Palm Springs City Council
March 24, 2022

(Revised 05/16/19)

PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

1. Name of Entity

2. Address of Entity (Principle Place of Business)

3. Local or California Address (if different than #2)

4. State where Entity is Registered with Secretary of State

If other than California, is the Entity also registered in California? /g70 Yes /g70 No

5. Type of Entity

/g70 Corporation /g70 Limited Liability Company /g70 Partnership /g70 Trust /g70 Other (please specify)

6. Officers, Directors, Members, Managers, Trustees, Other Fiduciaries (please specify) Note: If any response is not a natural person, please identify all officers, directors, members, managers and other fiduciaries for the member, manager, trust or other entity

_________________________________________________ /g70 Officer /g70 Director /g70 Member /g70 Manager
[name]
/g70 General Partner /g70 Limited Partner

/g70
Other ____________________________________

_________________________________________________ /g70 Officer /g70 Director /g70 Member /g70 Manager [name]
/g70 General Partner /g70 Limited Partner

/g70
Other ____________________________________

_________________________________________________ /g70 Officer /g70 Director /g70 Member /g70 Manager
[name]
/g70 General Partner /g70 Limited Partner

/g70 Other ____________________________________

Shade Structures, Inc. dba USA SHADE & Fabric Structures 2580 Esters Blvd. Ste 100 DFW Airport, TX 75261
1085 N Main St. Ste C Orange, CA 92867
Delaware
John Saunders
David Schneider
Virginia Marquez
Item 1L - 6
-
~
-
X
X
X
'
X
X
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS – PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM
Page /g1006 of 2
(Revised 05/16/19)

7. Owners/Investors with a 5% beneficial interest in the Applicant Entity or a related entity

EXAMPLE

JANE DOE
[name of owner/investor]
50%, ABC COMPANY, Inc.
[percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of entity]
A.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
B.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
C.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
D.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
E.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

Signature of Disclosing Party, Printed Name, Title Date

PENALTIES
Falsification of information or failure to report information required to be reported may subject you to administrative action by the City.

PlayPower, Inc.- Parent Company 100%
John Saunders, President
Nov 30, 2020
Item 1L - 7I /A~~ I
I
._______ ____ _JI

Attachment B
Item 1L - 8

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CA

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND NON-DISCRIMINATION
Conflict of Interest. Contractor acknowledges that no office or employee of the City has or shall have any direct or indirect financial interest in this Agreement nor shall Contractor enter into any agreement of any kind with any such officer or employee during the term of this Agreement and for one year thereafter. Contractor warrants that Contractor has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, any third party any m oney or other consideration in exchange for obtaining this Agreement.

Covenant Against Discrimination. In connection with its performance under this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminat e against any employee or appli cant for employment because of actual or perceived race, religion, color, sex, age martial status, ancestry, national origin (i.e., place of origin, immigration status, cultural or linguistic characteristics, or ethnicity), sexual orientation, gender identity, gender e xpression, physical or mental disab ility, or medical condition (each a “prohibited basis”). Contractor shall ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during their employment, without regard to any prohibited basis. As a condition precedent to City’s lawful capacity to enter this Agreement, and in executing this Agreement, Contractor certifies that its actions and o missions hereunder shall not incor porate any discrimination arising from or related to any prohibited basis in any Contractor activity, including but not limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transf er; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensa tion; and selection for training, including apprenticeship; and further, that Contractor is in full compliance with the provisions of Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 7.09.040, including without limitation the provision of benefits, relating to non-discrimination in city Contracting.

NAME OF CONTRACTOR/VENDOR:

NAME and TITLE of Authorized Representative:
(Print)
Signature and Date of Authorized Representative:
(Sign) (Date)
Μώχϊϋ
ΜϚϘϛωϚϛϘϋϙͥ
Βϔωͨ
ϊψχ
ΞΜΊ
ΜΑΊ΍Ύ
І
ΏχψϘϏω
ΜϚϘϛωϚϛϘϋϙ Γϕώϔ
ΜχϛϔϊϋϘϙͥ
ΙϘϋϙϏϊϋϔϚ
ккͿмйͿлйлй
Item 1L - 9

Attachment C
Item 1L - 10
www.usa-shade.com | 800-966-5005
Palm Springs, CA 92262
AZ: 289388 CA: 989458 LA: 61718 NV:78724
NM: 383826 TN: 68712 DIR: 1000003533
Aquatic Center Shade Structures
3/11/2022
Proposal based on Sourcewell Contract #: 010521-LTS-6
Proposal Prepared For:

City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Item 1L - 11

USASHADE
& Fabric Structures®
Date: 3/11/2022
Purchaser: Contact: Sales Rep:

Project Name: Phone: Phone:

Quote No: Email: Email:

PO No: Fax: Fax:

Contact: Contact: Contact:

Phone Phone Phone
Email: Email: Email:

Fax: Fax: Fax:

CORPORATE ADDRESS: REMITTANCE ADDRESS:
2580 Esters Blvd., Suite 100 P.O. Box 734158
DFW Airport, TX 75261 Dallas, TX 75373-4158
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: ARIZONA: LAS VEGAS:
1085 N. Main Street, Suite C 927 Enterprise Way, Suite A 2452 W. Birchwood Ave, Suite 112 6225 S. Valley View Blvd., Suite I Orange, CA 92867 Napa, CA 94558 Mesa, AZ 85202 Las Vegas, NV 89118 NOTE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed, and contains information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by phone and return the original message to the applicable address above.

MAILING ADDRESS:

P.O. Box 3467
Coppel, TX 75019
(760) 219-5356 (714) 427-6981 (760) 219-5356
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 92262 92867 92262
Andrew Crider Construction Dept. Andrew Crider
Palm Springs Orange Palm Springs

CA CA CA
City of Palm Springs SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Palm Springs Swim Center 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way 1085 N. Main Street, Suite C 305 S. Pavilion Way Billing Information: Shipping Information: Jobsite Information:

Aquatic Center Shade Structures (760) 219-5356 (760) 250-7824 02121721AAD [email protected] [email protected] Proposal for USA SHADE & Fabric Structures
Project Information: Sales Information:

City of Palm Springs Andrew Crider Ashley Donde
www.usa-shade.com 800-966-5005
AZ: 289388 CA: 989458 LA: 61718 NV: 78724 NV:78724 NM: 383826 TN: 68712 DIR: 1000003533 Item 1L - 12

USASHADE
& Fabric Structures .,

Structure Pricing

UNIT IMAGE
Unit Quantity: 3 Foundations By USA Shade
Unit Type: Full Hip Cantilever  Grout Installation USA Shade Structure Size: 20ft x 18ft Footing Type: Drilled Pier
USA Shade Model Number 202.5 Base Attachment: PIH - Embed Entry Height: 10ft Anchor Bolts: N/A
No of Columns: 2 each Concrete Cutting: Included
No of Fabric Tops: 1 each Dirt Removal: Included
Fabric Type: Colourshade_FR Surface Type: Concrete
Fabric Color: Blue NOTES
Steel Finish: Coastal Primer w/
Powder Coating
Steel Color: White
PRICE Electrical Provisions: N/A
Cable/HDW Finish: Galvanized
Concept No:

Palm Springs Swim Center Shade Structures

UNIT DETAILS
The cantilever has an 18ft projection. Fabric to have
reinforcments along the ridge and rafters for high
wind conditions.
$ 100,946.36
www.usa-shade.com 800-966-5005
AZ: 289388 CA: 989458 LA: 61718 NV: 78724 NV:78724 NM: 383826 TN: 68712 DIR: 1000003533 Item 1L - 13

USASHADE
a Fabric Structur•• •

QTY COST
10%
Progress Billing
CBC 2019
120 mph
5 psf
Electronic
1 Yes

INCLUDED EXCLUDED INCLUDED EXCLUDED
www.usa-shade.com 800-966-5005
AZ: 289388 CA: 989458 LA: 61718 NV: 78724 NV:78724 NM: 383826 TN: 68712 DIR: 1000003533 Design and Engineering of Foundation Demolition (Existing Structures) Reactions and Loads for attachment to Walls, Rooftops, or Other Payment and Performance Bonds Foundation Location and Elevation Survey Special Inspection Fees Permit Fee Fencing
DSA Submittal & Fees water and Electrical
Design and Engineering of Structure Landscape Repair

INCLUSIONS / EXCLUSIONS

ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS INSTALLATION - MISCELLANEOUS Sealed Drawings & Calculations Prevailing Wage / Certified Payroll Permit Submittal Union Wages
USA SHADE reserves the right to implement a surcharge for significant increases in raw materials, including the following, but not limited to: fuel, steel , fabric, and concrete. Proposal pricing is only valid for 15 Days due to the fluctuation in pricing. Due to recent significant increases experienced in raw steel and fabric materials, it may be necessary to order, invoice, and receive payments for steel and fabric as soon as final sizing can be determined.

ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS NOTES
Building Code
USA Shade to provide sealed engineering drawings and calculations. Client to provide site plan. USA Shade will pull the permit. The permit fees (if any) charged by the City and/or County are not included in this proposal. They will be added as a change order once we know how much those are after submittal.

Wind Load
Snow Load
Drawing Size
No. of Sealed Drawings
Calculations Required
Engineering Included
Price based on Sourcewell Government Contract # 010521-LTS-6Installation Included TOTAL PRICE $ 100,946.36
SUBTOTAL $ - (4) Other (specify):

Sales Tax (9.25%) NOTES:

Accessories/Miscellaneous Included (2) Upon delivery of Unit(s) Shipping/Handling Included (3) Upon completion of assembly/installation TOTAL FOR ACCESS/MISC ITEMS:

PRICINGTOTALS: PAYMENT TERMS:

Unit Total Included (1) Upon execution of the Agreement (Deposit) ACCESS/MISC.

ITEM DETAILS
Item 1L - 14

USASHADE
& Fabric Structure s .,
0 D 0 D
0 D D 0
D 0 D 0
D 0 D 0
0 D D 0
0 D D 0
D 0 D 0
D 0 D 0
1)
2)
3)
4)
Proposal: The above proposal is valid for 1 Year from the date first set forth above. After 30 days, we reserve the right to increase prices due to the rise in cost of raw materials, fuel, or other cost increases. When applicable, USA SHADE & Fabric Structures reserves the right to implement a surcharge for significant increases in raw materials, including, but not limited to; fuel, steel, and concrete. Due to the duration of time between proposals, contracts, and final installation, USA SHADE & Fabric Structures reserves the right to implement this surcharge, when applicable.

Purchase: By executing this proposal, or submitting a purchase order pursuant to this proposal (which shall incorporate the terms of this agreement specifically by reference) which is accepted by USA SHADE & Fabric Structures (the “Company”), the purchaser identified above (“you” or the “Purchaser”) agrees to purchase Shade Structures brand shade structures (“Structures”) and the services to be provided by the Company, as detailed in the “Structure Pricing” and “General Scope of Work” sections of this agreement, above, or in the relevant purchase order accepted by the Company, for use by Purchaser or for installation by Company or Purchaser on behalf of a third-party who will be the ultimate owner of the Structures (the ultimate owner of a Structure, whether Purchaser or a third-party, being the “Owner”).

Short Ship Claims: Purchaser has 15 days from receipt of the structures to file a short ship report in writing to its sales representative. Company will not honor claims made after this time.

Standard Exclusions: Unless specifically included under the “General Scope of Work” section above, this agreement does not include, and Company will not provide, services, labor, or materials for any of the following work: (a) removal and disposal of any materials containing asbestos or any hazardous materials as defined by the EPA; (b) moving Owner’s property around the installation site; (c) repair or replacement of any Purchaser or Owner-supplied materials; (d) repair of concealed underground utilities not located on prints supplied to Company by Owner during the bidding process, or physically staked out by Owner, and which are damaged during construction during normal course of construction. 6)    Barricades and public security requirements are not included. 7)    Unless specifically included in this proposal, this agreement does not include, and Company will not provide, services, labor, or materials for any of the following work: (a) removal and disposal of any materials containing asbestos or any hazardous materials as defined by the EPA; (b) moving Owner’s property around the installation site; (c) repair or replacement of any Purchaser or Owner-supplied materials; or (d) repair of damage to existing surfaces that may occur when construction equipment and vehicles are being used in the normal course of construction. 8)    Pricing for foundation design is based on drilled pier footings. In the event the geotechnical report requires an alternate configuration, any additional costs incurred will be submitted to the client by a Change Order. 9)    Digging of our foundations will not be constrained by any existing concrete or utilities. USA SHADE will not be responsible for moving or repairing any underground utility lines such as electrical, telephone, gas, water, or sprinkler lines that may be encountered during installation. 10)    Any additional costs incurred as a result of hard rock conditions requiring extra equipment, utility removal or repair, resulting in delay, will result in additional charges unless they are detailed on as-built site drawings provided to USA SHADE or marked on the ground and communicated to USA SHADE in writing prior to installation.

GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS AND WARRANTY
Construction Assumptions
1)    The designated area for our structures will be accessible by drive-up for unloading of our trucks and equipment, including personnel man-lifts, forklifts, etc. Should a crane be required and direct access not available, additional costs for such will be submitted by a Change Order. 2)    Our pricing is based on the ability to perform all of our work with clear, sequential, and continuous access without interruption during normal daytime working hours. We have assumed one mobilization for the installation of foundations, steel and fabric; if additional mobilizations are required, there will be an additional charge. We will require exclusive access to the area for our work during the construction process. 3)    Our pricing does not include daily site delays accessing the work areas. USA SHADE will submit a Change Order for any delays caused by other trades which interfere or cause us to stop working.
4)    We will require site sanitary facilities and refuse containers by others within 200 feet of our work. 5)    USA SHADE will leave its work and materials in a clean condition at the conclusion of our work. www.usa-shade.com 800-966-5005
AZ: 289388 CA: 989458 LA: 61718 NV: 78724 NV:78724 NM: 383826 TN: 68712 DIR: 1000003533 Item 1L - 15

USASHADE
• Fabric Structur •••
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)  Concealed Conditions: ”Concealed conditions” include, without limitation, water, gas, sprinkler, electrical and sewage lines, post tension cables, and steel rebar. This agreement is based solely on observations the Company was able to make either by visual inspection or by drawings and/or plans submitted by Owner at the time this agreement was bid. If additional Concealed Conditions are discovered once work has commenced, which were not visible at the time this proposal was bid, Company will stop work and indicate these unforeseen Concealed Conditions to Purchaser or Owner so that Purchaser and Company can execute a Change Order for any additional work. In any event, any damage caused by or to unforeseen Concealed Conditions is the sole responsibility of the Purchaser and Company shall not be held liable for any such damage. Soil conditions are assumed to be soil that does not contain any water, hard rock (such as limestone, caliche, etc.), rocks larger than 4 inches in diameter, or any other condition that will require additional labor, equipment and/or materials not specified by the Purchaser or Owner in the bidding process. Any condition requiring additional labor, equipment, and/or materials to complete the drilling or concrete operations will require a Change Order before Company will complete the process. Price quotes are based on a drilled pier footing. Any variation will incur additional charges (i.e. spread footings, concrete mat, sand, water, landfill, etc.). Costs for footing and installation do not include any allowance for extending below frost lines (the additional costs for which vary by geographical region).

Insurance Requirements: Company is not required to provide any insurance coverage in excess of Company’s standard insurance. A copy of the Company’s standard insurance is available for your review prior to acceptance of the Company’s proposal.

Payment: Terms of payment are defined in the “Pricing Details” section and are specific to this contract. For purposes of this agreement, “Completion” is defined as being the point at which the Structure is suitable for its intended use, the issue of occupancy consent, or a final building department approval is issued, whichever occurs first. Progress billing and payment will be required. All payments must be made to Shade Structures, Inc., P.O. Box 734158, Dallas, TX 75373-4158. Company may use all remedies available to it under current laws including, but not limited to, filing of liens against the property and using a collection agency or the courts to secure the collection of the outstanding debt.

Lien Releases: Upon request by Owner, Company will issue appropriate partial lien releases as corresponding payments are received from Purchaser, but prior to receiving final payment from Purchaser or Owner. Company will provide a full release of liens upon receipt of final payment. In accordance with state laws, Company reserves the right to place a lien on the property if final payment has not been received 10 days prior to the filing deadline for liens.

Site Plan Approval, Permit/s, Permit Fees, Plans, Engineering Drawings, and Surveying : Site plan approval, permits, permit fees, plans, engineering drawings, and surveying are specifically excluded from this agreement and the Services unless specified under the “General Scope of Work”. The Company does not in any way warrant or represent that a permit or site plan approval for construction will be obtained. Sealed engineered drawings that are required but not included in the “General Scope of Work” will result in an additional cost to Purchaser.

Manufacturing & Delivery: Manufacturing lead-time from Company’s receipt of the “Notice To Proceed” is approximately 6 to 8 weeks for standard structures, and 8 to 12 weeks for custom structures. Delivery is approximately 1 week thereafter. Delivery of structures may be prior to or at start of assembly. Please note that these timelines do not include approval or permitting timeframes.

Returned Product, Deposits, and/or Cancelled Order:  Within the first 45 days after shipment from our facility, all returned product(s) and cancelled orders are subject to a 50% restocking fee.  No returns are available following this 45 day period.  All deposits are non-refundable. All expenses incurred (engineering, site surveys, shipping, handling, etc.) are the responsibility of the Purchaser, up to notice of cancellation.

