project to reduce impacts to a level less than significant.

14. Population and Housing
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

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

Discussion
14(a) The project would be consistent with the Mid-Town land use designation and corresponding density allowable under the General Plan. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area as development of the site was accounted for within the GPU. Vehicular access would be provided by existing roads, and the project would connect to existing underground utilities adjacent to the project site. Consequently, the project would not require extension of roads or other infrastructure that could induce population growth. Therefore, the project would not induce unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly. No impact would occur.

Page 101 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 431 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 69 ends

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts from population growth to be less than significant. As the proposed project would have a less than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impact s, increase impacts, and there is not new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 14(b) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project site is vacant and would not require the demolition of any residential structures or displace substantial numbers of people. As such, replacement housing would not be required elsewhere.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts from displacement of housing to be less than significant. As the proposed proj ect would have a less-than-significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impa cts, increase impacts, and there is not new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.

Conclusion
With regard to the issue area of Population and Housing, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

15. Public Services and Recreation
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire
protection and emergency service facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts in order to maintain service
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives?

Page 102 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 432 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 70 ends

Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
b) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts in order to maintain
service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives?

c) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school
f
acilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts in order to maintain
service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives?

d) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered library facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts in order to maintain
service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives?

e) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?

Discussion
15(a) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant . Fire and emergency protection would be provided by the City ’s Fire Department. The nearest fire station is 1.5 miles from the project site and is Station 1, located at 46900 Jackson Street in southeast Indio, serves as the City’s Headquarters Station where Fire Administration and Prevention Offices are located. There are 22 firefighters assigned to the station that staff one fire engine, one ladder truck, and one paramedic ambulance. Additional equipment assigned includes one reserve fire engine, one reserve ambulance, and one water tender. The project would be consistent with the existing land use designation for the site, and therefore would accommodate anticipated population growth and would be consistent with planning

Page 103 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 433 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 71 ends

projections for future fire protection facilities within the city. Furthermore, the project would be required to pay development impact fees (DIFs) that would contribute the project’s fair share towards the funding of future fire protection facilities. Therefore, the project would not result in the need for new or altered fire protection facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is not new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
15(b) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The Indio Police Department enforces local, state, and federal statutes to protect the general welfare of the community.

The Indio Police Department is located at 46800 Jackson Street in southeast Indio. The force currently consists of 62 sworn officers and 37 non-sworn staff for a total of 99 full-time staff.

The project would be consistent with the existing land use designation for the site, and therefore would accommodate anticipated population growth and would be consistent with planning projections for future fire protection facilities within the c ity. Furthermore, the project would be required to pay DIFs that would contribute the project’s fair share towards the funding of future fire protection facilities. Therefore, the project would not result in the need for new or altered police protection facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

However, the project would pay DIFs that would contribute the project’s fair share towards the funding of future schools. Furthermore, the project would be consistent with the existing land use designation for the site, and therefore would accommodate anticipated population growth and would be consistent with planning projections for future schools within the city.

Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

Page 104 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 434 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 72 ends

within the City. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered public facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is not new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 15(e) The GPU P EIR concluded this impact to be less than significant . The project would be consistent with the existing land use designation for the site, and therefore would accommodate anticipa ted population growth and would be consistent with planning projections for future parks within the City. Furthermore, the project would be required to pay DIFs that would contribute the project’s fair share towards the funding of future park facilities. Therefore, the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, and impacts would be less than signifi cant. The project would include in-site amenities including pools, clubhouses, sports courts, dog parks, and playgrounds These amenities would be located entirely within the project footprint.

Consequently, potential impacts associated with proposed on -site recreation facilities have been considered within this environmental document. Therefore, the project would not have adverse physical effect on the environment caused by expansion or construction of recreational facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is not new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.

Conclusion
With regard to the issue area of Public Services, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Page 105 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 435 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 73 ends

16. Transportation and Traffic
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to LOS standards
and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non -motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Would
the GPU conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian faci
lities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plan s, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Page 106 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 436 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 74 ends

Discussion
17(a) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be significant and unavoidable . As discussed in the traffic study, new project trips would be distributed onto city roads. The project would be consistent with the Mid -Town land use designation and corresponding density allowable under the General Plan. Therefore, the project would not i nduce substantial unplanned population growth in the area as development of the site was accounted for within the GPU.