Bonding Guidelines: If Purchaser will use or provide the Structures and Services for an Owner other than Purchaser (including, without limitation, as a subcontractor of Purchaser), Purchaser will include the following statement in Purchaser’s contract with Owner:
“The manufacturer’s warranty for the Shade Structures brand shade structures is a separate document between USA SHADE & Fabric Structures and the ultimate owner of the Shade Structures brand shade structures, which will be provided to the ultimate owner at the time of completion of the installation and other services to be provided by USA SHADE & Fabric Structures. Due to surety requirements, any performance and/or payment bond will cover only the first year of the USA SHADE & Fabric Structures warranty.” www.usa-shade.com 800-966-5005
AZ: 289388 CA: 989458 LA: 61718 NV: 78724 NV:78724 NM: 383826 TN: 68712 DIR: 1000003533 Item 1L - 16

USASHADE
• Fabric Structur •••
13)
14)
15)
•
•
•
•
• Sewing thread is warranted for ten years.

All steel surface finishes are warranted for one year.

Shadesure™, Colourshade® FR, eXtreme 32™, Commercial 95™, SaFRshade™, and Monotec 370™ fabrics all carry a ten year limited manufacturer’s warranty against failure from significant fading, deterioration, breakdown, outdoor heat, cold, or discoloration. Should the fabric need to be replaced under the warranty, the Company will manufacture and ship a new replacement fabric at no charge for the first six years, thereafter pro-rated at 20% per year over the remaining four years. The following are exceptions to the preceding warranty terms:
o Shadesure™ fabrics in Red, Yellow, Atomic Orange, Electric Purple, Zesty Lime, Cinnamon, Olive, and Mulberry carry a five year pro-rated o Fabric tops attached to Coolbrella™ structures carry a three year warranty; o Individual fabric tops measuring greater than 40’ in length are covered by a non-prorated five year warranty; o Precontraint 502™ waterproof membrane is subject to an eight year pro-rated warranty.

Changes in the Work: During the course of this project, Purchaser may order changes in the work (both additions and deletions). Additionally, an approving agency may require changes in the work from the original design or engineering quoted and provided by the Company (both additions and deletions.) The cost of these changes will be determined by the Company, and a Change Order form must be completed and signed by both the Purchaser and the Company, which will detail the “General Scope of the Change Order”. Should any Change Order be essential to the completion of the project, and the Purchaser refuses to authorize such Change Order, then Company will be deemed to have performed its part of the project, and the project and services will be terminated. Upon such termination, Company will submit a final billing to Purchaser for payment, less a labor allowance for work not performed but including additional charges incurred due to the stoppage. No credit will be allowed for materials sold and supplied, which will remain the property of the Purchaser.

Indemnification: To the fullest extent permitted by law, Purchaser shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Company and its consultants, agents, and employees or any of them from and against claims, damages, losses and expenses, including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees related to the installation of the Structure or performance of the services, provided that such claim, damage, loss, or expense is attributable to bodily injury to, sickness, disease, or death of a person, or to injury to or destruction of tangible property, but only to the extent caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the Purchaser or its agents, employees, or subcontractors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone for whose acts they may be liable, regardless of whether or not such claim, damage, loss, or expense is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. Such obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or reduce other rights or obligations of indemnity that would otherwise exist as to a party or person described in Section 15.

Statement of Limited Warranty:

The structural integrity of all supplied steel is warranted for ten years.

If assembly is provided by the Company, workmanship of the structure is covered for one year, including labor for the removal of any failed part, disassembly (if necessary), cost of shipping, and reassembly. www.usa-shade.com 800-966-5005
AZ: 289388 CA: 989458 LA: 61718 NV: 78724 NV:78724 NM: 383826 TN: 68712 DIR: 1000003533 Item 1L - 17

USASHADE
• Fabric Structur •••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Commercial 95™ and SaFRshade™ are registered trademarks of Gale Pacific USA Inc.

Monotec 370™ is a registered trademark of PRO-KNIT Industries Pty. Ltd.

Precontraint 502™ is a registered trademark of Serge Ferrari North America, Inc. o    workmanship related to assembly not provided by the Company or its agents; o    fabric curtains, valances, and flat vertical panels; o    fabric tops installed on structures that were not engineered and originally supplied by the Company.

THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, LIQUIDATED, EXEMPLARY, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR ANY LOSS

OF REVENUE, PROFIT, USE OR GOODWILL, WHETHER BASED UPON CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, ARISING

OUT OF A BREACH OF THIS WARRANTY OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE, INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, USE, OPERATION OR REPAIR OF ANY PRODUCT OR SERVICE. IN NO EVENT WILL THE COMPANY BE LIABLE FOR ANY AMOUNT GREATER THAN THE PURCHASE PRICE FOR ANY PRODUCT OR SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY.

THE FOREGOING LIMITED WARRANTY IS THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE WARRANTY FOR THE COMPANY’S PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, AND IS IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IN LAW OR IN FACT. SELLER SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,

INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE, AND ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES ARISING OUT OF COURSE OF DEALING OR PERFORMANCE OR TRADE USAGE. PURCHASER, BY ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF THIS

LIMITED WARRANTY, WAIVES ANY RIGHTS IT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO CLAIM OR ASSERT THAT THIS LIMITED WARRANTY FAILS OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.

Colourshade ® and eXtreme 32™ are registered trademarks of Multiknit Pty. Ltd.

These limited warranties do not cover defects and/or damages caused by:
o    normal wear and tear;
o    misuse, willful or intentional damage, vandalism, contact with chemicals, cuts and Acts of God (i.e. tornado, hurricane, micro/macros burst, earthquake, wildfires, etc.);
o    ice, snow or wind loads in excess of the designed load parameters engineered for the supplied structures; o    use, maintenance, neglect, repair, and/or service inconsistent with the Company’s written care and maintenance instructions, provided with the order.

The limited warranties explicitly exclude:

All warranty claims covering Company supplied structures, products, and services must be submitted by Purchaser or Owner in writing to the Company within thirty days from the date of discovery of the alleged defect and must include a detailed description and applicable photographs of the alleged defect or problem. Warranty claims should be submitted by email to [email protected].

Purchaser or Owner agrees that venue for any court action to enforce these limited warranties shall be in the City or County of Dallas in the State of Texas, USA.

These limited warranties are void if:
o    the supplied structures, products, services and/or labor are not paid for in full; o    the structures are not assembled in strict compliance with USA SHADE specifications; o    any changes, modifications, additions, or attachments are made to the structures in any way, without prior written approval from the Company.

Specifically, no signs, objects, fans, light fixtures, etc. may be hung from the structures, unless specifically engineered by the Company.

General Limited Warranty Terms and Conditions
These limited warranties are effective from the date of sale, or, if assembly is provided by the Company, upon receipt by Company from Purchaser of a completed and signed “Customer Checklist and Sign-off” form.

In its sole discretion, the Company will repair and or/replace defective structures, products or workmanship, or refund that portion of the price related to the defective product, labor, or service rendered.

The Company reserves the right, in cases where certain fabric colors have been discontinued, to offer the Purchaser or Owner a choice of available alternative colors to replace the warranted fabric. The Company does not guarantee that any particular color will be available for any period of time, and reserves the right to discontinue any color for any reason, without recourse by the Purchaser or Owner of the discontinued fabric color.

Should the Purchaser or Owner sell the structures to another party, the warranty cannot be transferred to the new owner without a complete and thorough on-site inspection performed by a Company representative. Please contact the Company at [email protected] for more details. www.usa-shade.com 800-966-5005
AZ: 289388 CA: 989458 LA: 61718 NV: 78724 NV:78724 NM: 383826 TN: 68712 DIR: 1000003533 Item 1L - 18

USASHADE
• Fabric Structur •••
16)  Assembly/Installation:
•
•
•
•
•
•
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)  Assignment: Purchaser may not assign this agreement, by operation of law or otherwise, without the prior written consent of Company. The agreement shall be binding upon and insure to the benefit of the Company and the Purchaser, and their successors and permitted assigns.

Delegation: Subcontractors: The services and the manufacturing and assembly of the structures may be performed by subcontractors under appropriate agreements with the Company.

Force Majeure: Impracticability: The Company shall not be charged with any loss or damage for failure or delay in delivering or assembling of the structures when such failure or delay is due to any cause beyond the control of the Company, due to compliance with governmental regulations or orders, or due to any Acts of God, strikes, lockouts, slowdowns, wars, or shortages in transportation, materials or labor.

Dispute Resolution: Any controversy or claim arising out of or related to this agreement must be settled by binding arbitration administered in Dallas, TX by a single arbitrator selected by the parties or by the American Arbitration Association, and conducted in accordance with the construction industry arbitration rules. Judgment upon the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.

Entire Agreement; No Reliance: This agreement represents and contains the entire agreement between the parties. Prior discussion or verbal representations by the parties that are not contained in this agreement are not part of this agreement. Purchaser hereby acknowledges that it has not received or relied upon any statements or representations by Company or its agents which are not expressly stipulated herein, including without limitation any statements as to the structures, warranties, or services provided hereunder.

No Third-Party Beneficiaries: This agreement creates no third-party rights or obligations between Company and any other person, including any Owner who is not also a Purchaser. It is understood and agreed that the parties do not intend that any third party should be a beneficiary of this agreement.

Governing Law: The agreement will be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas.