Therefore, the project would not generate additional vehicle trips that were not accounted for in the GPU EIR. The project would implement mitigation as necessary if any are identified in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) to be prepared for the project.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined significant and unavoidable impacts to unincorporated city traffic and level of service (LOS) standards. The project would have a less than significant impact to City roadway and road segments and would implement mitigation as necessary if any are identified in the TIA to be prepared for the project. The project would not result in a pec uliar impact to the site, or a more severe impact than anticipated in the GPU PEIR. Therefore, the project would be consistent within the GPU PEIR. 17(b) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. Plans, policies, and programs for the purpose of encouraging alternative transportation modes include the 2008 Complete Streets Act, SCAG’s 2016 – 2040 RTP/SCS, Riverside County Transportation Commission Congestion Management Program, Coachella Valley Association of Governments ( CVAG’s) Coachella Valley Link Conceptual Master Plan, and the SunLine Transit Agency’s Short Range Transit Plan Fiscal Year 2017/18 – Fiscal Year 2019/20. The project would be consistent with the Mid-Town land use designation and corresponding density allowable under the General Plan. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area as development of the site was accounted for within the GPU. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program and would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not generate additional vehicle trips that were not accounted for in the GPU PEIR. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is not new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
17(c) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The Bermuda Dunes Airport is located in Riverside County, a census -designated place adjacent to the c ity of Indio, just off of Avenue 42, approximately four miles from downtown Indio. The airport is privately owned by the Bermuda Dunes Airport Corporation. The project is locat ed four miles southeast from t he Bermuda Dunes Airport and is within the Bermuda Dunes Airport Compatibility Zone. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan establishes land use compatibility policies for areas in the vicinity of airports th roughout Riverside County, including the Bermuda Dunes Airport. The p roject has been reviewed by the Riverside County Airport Authority and has been determined to be conditionally consistent with the Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Therefore, the project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks, and impacts would be less than

Page 107 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 437 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 75 ends

significant. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is not new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 17(d) The GPU EIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project would construct driveway connections to Requa Avenue and Rubidoux Street. These driveway connections would be designed and constructed consistent with all applicable City roadway requirements.

The project would not make any other changes to the existing circulation network. Therefore, the project wou ld not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is not new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 17(e) The GPU EIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project is required to be reviewed and approved by the City ’s Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that it would not preclude or interfere with emergency access or fail to comply with fire department standards. Specific policies in the GPU, such as p olicies SE-2.2 and SE-2.3, would ensure that the City’s emergency response plan and City Ordinances are updated regularly to reflect current evacuation and emergency procedures. Project driveways Requa Avenue and Rubidoux Street would be constructed consistent with all applicable City safety requirements related to emergency access. Therefore, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access to or from the project site, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is not new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 17(f) The GPU EIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project would construct sidewalks that would improve pedestrian connectivity. The project has been designed to avoid impacts to the bus stop located along Requa Avenue. Therefore, the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is not new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.

Conclusion
With regard to the issue area of Transportation and Traffic, the following findings can be made

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

Page 108 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 438 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 76 ends

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. Feasible mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be applied to the project would be implemented if any are identified in the TIA to be prepared for the project.

17. Utilities and Service Systems
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? Result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate cap acity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new expanded
entitlements needed?

c) R equire or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?

d) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal
needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Page 109 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 439 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 77 ends

Discussion
18(a) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant . The Indio Water Authority (IWA) provides potable water to a service area covering the majority of the City and some of the unincorporated SOI; the remainder of the Planning Area is served by Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The project requires water service from the IWA. The project would be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations for the project site, and therefore would be consistent with the growth projections utilized to forecast water and wastewater demand in the GPU PEIR. Consequently, the project would not require construction of any off -site water facilities. The Valley Sanitary District provided a letter documenting that adequate capacity exists to provide wastewater services for the project.

Existing water and wastewater service lines are available adjacent to the site, and improvements would be limited to extension of pipelines onto the project site. Consequently, potential impacts associated with construction of new or expanded water facilities would only occur on- site and have been considered as part project construction within this environmental document and would be less than significant.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts on new water and wastewater treatment requirements and facilities are l ess than significant. As the project would have a less than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is not new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
18(b) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant As described in Section 17(a) above, the project would be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations for the project site, and therefore would be consistent with the growth projections utilized to forecast water and wastewater demand in the GPU PEIR. Consequently, the project would not require construction of any off -site water facilities. The Valley Sanitary District provided a letter documenting that adequate capacity exists to provide wastewater services for the project.

The GPU PEIR determined impacts associated with new water and wastewater treatment facilities to be less than significant. As the project would have a less -than significant, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is not new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.
18(c) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. The project would construct new storm water drainage facilities that would adequately drain the project site and avoid

Page 110 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 440 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 78 ends

impacting off-site stormwater facilities. The proposed stormwater facilities would be located within the project footprint. Consequently, potential impacts associated with construction of the proposed on-site stormwater facilities have been considered within this environmental document. Therefore, the project would not require construction of off -site storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR determined impacts on sufficient stormwater drainage facilities to be less than significant. As the project would have a less -than significant impact for the reasons detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is not new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR. 18(d) The GPU PEIR concluded this impact to be less than significant. All solid waste facilities, including landfills require solid waste facility permits to operate. The City has agreements with Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services for residential and commercial trash and recycling collection. Burrtec’s contract calls for solid waste to be transported to the Indio/Coachella Valley Waste Transfer Station in Coachella. The Indio/Coachella Valley Waste Transfer Station has capacity to adequately serve the project. The project would deposit all solid waste at a permitted solid waste facility. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPU PEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is not new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPU PEIR.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Utilities and Service Systems, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

18. Wildfire
Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
Would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Page 111 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 441 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 79 ends

Significant
Project
Impact
Impact not
Identified by

GPU PEIR
Substantial
New
Information
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts in the environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant risk, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-
fire instability, or drainage
changes?