If the requested services require Company access to Owner’s premises, Company will be provided access to the Owner’s premises free and clear of debris, automobiles, or other interference Monday ~ Friday during the hours of 8:00am to 6:00pm, and Company will have access to water and electrical facilities during installation. Additional charges will apply if utilities are not easily accessible. Where applicable, all vehicles will be moved prior to Company’s crew beginning any installation.

Company will not be responsible for moving or repairing any underground utility lines such as electrical, telephone, gas, water, or sprinkler lines that may be encountered during installation.

Any additional costs incurred as a result of hard rock conditions requiring extra equipment, utility removal or repair resulting in delay will result in additional charges unless they are detailed on as-built site drawings provided to Company or marked on the ground and communicated to Company in writing prior to fabrication and installation.

Installation/Assembly on-site: Where installation/assembly is part of the services, Purchaser must provide the Company with a detailed drawing prepared by or for the Owner showing exactly where the structures are to be assembled as well as detailing any obstacles or other impediments that may cause the assembly process to be more difficult. Any fixture(s), e.g., playground, pools, etc., that the structures are to be assembled over must also be detailed, along with their peak heights (if applicable).

Site/Use Review by Purchaser: Company relies on the Purchaser to determine that the structures ordered are appropriate and safe for the Owner’s installation site and/or intended use. Company is not responsible for damages or injuries resulting from collisions by moving objects or persons with the structure post(s). Company can recommend, or supply at additional cost, padding for posts from a third party manufacturer.

Preparatory Work: Where installation/assembly is part of the services and in the event that the foundation or job site is not suitable or ready for assembly to begin on the scheduled day, a Delay of Order notification must be sent to Company at least 4 working days prior, in order to allow Company to reschedule the project. In the event that Company is not notified and incurs an expense in attempting to execute the assembly, a re-mobilization charge may be charged to Purchaser before Company will reschedule the assembly.

Company will notify Purchaser of the scheduled assembly date. Owner agrees to have an owner representative meet the assembly crew at the job site on the scheduled assembly date to verify the exact location where the structure(s) is to be placed.

Labor for the removal, assembly, and/or freight charges will only be covered by Company in instances where the structures supplied and installed by Company are determined by the Company to be defective. In all cases where structures are not installed by Company, all labor for the removal, assembly, and/or freight of the structures will be the Purchaser’s responsibility.

Installation prices are based on a single mobilization charge. If additional mobilizations are required, there will be additional charges. www.usa-shade.com 800-966-5005
AZ: 289388 CA: 989458 LA: 61718 NV: 78724 NV:78724 NM: 383826 TN: 68712 DIR: 1000003533 Item 1L - 19

USASHADE
• Fabric Structur •••
PURCHASER: SELLER:

City of Palm Springs Shade Structures, Inc. DBA USA Shade Signature: Signature:

By: (Print) By: (Print)
Title: Title:

Date: Date:

Executed to be effective as of the date executed by the Company:

NOTE: FOR ANY PURCHASE EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING $100,000.00 USD, NO WORK, OTHER THAN PRE-WORK, SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE AND SIGNED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT.

NOTE: All purchase orders and contracts should be drafted in the name of Shade Structures, Inc.
www.usa-shade.com 800-966-5005
AZ: 289388 CA: 989458 LA: 61718 NV: 78724 NV:78724 NM: 383826 TN: 68712 DIR: 1000003533 Item 1L - 20

USASHADE
• Fabric Structur •••
I I
UH
DW 3DOP6SULQJV$TXDWLF&HQWHU
(Q6KDGH6WUXFWXUH3URMHFW
(QWHUWKHQDPHRIWKH3UR
K
H 
HOO                 
                  
  
                  
                  
    
KL
V
7$6. $66,*1('
72 352*5(66 67$57 (1' 07:7)6607:7)6607:7)6607:7)6607:7)6607:7)6607:7)6607:7)66 HOO
% 3KDVH
HOO
% &RQWUDFW$ZDUG    
&RQWUDFW5HYLHZDQG([HFXWLRQ   
R
Z (QJLQHHULQJ'UDZLQJV   
3HUPLWWLQJ
7+,6,6$9$5,$%/($1'5(63216,%,/,7<2)7    6KRS'UDZLQJV   
0DQXIDFWXULQJ   
K
H 3KDVH
6KLSSLQJ   

,QVWDOODWLRQ   

&ORVHRXWGRFXPHQWV   
0D\ 0D\
0RQ
$SU $SU $SU 0D\
3URMHFW6WDUW

'LVSOD\:HHN
0D\
 0D\
Item 1L - 21
t
t
t
+ +-
+ +-
t
t
+ +-
+ ...
t
t
+ ...
t
t
~
t
+ t-
+ ...
t
+ t-
+ ...
t
+ t-
~
t
f-
~
t
~ ~
:
~ ~
L L
UH
DW 3DOP6SULQJV$TXDWLF&HQWHU
(Q6KDGH6WUXFWXUH3URMHFW
(QWHUWKHQDPHRIWKH3UR
K
H

HOO 
                  
                  
  
            
         
 
KL
V
7$6. $66,*1('
72 352*5(66 67$57 (1' 07:7)6607:7)6607:7)6607:7)6607:7)6607:7)6607:7)6607:7)66 HOO
% 3KDVH
HOO
% &RQWUDFW$ZDUG    
&RQWUDFW5HYLHZDQG([HFXWLRQ   
R
Z (QJLQHHULQJ'UDZLQJV   
3HUPLWWLQJ
7+,6,6$9$5,$%/($1'5(63216,%,/,7<2)7    6KRS'UDZLQJV   
0DQXIDFWXULQJ   
K
H 3KDVH
6KLSSLQJ   

,QVWDOODWLRQ   

&ORVHRXWGRFXPHQWV   
-XO -XO
0RQ
-XQ -XQ -XQ -XQ
3URMHFW6WDUW

'LVSOD\:HHN
-XO -XO
Item 1L - 22
+ + + + + + + + + - + + '
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
03/24/2022   1. M.

City Clerk -

SUBJECT
AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO PAVEMENT COATINGS CO., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $893,600 FOR THE 2022 SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 21-02
RECOMMENDATION:

Award a construction contract to Pavement Coatings Co., a California corporation, in the amount of $893,600 for the 2022 Slurry Seal Project, City Project No. 21-02 (“the Project”).

1. Authorize the City Manager to approve a purchase order in an amount not to exceed $75,000 with an ‘on-call’ firm for construction management and inspection services.

2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute all necessary documents.3.

Attachments
Item 1M

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: March 24, 2022 CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT: A WARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO PAVEMENT COATINGS CO., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 893,600 FOR THE 2022 SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 21-02

FROM: Justin Clifton, City Manager

BY: Engineering Division

SUMMARY:

Award of this contract will allow the City to proceed with construction of the 2022 Slurry Seal project, City Project No. 21 -02, including ‘on- call’ consultant services for project management and inspection.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Award a construction contract to Pavement Coatings Co., a California corporation, in the amount of $893,600 for the 2022 Slurry Seal project, City Project No. 21-02 (“the Project”); and

2. Authorize the City Manager to approve a purchase order in an amount not to exceed $75,000 with an ‘on-call’ firm for construction management and inspection services; and

3. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute all necessary documents.

BUSINESS PRINCIPAL DISCLOSURE:

Pavement Coatings Co. (PCC) is a California corporation whose officers are Doug Ford, President; James Wu, Vice President; and Tom Mucenski, Secretary. Pavement Coatings Co. is owned 100% by Pavement Recycling Systems, Inc. (PRS). PRS is in turned owned 100% by the PRS Employee Stock Ownership Trust. Shares in the trust are allocated to the employees of PCC and PRS as a retirement b enefit. There are no individuals that own directly or indirectly more than 5% of P CC. The Public Integrity Disclosure Form for PCC, is included as Attachment A.

Item 1M - 1
City Council Staff Report
March 24, 2022 -- Page 2
Award City Project 21-02 – 2022 Slurry Seal

STAFF ANALYSIS:

On January 13, 2022, City Council authorized advertisement of a request for bids for the 2022 Slurry Seal project, a project that will perform street maintenance of approximately

2.7 million square feet of asphalt paving throughout the City. This work is primarily comprised of crack sealing, application of aggregate slurry seal, and instal lation/ replacement of pavement markings. The project is a continuation of the City’s ongoing pavement maintenance and rehabilitation program and is focused on the preservation of streets considered to be in ‘satisfactory’ c ondition in an effort to maintai n them in their current state and prevent them from needing more extensive repairs in the near term. The list of streets and corresponding maps that were presented to City Council at the time of authorization to bid are included as Attachment B.

On January 28, 202 2, Staff advertised the Project to plan rooms, and through the procurement program PlanetBids™, to allow the submission of bids electronically. On January 29 and February 5, 2022, the Project was advertised for bids in The Desert Sun.

The contract documents were provided free of charge to prospective bidders.

On March 2, 2022, four bids were received from the following contractors:

Company Location Bid Amount
Pavement Coatings Co. Jurupa, CA $893,600
All American Asphalt Corona, CA $993,399
Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. Santa Fe Springs, CA $1,040,445 American Asphalt South, Inc. Riverside, CA $1,040,545

Bid Analysis
Pavement Coatings Co. submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $893,600. The engineer’s estimate for the Project was $940,000. The bid documents submitted were reviewed and it was determined that Pavement Coatings Co. complied with the instructions to bidders and has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid.

Local Business Preference Compliance
Section 7.09.030 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code (“PSMC”), “Local Business Preference Program”, requires prime contractors to use good faith efforts to sub-contract the supply of materials and equipment to local business enterprises and to sub- contract services to businesses whose work force resides within the Coachella Valley. Pavement Coatings Co. is not considered a local business but has demonstrated sufficient evidence of good faith efforts to subcontract the supply of materials to local businesses.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
:

Section 21084 of the California Public Resources Code requires Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Guidelines are required to include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have Item 1M - 2
City Council Staff Report
March 24, 2022 -- Page 3
Award City Project 21-02 – 2022 Slurry Seal

a significant effect on the environment and which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. In response to that mandate, the Secretary for Resources identified classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment and are declared to be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents. In accordance with Section 15301(c) “Existing Facilities,” Class 1 projects consist of operation, repair, and maintenance of existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities; therefore, the 2022 Slurry Seal project, City Project No. 2 1-02, is considered categorically exempt from CEQA, and a Notice of Exemption has been filed and recorded with the Riverside County Clerk

FISCAL IMPACT:

This project will be funded utilizing $1,000,000 in Gas Tax funds (Fund 133) which have been previously budgeted for this purpose. The estimated expenses to complete the project are as follows:

Project Budget – Gas Tax Funds (Fund 133) $1,000,000
Construction Contract ($893,600)
‘On-Call’ Management & Inspection ($75,000)
Staff Costs ($20,000)
Estimated Remaining Funds $11,400

REVIEWED BY:

City Engineer: Joel Montalvo
Deputy City Manager: Flinn Fagg
City Manager: Justin Clifton

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Public Integrity Disclosure Form.

B. Street List and Corresponding Maps.

Item 1M - 3
Attachment A
Item 1M - 4
Item 1M - 5

PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

1. Name of Entity
Pavement Coatings Co.

2. Address of Entity (Principle Place of Business)
10240 San Sevaine Way Jurupa Valley , CA 91752

3. Local or California Address (if different than #2)
10240 San Sevaine Way Jurupa Valley , CA 91752

4. State where Entity is Registered with Secretary of State California
If other than California, is the Entity also reaistered in California ?  Yes 0 No

5. Type of Entity
00 Corporat ion  Limited Liability Company  Partnership  Trust  Other (please soecifv)

6. Officers , Directors, Members , Managers , Trustees , Other Fiduciaries (please spec ify) Note: If any response is not a natural person, please identify all officers, directors, members , managers and other fiduciaries for the member, manager, trust orotherentity Doug Ford- President ~ Officer  Director  Member  Manager  Genera l Partner  limited Partner
 Othe r
James Wu- Vice President !XI Officer  Director  Member  Manager D General Partner  Limited Partne r
':=J Other
Tom Mucensk i- Secreta~ XJ Officer  Director D Member  Manage r  General Partner  Limited Partner
 Other

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS-PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM
2022 SLURRY SEAL
CITY PROJECT NO 21-02
JANUARY 2022
Pagelof2
Item 1M - 6

7. Owners/Investors with a 5% beneficial interest in the Applicant Entity or a related entity EXAMPLE :

Jane Doe 50% , ABC Company , Inc.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
A.Pavement Coatings Co. (PCC) is owned 100% by Pc vement Recycling Systems. Inc. (PRS). PRS is in turn owned 100% by the Pavement Recycling Systems, Inc. Em~ loyee Stock Ownership Trust. Shares in the Trust are allocated to the Employees of PCC and PRS as a re1 rement benefit. [name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
B. The three employees with the largest 1 bercentag
Concannon (4.41 %) and Trace Manning (3.99%).
~ of stock allocated to their accounts are Doug Olson (4.87%), Sti [name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
C. Therefore, there is no single individual that owns directly or indirectly more than 5% of the stock of Pavement Coatings Co.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
D.

N/A
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
E.

N/A
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
y, Printed Name, Title Date 3/9/2022
James Wu- Vice President

PENALTIES
Falsification of information or failure to report information required to be reported may subject you to administrative action by the City.
2022 SLURRY SEAL
CITY PROJECT NO. 21-02
JANUARY 2022

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

ve
Attachment B
Item 1M - 7
CP 21-02 (2022 Slurry Seal)
STREET FROM TO L W Area NEIGHBORHOOD PCI
AVENIDA SEVILLA E/S BOGERT TRAIL E END 643 32 20576 Andreas Hills 81.02 VELLA ROAD N/S SUNNY DUNES ROAD N/S MESQUITE AVENUE 1272 42 53424 Demuth Park 81.72 VOLTURNO ROAD N/S VIA ESCUELA S/S VERONA ROAD 1600 33 52800 Gene Autry 79.81 FERN CANYON DRIVE S/S RAMON ROAD CAMINO PAROCELA 622 36 22392 Historic Tennis Club 79.83 LEONARD ROAD S/S RACQUET CLUB ROAD N/S VIA OLIVERA 664 22 14608 Little Tuscany 75.71 PALERMO DRIVE S/S RACQUET CLUB ROAD N/S VIA OLIVERA 667 25 16675 Little Tuscany 77.71 VIA MONTE VISTA S/S VIA OLIVERA S END 306 20 6120 Little Tuscany 81.71 VIA OLIVERA W/S VIA MONTE VISTA E/S VISTA DRIVE 1550 22 34100 Little Tuscany 77.71 VISTA DRIVE S/S CHINO CANYON ROAD S END 415 16 6640 Little Tuscany 79.71 AVERY DRIVE W.S BEVERLY DRIVE E/S COMPADRE ROAD 756 36 27936 Los Compadres 81.70 SONORA ROAD E/S EL CIELO ROAD E END (CDS) 1086 36 41821 Los Compadres 75.72 AMADO ROAD E/S CALLE SEGUNDO E/S CALLE ALVARADO 710 60 42600 Not Assigned 77.55 AMADO ROAD E/S CALLE ENCILIA W/S CALLE EL SEGUNDO 523 60 31380 Not Assigned 77.55 ANDREAS ROAD E/S CALLE EL SEGUNDO E/S CALLE ALVARADO 715 60 42900 Not Assigned 75.53 ARENAS ROAD W/S AVENIDA CABALLEROS E/S CALLE EL SEGUNDO 1423 60 85380 Not Assigned 80.50 BARISTO ROAD E/S PAVILION WAY W/S FARRELL DRIVE 1708 48 84144 Not Assigned 77.71 BARISTO ROAD E/S HERMOSA DRIVE W/S SUNRISE WAY 1263 60 75780 Not Assigned 79.76 CALLE EL SEGUNDO N/S SATURNINO ROAD S/S TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY 1700 60 102000 Not Assigned 78.68 CALLE EL SEGUNDO N/S RAMON ROAD N/S SATURNINO ROAD 855 60 51300 Not Assigned 81.45 CAMINO PAROCELA W/S SAN LUIS REY DRIVE E/S GENE AUTRY TRAIL 1280 46 58880 Not Assigned 80.79 CAMINO REAL N/S SONORA ROAD E/S INDIAN TRAIL 1261 50 63050 Not Assigned 79.70 CREE ROAD S/S GOLF CLUB DRIVE N/S CAREY ROAD 510 32 19282 Not Assigned 80.82 DINAH SHORE DRIVE E/S SAN LUIS REY ROAD W/S CROSSLEY ROAD 1258 74 79592 Not Assigned 76.58 DINAH SHORE DRIVE E/S GENE AUTRY TRAIL E/S SAN LUIS REY DRIVE 1316 74 88759 Not Assigned 79.58 DOLORES COURT LOS ROBLES ROAD W END 200 32 6400 Not Assigned 77.62 FARRELL DRIVE S/S VISTA CHINO N/S TACHEVAH DRIVE 2653 60 159180 Not Assigned 79.67 FARRELL DRIVE N/S TACHEVAH DRIVE Tamarisk Drive 1754 60 105240 Not Assigned 86.81 INDIAN CANYON DRIVE N/S TRAMVIEW ROAD 2666'' N/O TRAMVIEW ROAD 2666 68 167888 Not Assigned 81.67 INDIAN CANYON DRIVE 2666' N/O TRAMIEW ROAD 2132' S/O TRAIN STATION ROAD 5011 68 340748 Not Assigned 82.00 TACHEVAH DRIVE W/S PASEO DE ANZA W/S SUNRISE WAY 645 43 29088 Not Assigned 79.59 VIA MONTE VISTA N/S CAMINO SUR N/S VIA LAS PALMAS 784 49 38416 Not Assigned 79.68 HERMOSA PLACE E/S MISSION ROAD W/S N PALM CANYON DRIVE 1415 24 36012 Old Las Palmas 76.76 MISSION ROAD S/S HERMOSA PLACE N/S MERITO PLACE 956 27 25812 Old Las Palmas 81.66 CORTEZ ROAD W/S DE ANZA ROAD W/S ZANJERO ROAD 1007 36 36252 Racquet Club West 80.71 VIA ESCUELA E/S SUNRISE WAY W/S FARRELL DRIVE 2606 33 85998 Ranch Club Estates 79.81 ANDEE DRIVE N/S E PALM CANYON DRIVE S/S SONORA ROAD 1231 36 44316 Sonora Sunrise 81.70 AVERY DRIVE W/S ANDEE DRIVE W END 202 33 6666 Sonora Sunrise 81.62 RENEE CIRCLE W/S ANDEE CIRCLE W END (CDS) 123 32 6046 Sonora Sunrise 79.58 SYBIL ROAD N/S LIVMOR AVENUE S/S PLAIMOR AVENUE 330 25 8250 Sunmor 79.72 PALO VERDE AVENUE E/S S PALM CANYON DRIVE N/S OCOTILLO AVENUE 1930 36 69480 Tahquitz River Estates 79.71 SONORA ROAD W/S CALLE PALO FIERRO W/S VIA SOLEDAD 840 28 23520 Tahquitz River Estates 77.69 SONORA ROAD W/S VIA SOLEDAD E/S S PALM CANYON DRIVE 430 36 15480 Tahquitz River Estates 88.74 AVENIDA PALMAS N/S TAMARISK ROAD S/S VIA EYTEL 959 25 23248 The Movie Colony 78.69 AVENIDA PALOS VERDES S/S VIA EYTEL N/S TAMARISK ROAD 961 25 24590 The Movie Colony 68.72 VIA EYTEL E/S AVENIDA PALMAS W/S AVENDA PALOS VERDES 352 20 7216 The Movie Colony 76.69