Discussion
The GPU EIR did not specifically address Wildfire in the CEQA documents. Wildfire was analyzed within the GPU EIR within Section 4.8 , Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The guidelines for determining significance stated: the proposed General Plan Update would have a significant impact if it would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. In 2019, the issue of Wildfire was separated into its own section within Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to incorporate the four issue questions above. The GPU PEIR did address these issues within the analysis; however, they were not called out as separate issue areas . The Planning Area is not prone to any major wild land fires due to its desert environment, which does not support large amounts of brush. According to the Riverside County Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the city of Indio is not affected by wildfires and risk is generally considered “moderate” throughout the city. Based on the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, wildfire probability is low, with moderate severity. Within the GPU PEIR, the issue of Wildland Fires was determined to be less than significant.
19(a) The project is required to be reviewed and approved by the City’s Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that it would not preclude or interfere with emergency access or fail to comply with fire department standards. Specific policies in the GPU, such as policies SE-2.2 and SE-2.3, would ensure that the City’s emergency response plan and City Ordinances are updated regularly to reflect current evacuation and emergency procedures.

In addition, Policy SE-2.1 would ensure that the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is maintained and updated to reflect up to date emergency response and disaster preparedness information, and applicable evacuation procedures. As previously discussed, the GPU PEIR did not analyze Wildfire as a separate issue area under CEQA.

Page 112 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 442 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project

Page 80 ends

19(b) The city is not prone to any major wild land fires due to its desert environment, which does not support large amounts of brush. According to the Riverside County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012), the city is not affected by wildfires and risk is generally considered “moderate” throughout the city. Based on the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, wildfire probability is low, with moderate severity. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the project would not be expected to experience exacerbate d wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing, winds or other factors. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing, winds or other factors , and impacts would be less than significant.
19(c) The project would require the installation and maintenance of new private roads and driveways within the project site. The project also requires a minor water pipeline extension to connect to the Indio Water Authority. Sewer service would be provided by t he CVWD Wastewater Treatment Plant. All infrastructure associated with the project would be located within the project footprint and would not generate a fire risk. Therefore, the project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk, and impacts would be less than significant.
19(d) The majority of the city is not susceptible to downslopes, downstream flooding or landslides because it is mostly flat, and therefore has a low risk for landslides. Based on review of the project by City s taff and the topography of the site, potential hazards associated with landslides are less than significant. In addition, a soils compaction report with proposed foundation recommendation would be required to be app roved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Additionally, compliance with the City’s Building Code and implementation of standard engineering techniques will ensure structural safety. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the project site would no t expose people or structures to significant risk, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire instability, or drainage changes, and impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
With regard to the issue area of Wildfire, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Page 113 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 443 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project
Appendix A: List of Project Specific Technical Studies
The following is the list of project specific technical studies used to support the project’s environmental analysis. All technical studies are available on the website here:
[Insert Website Link]
or hard copies are available at the Community Development, 100 Civic Center Mall, Indio, CA. 92201
References
For a complete list of technical studies, references, and significance guidelines used to support the analysis of the General Plan Update Final Certified Program EIR, dated September 18, 2019 , please visit the City’s website at: https://www.indio.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=29168 Technical Studies
Air Quality Analysis for the Palmera Project. Prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. June 13, 2022.

Biological Technical Report for the Palmera Project. Prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. June 13, 2022.

Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Palmera Development Project. Prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. June 13, 2022.

Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation Proposed Single-Family Residential Development APNs 611-110-039, -043, -046, and -047. GeoTek, Inc. October 21, 2021.

Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the Palmera Development Project. Prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. June 13, 2022.

Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 611- 110-039, -043, -046 and -047. Prepared by GeoTek, Inc. October 18, 2021

Phase I and Limited Phase II Envi ronmental Site Assessment Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 611 - 420-001. GeoTek, Inc. April 6, 2022.

Noise Analysis for the Palmera Development Project. Prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. June 13, 2022.

Page 114 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 444 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project
References Cited
Agriculture and Forest Resources
State of California, Department of Conservation
2016 California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.

Air Quality
Indio, City of
2019 General Plan 2040. Adopted September 18.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
1992 Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources.

Greenhouse Gases
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2008 CEQA & Cli mate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
2008 Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans. October.

2010 Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Thresholds Stakeholder Working Group 15.

September 28, 2010.

Noise
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2013 Technical Noise Supplement. November.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
2011 Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. FHWA-HEP-10-025. December.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123. Prepared by John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. September.

Indio, City of
2019 General Plan 2040. Adopted September 18.

Page 115 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 445 of 446 CEQA Guidelines §15183 Exemption Checklist
Palmera Development Project
Appendix B: A Summary of Determinations and Mitigation within the GPU PEIR
A Summary of Determinations and Mitigation with in the GPU PEIR is available on the Community Development website at: https://www.indio.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=29168

Page 116 of 116 ends

AGENDA ITEM #11.1
Resolution No. 10338 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of I... Page 446 of 446

Indio City CouncilJanuary 18, 2023

Indio City Council
January 18, 2023