Item 1M - 8
CP 21-02 (2022 Slurry Seal)
VIA MIRALESTE S/S TACHEVAH DRIVE 318'' S. OF TACHEVAH 318 60 19080 The Movie Colony 80.15 VIA MIRALESTE 318'' S. OF TACHEVAH DRIVE N/S TAMARISK ROAD 955 50 47750 The Movie Colony 66.76 CAPISTRANO COURT E/S LOS ROBLES DRIVE E END (CDS) 255 36 11986 Vista Las Palmas 77.76 CRESCENT DRIVE W/S VIA MONTE VISTA W END 1174 33 38742 Vista Las Palmas 80.64 FRIAR COURT E/S LOS ROBLES DRIVE E END (CDS) 160 36 8566 Vista Las Palmas 77.76 AMELIA WAY W/S PASEO DE ANZA W END (CDS) 395 32 14886 Vista Norte 75.78 AMELIA WAY E/S SHANNON WAY E/S PASEO DE ANZA 454 32 14528 Vista Norte 69.73 LORENA WAY W/S PASEO DE ANZA W END (CDS) 395 32 14886 Vista Norte 81.71 LORENA WAY W/S SHANNON WAY W END (CDS) 198 32 8582 Vista Norte 69.73 OLGA WAY W/S SHANNON WAY E/S PASEO DE ANZA 454 32 14528 Vista Norte 69.73 OLGA WAY W/S PASEO DE ANZA W END (CDS) 395 32 14886 Vista Norte 85.70 PASEO DE ANZA S/S RACQUET CLUB ROAD N/S VIA ESCUELA 1278 32 40896 Vista Norte 69.80 SABITA WAY W/S SHANNON WAY W END (CDS) 198 32 8582 Vista Norte 77.86 SABITA WAY W/S PASEO DE ANZA W END (CDS) 395 32 14886 Vista Norte 81.71 CAMINO AMAPOLA E/S THORNHILL ROAD W/S CALLE AMIGOS 450 32 14400 Warm Sands 77.69

Item 1M - 9
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
2022 Slurry Seal
City Project No. 21-02 4
¬«1
¬«2
¬«3
¬«4
¬«5
¬«6
¬«7
Legend
CP 21-02
City Boundary
Item 1M - 10
0 0
.. ~
111
E San Rafael Rd
,
,.
ls -.. u . C r;
i!
nl ,: -.. ,_.,_ .. _ .. ,_ .. _,., Jj
z
i
i Pal SpJ\ng ........ 111,:----------:====:===1 ==-------....!::....!!!!!:_~!---~ 3 ~ E Ram 011 ! d v (I ~ a:
<>-, Ill 0
.... ., ~
Pnlm Spnng·
Intern llt'MI
J l g e -ff. I rn squiteA , .i
-, II)
Vi•ta Chino
I
i.,11-11•-·-··-
r--
~="", ........ ~~ ts;+-1 ,,i: u, t. Or
......

S:int.:i Rot.J-S:in
J.:icinlo Mounk1in
N >t1nn-.1 r \ nt1:n nl
l.i "1 \-·li j ~-----------~--;,____~/.J n ....
,..., :-~•J ,,_111•1r
r··-.. -, 1 .. _ ... _,J
----~ I ···-·•-,11111-t ' I
• • ' -L , r
L .. , ... ~ ....
... , "'17
i.11•-•L
I
i I _J
Cat
C
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
2022 Slurry Seal
City Project No. 21-02 4
Legend
CP 21-02
City Boundary
*From Tramview Rd to 2,132' S/O TRAIN STATION ROAD
¬«1
Item 1M - 11
111••-11~ : :
1 .. - ... -.J
llicerl
Hi<jhlani:I F'cir •
W 'Tramvlew Rd
W Sunvie~
~ W P.1l m Vista Dr tb
... ·._;
..
@
I
l
Sunrise Pkwy
f>Wd
~o
.$'
l
SABITA
WAY
LORENA
WAY
OLGA
WAY
LORENA
WAY
SABITA
WAY

AMELIA WAY

TACHEVAH DRIVE

FARRELL DRIVE

VOLTURNO ROAD

PASEODE ANZA

FARRELL DRIVE

VIA ESCUELA
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
2022 Slurry Seal City Project
No. 21-02 4
Legend
CP 21-02
City Boundary
¬«2
Item 1M - 12
E Lunn W:ty z
E Gem Ctr
Savvy C\
,,
"' ,g
ii u
c " ..
3:
d Verdugo Rd
E Mel Ave
..
"' := ..
~
..
" Q. u 0 a "' :f
" .! 'a ;; (J u
·=-C :,
"' z
z z
N
C
< Dr " .,,
0 ..

W•y
.. ..

0. r·•-n-i
1 .. _ ... _.J
:=
" It'
.!!_
u
z
E Wayne Rd
E Del LGgo Rd
t: Kacquet Club Rd e .., EV ona Rd
.,, a::
:.'! ,,
e .. ,, Ill
a:: z
r .. Is .c ...
z
NJco/a ~d
E Rochelle Rd
:= ..,
a::
w
.. ·.; .. ,, u
er <t
~ c 'Z
~ u
z
E Otter! Pork Ave
'1,
<
a
~
;;;
E Clark Rd
;o
E HUd101l° Rd
'Z
)>
.. a.
" i ~
~ t11
iAcac•~ ~d E.
~
0 1i .,
IL
z
E Sharon Rd
.,,
a::
-..

C
E
> z
>,
E .. > z
E Veneha Rd
C Valencla Rd
ncenlio Rd
E Voi., a Rd
E Via EscuelQ :::
=
E San Ang•lo Rd
0 ,,
> a::
'7 !!
E Sandia Rd
C
0 0
0 Cl
E San Manno Rd Ii
(I)
z
"' g. E $an Juan Rd
..
,, a::
0 'E
0 c <
C
" "' z
~ r ---LJL..Jc-11-:-IL. ____ ,___ ________ :, -----~---_•_-_-_-_-_-_-4-.:..:.., ~ O' E Sanda\woo
E Chl3 Rd0
" % ..
0 :,
n
P.:i$eo~""
.. "9,,.,,,. c
~
~
3 ~
<>,. ,v311eo Pelot,1
0 .. E t u
z
-!:: u
0 ..
0 ;=
~ .::,
~ .. ..
"-z
z
z n
~
E Camino Pelicano ';.
0 C
~
t: 1"11'~"•" kq
,, a::
~
C
" E
.! u
C
" "' z
FRIAR
COURT
Capistrano
COURT

VISTA DRIVE

VIA EYTEL
VIA

MONTEVISTA

VIA MIRALESTE

AMADO ROAD

LEONARD
ROAD

ANDREAS
ROAD

VIA MONTE
VISTA

AVENIDAPALOSVERDES

AVENIDAPALMAS

MISSION
ROAD

CORTEZ ROAD

CRESCENT DRIVE

HERMOSA PLACE

VIAOLIVERA
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
2022 Slurry Seal
City Project No. 21-02 4
Legend
CP 21-02
City Boundary
¬«3
Item 1M - 13
I
❖,,
'"o c:myon fld W Sant
W Panorama Rd
'li --Fe ct. I l 81
.... ,-, .. ~
. • , .. _, .. _, ..

Elen Rd
Cl)
t:
0 z
" > WVi
z
WVi Sot
W Via Lola
-~
Pl
O' nnell
If Club
t:
0 u
E
1ra
E Verd
EOli
Ruth H r<J
E amarisk
~
" .x:
0 C
e
l'l
V
E Alejo Rd z
F.

E Grar
RENEE
CIRCLE

SONORA ROAD
CAMINO

AMAPOLA

AMADO ROAD

FERN CANYON
DRIVE

ANDREAS ROAD

CALLE EL SEGUNDO

CAMINO REAL

ANDEEDRIVE

BARISTO ROAD

ARENAS ROAD

BARISTO ROAD

PALO VERDE
AVENUE
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
2022 Slurry Seal
City Project No. 21-02 4
Legend
CP 21-02
City Boundary
¬«4
Item 1M - 14
<:){
1Y
~ c,. .,:-
{!
VI
0 u
C:
~
"' a.

VI
0 0
~ ..
!! ii
0 a. ,,

0.. u
r·•-n-i
1 .. _ ... _.J
WAIOJO Rd
O'D>nr
GolC1vl
W B:irl$loRd ..,
a:
~
" .c ..
0 VI
..
~
<
'h twlin,quh.: Ave
Stone Tcr ._
~ 0 ;,,
u
E ... u
,.n
V' El PorlaJ
(JI
~
l
~
~
..
0 C
0 >,
C
tJ
C
.. a.
0 E AfeJoRdZ
;;
i Ziel Or
~ E Amado Rd
'ti
~
~ z
i c 4renJs Rd
ii
.0
..
0 ..
'ti
'i: ..
~
..

C
';llage sq<?
il'wa,. ?
3 E Camino Pa,ocflla ~ ~
,;J O .!
: -;E J '-#
!::' VI VI II) Logen1ta.,,
E Sunny Dune$ Rd
E San Luc.-i& Rd
N Riverside Or
S Riverside Or
E San Lor cnzo ~d
E Mesquite Ave
Cahuiu
E.,rronlJI)' E C11ctus Or
;; ..

Q::
e !!0110 • .iJ(' . ,. - .
~ f ;
~ -~ I ( I
n .._
- 0 > - , ..

0..

School
._)0
3 .. < ..

Prima'"
~ ..
0 oCrw
..,
.,,
..,
I; AleJO Rd i;' -' .. .. 'l: II ....
o ~ .. C:

E. Beldin O or ;;- t- 0
C ::. 0
E park Or~
0 'ti 5 t:
ti
2 E "
:s
-... .. ID
0 3 E Desert P.:ilms Or c z ,. :,. z VI E McMnnus Dr U) z z
E AmJdO Hd
,:ll Or c .::
= ..,
z
,. E .a
D ..
0 EA z
c
E Tahqull7 Canyon Way
0 C:
g
% E. Calle Lliet.l 5
: E P.1seo G~
l'hlm Spnr<J
H9h &:h<'ol
Sunshme'fl3Y
s Sl(nshlne C,\{
l\:J 1u
ountry k1b
Ca,,r11s
Way ca~1ta .. Vlay
E Mesquite Ave
E Tw111 p
q,,~ .,.

C
oUfSo~ Conejo Tri
:r
z; ,..

C
" a:
.., tMor ­
a:
" C
e ..
cr:i An
VI
E J;icar

CREEROAD
AVERY
DRIVE

VELLA ROAD

DINAH SHORE DRIVE

SONORA ROAD

CAMINO PAROCELA
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
2022 Slurry Seal
City Project No. 21-02 4
Legend
CP 21-02
City Boundary
¬«5
Item 1M - 15
..
0 >- e ;: 0
~ C:
> l'l ,1)
0 co
V,
',/)
(/) (/) (/)
Forn:hild B Ir. AuGr rn
Tommy
0 0
3 "O
"' 0. .,
n,
~
J b
r·•-n-i
1 .. _ ... _,J
B
'0
Ir
0 "ii
0 w
(/)
Kirk Dougl.is Way
...
0 ...
i:, >, 0
>
C ~
! -
!; ~
a; z:. .... '> c,, ... .,,
~
41 4)
•• 0 (/) V
(/) 0
"C
" ....
4)
-0
C:
l'l
4)
0 (/)
Demuth Rlrli
p In Canyon Creek
i ~ ~,..,," :;
= o:: M1s~' "' L,._,.,_..,_.., __ ,_,
IJ ... ~ ~
~ 0 C: :!.
.., ~ ~ 10 •. 41-, -:r
i >° C ..,,.

I t.111 ~
i ~(/) ~
i ;.J -S,lr.lhSt
s.., .. _, .. _ .. ,_.,_ .. _,,
-0
'0
ct:'.

Ir
ill
E
flJc:'.
(/)
111
w . '•1tor R Vfi f
~ Cherry ,-,111
Tahqultz
Croelc. ~O"- GolfRct rt
.. (/1
0 :t> V
"' n, 0 0 CT 0
~ !'! .! e n,
C: .J CD
~ 0 n,
C'l ~
.Q
" (/) 0 ;:r
ID 0 ..,

AVENIDA SEVILLA
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
2022 Slurry Seal
City Project No. 21-02 4
Legend
CP 21-02
City Boundary
¬«6
Item 1M - 16
•-11-11•-•••-•n-•n-••-•---1-•11-11-•••-•11-111-••--.-11-111-111-•n-•n-•1 r·•-n-i
1 .. _ ... _,J
Cir
I
i
~ i "' <I
t
l
i f ,,
!
I I•· .. ,,,.
., .. " ~
" <
Adelaar Rd
Slonehedgo Rd
Ht/Ivie..., Cv

LESLIECIRCLE
LYN
CIRCLE
JILL
CIRCLE

SYBIL ROAD

LOUELLA ROAD
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
2022 Slurry Seal
City Project No. 21-02 4
Legend
CP 21-02
City Boundary
¬«7
Item 1M - 17
0 ~
" ..
z
r·•-n-i
1 .. _ ... _.J
1J
't
0 E .. " w
z
£ l
Robert Ernst Way
E Plalmor Ave
~ c.,
C :,
.. 0 s
z
E Llvmor Ave
- j
E Andreas Rd_
.. :,
0 ..J
z
:u
E Tahquuz Cnnyon Wny
D.ancln g Sand a Or
" er
,
.
~
r
E Cl,,lc Dr
8 VI
E
C,
.,
;
1Xl
0 ..

C
!!
<
z
;;
Calle Jnzmin
0 " > 0
z

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
03/24/2022   1. N.

City Clerk -

SUBJECT
TREASURER’S INVESTMENT REPORT AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2021, OCTOBER 31, 2021, AND NOVEMBER 30, 2021
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and File Treasurer’s Investment Report as of September 30, 2021, October 31, 2021, and November 30, 2021.

Attachments
Item 1N

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: Ma
rch 24, 2022 CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT: TREASURER’S INVESTMENT REPORT AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2021, OCTOBER 31, 2021, AND NOVEMBER 30, 2021.

FROM: Justin Clifton, City Manager
BY: Department of Finance and Treasury
SUMMARY:

Attac
hed is the Treasurer's Investment Repor t as of September 30, 2021, October 31, 2021, and November 30, 2021. These reports include the face value and coupon rate (if applicable) of the investments and the source for the market value estimate. The City’s total invested cash and marketable securities is $282, 762,825, $276,185,024, and $286,653,099. There is an additio nal $12,911,128, $12,925,796, and $9,167,733 held by a fiscal agent for bond issue reserves, debt service, and related funds. There are other miscellaneous cash accounts that hold $1,263,557, $1,215,122, and $1,849,561.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recei
ve and File Treasurer’s Investment Report as of September 30, 2021, October 31, 2021, and November 30, 2021.

STAFF ANALYSIS:

The attac
hed repo rts include the face value and coupon rate (if applicable) of the investments and the source for the market value estimate. Also included is information on the investments of bond issue reserve, debt service and related funds.

The investm ents, in ty pe, m aturity a nd as a percentage of the total portfolio, are in compliance with the existing City Council approved investment policy.

The weighted average maturity (WAM) of the portfolio is 251, 276, and 252 days. The maximum WAM allowed by the Investment Poli cy is 1,0 95 days. The current portfolio and expected revenue cash flow will be sufficient to meet budgeted expenditure requirements for the next six months and the foreseeable future thereafter.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

Item 1N - 1
Item 1N - 1
City Council Staff Report
March 24, 2022-- Page 2
Treasurer’s Investment Report as of September 30, 2021, October 31, 2021, and November 30, 2021

REVIEWED BY:

Department Director: Nancy Pauley
City Manager: Justin Clifton

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Treasurer’s Investment Reports.

Item 1N - 2
Item 1N - 2

TREASURER'S MONTHLY REPORT

CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE MATURITY
September 30, 2021
Description Maturity/Called Current No. of Days X Cost Date Date Days
On Call Deposits
Checking - Bank of America 09/30/21 1 14,453,196
Wells Fargo Custody 09/30/21 1 1,694,801
CalTrust ShortTerm 09/30/21 1 88,617,076
Local Agency Invest Fund (LAIF) 09/30/21 1 46,527,728
Short Term Investments (1 year or less)
US Agency Securities
Federal Home Loan Bank 11/15/21 09/30/21 46 46,000,000
US Treasury Notes 11/30/21 09/30/21 105 261,591,120
Federal Home Loan Bank 12/20/21 09/30/21 81 246,761,640 US Treasury Notes 12/31/21 09/30/21 105 262,304,595
Federal National Mortgage Association 01/05/22 09/30/21 97 297,596,970 Federal National Mortgage Association 01/11/22 09/30/21 103 319,926,240 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 01/13/22 09/30/21 105 324,746,100 US Treasury Notes 01/31/22 09/30/21 105 261,711,660
US Treasury Notes 05/31/22 09/30/21 243 763,587,162
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 06/08/22 09/30/21 251 753,376,500 US Treasury Notes 06/15/22 09/30/21 258 811,951,800
US Treasury Notes 06/30/22 09/30/21 273 859,353,222
US Treasury Notes 07/15/22 09/30/21 288 906,193,152
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 07/25/22 09/30/21 298 795,508,020 US Treasury Notes 08/15/22 09/30/21 319 999,402,118
US Treasury Notes 08/15/22 09/30/21 319 1,002,176,461
Medium Term Investments (1 year to 5 years)
US Agency Securities
Federal National Mortgage Association 09/06/22 09/30/21 341 1,041,475,380 Federal National Mortgage Association 10/05/22 09/30/21 370 1,144,099,200 US Treasury Notes 10/15/22 09/30/21 380 657,032,920
US Treasury Notes 01/15/23 09/30/21 472 1,544,084,752
Federal National Mortgage Association 01/19/23 09/30/21 476 1,491,831,600 US Treasury Notes 01/31/23 09/30/21 488 854,143,472
Federal Home Loan Bank 02/17/23 09/30/21 505 1,541,418,570 US Treasury Notes 02/28/23 09/30/21 516 1,690,136,844
US Treasury Notes 03/15/23 09/30/21 531 1,690,864,362
US Treasury Notes 03/31/23 09/30/21 547 1,792,761,321
1 Item 1N - 3

TREASURER'S MONTHLY REPORT

CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE MATURITY
September 30, 2021
Description Maturity/Called Current No. of Days X Cost Date Date Days
Medium Term Investments (1 year to 5 years) - Continued US Treasury Notes 04/15/23 09/30/21 562 1,409,116,088
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 06/26/23 09/30/21 634 1,585,491,350 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 07/10/23 09/30/21 648 1,804,033,296 US Treasury Notes 07/15/23 09/30/21 653 1,631,607,349
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 08/24/23 09/30/21 693 1,436,508,612 US Treasury Notes 09/15/23 09/30/21 715 1,424,581,730
US Treasury Notes 10/15/23 09/30/21 745 1,632,149,725
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 10/16/23 09/30/21 746 2,229,652,260 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 12/04/23 09/30/21 795 1,878,313,905 US Treasury Notes 06/15/24 09/30/21 989 1,234,028,706
US Treasury Notes 03/31/25 09/30/21 1,278 2,551,707,198 Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corp 04/01/25 09/30/21 1,279 3,370,259,646 US Treasury Notes 08/31/25 09/30/21 1,431 3,874,223,574 US Treasury Notes 10/31/25 1,492 4,031,518,280
Corporate Bonds/Obligations (5 years or less)
Apple Incorporated 02/09/22 09/30/21 132 269,897,760
Apple Incorporated 01/13/23 09/30/21 470 490,806,900
Pepsico Inc 05/01/23 09/30/21 578 584,479,380
Microsoft Corporation 08/08/23 09/30/21 677 780,860,601 Pepsico Inc 10/07/23 09/30/21 737 762,360,170
Charles Swab Corp 03/18/24 09/30/21 900 1,131,435,000
Bank of NY Mellon 04/26/24 09/30/21 939 1,172,940,582
Amazon 05/12/24 09/30/21 955 1,195,433,665
John Deere Capital 06/07/24 09/30/21 981 1,227,427,200
Bank of America Corp 06/14/24 09/30/21 988 1,235,024,700 US Bankcorp 07/30/24 09/30/21 1,034 1,358,896,242
JP Morgan Chase & Co 04/22/26 09/30/21 1,665 2,160,442,395 Supernational (5 years or less)
Inter-American Dev Bank Note 11/15/23 09/30/21 776 1,937,846,600 Intl. Bank Recon & Development Note 04/22/25 09/30/21 1,300 3,258,320,000 Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (5 years or less)
Patriot Bank CD 01/31/22 09/30/21 123 30,750,000
Synchrony Bank CD 03/15/22 09/30/21 166 41,500,000
Merrick Bank CD 03/21/22 09/30/21 172 43,000,000
Goldman Sachs Bank CD 08/02/22 09/30/21 306 76,500,000
American Express Centurion CD 08/22/22 09/30/21 326 81,500,000 2 Item 1N - 4

TREASURER'S MONTHLY REPORT

CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE MATURITY
September 30, 2021
Description Maturity/Called Current No. of Days X Cost Date Date Days
Capital One Bank USA, NA CD 08/23/22 09/30/21 327 81,750,000 Citibank, NA CD 07/24/23 09/30/21 662 165,500,000
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (5 years or less) - Continued Comenity Capital Bank CD 10/17/23 09/30/21 747 186,750,000 UBS Bank USA CD 10/17/23 09/30/21 747 186,750,000
Asset Backed Security (5 years or less)
Toyota Auto Receivables Trust 11/17/25 09/30/21 1,509 1,886,250,000 Total Investments at Cost 277,820,747
WAM in Days 256
3 Item 1N - 5

TREASURER'S MONTHLY REPORT

CASH WITH FISCAL AGENT (BOND ISSUE RESERVE, DEBT SERVICE, AND RELATED FUNDS) October 31, 2021
Par Coupon Yield Adjusted Category Market Value as of Market Value as of Acct Description Value Rate Rating Maturity to Maturity Cost Basis Total October 31, 2021 Source September 30, 2021 11029 2015 Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds
First American Government Obligation 558,250 variable AAA open 0.01% 558,250 558,250 US Bank - 10060 2015 Reassessment District No.2015-1
First American Government Obligation 272,313 variable AAA open 0.01% 272,313 272,313 US Bank 272,321 10115 Cash with Fiscal Agent - Reserve 2019
Bond Issuance 1,996,510 - - - - 1,996,510 1,996,510 US Bank 1,996,343 10110 Cash with Fiscal Agent - 2019 PFC
Bond Issuance 4,850,774 - - - - 4,850,774 4,850,774 US Bank 7,505,467 10070 2012/2014 Convention Center
First American Government Obligation 3,555,347 variable AAA open 0.01% 3,555,347 3,555,347 US Bank 4 2015 Local Measure A Sales Tax
10090 First American Government Obligation 624,537 624,537 624,537 624,531 11043 First American Government Obligation - variable AAA open 0.01% 0 - US Bank - 624,537 624,537 624,531
10035 Funds With Century Golf 938,197 N/A N/A demand None 938,197 938,197 Century Golf 361,160 10095 Cash with Fiscal Agent - Refinance 17,876 - - - - 17,876 17,876 US Bank 1,622,868 10105 Cash with Fiscal Agent - 2017
111,992 - - - - 111,992 111,992 US Bank 527,588 Total Cash with Fiscal Agent 12,
925,796 12,925,796 12,925,796 12,911,045 1 Item 1N - 6

TREASURER'S MONTHLY REPORT

CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE MATURITY
November 30, 2021
Description Maturity/Called Current No. of Days X Cost Date Date Days
On Call Deposits
Checking - Bank of America 11/30/21 1 10,256,507
Wells Fargo Custody 11/30/21 1 13,634,650
CalTrust ShortTerm 11/30/21 1 50,614,691
Local Agency Invest Fund (LAIF) 11/30/21 1 72,558,144
Short Term Investments (1 year or less)
US Agency Securities
Federal Home Loan Bank 12/20/21 11/30/21 20 60,928,800
US Treasury Notes 12/31/21 11/30/21 44 109,918,116
Federal National Mortgage Association 01/05/22 11/30/21 36 110,448,360 Federal National Mortgage Association 01/11/22 11/30/21 42 130,455,360 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 01/13/22 11/30/21 44 136,084,080 US Treasury Notes 01/31/22 11/30/21 44 109,669,648
US Treasury Notes 05/31/22 11/30/21 182 571,904,788
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 06/08/22 11/30/21 190 570,285,000 US Treasury Notes 06/15/22 11/30/21 197 619,978,700
US Treasury Notes 06/30/22 11/30/21 212 667,336,568
US Treasury Notes 07/15/22 11/30/21 227 714,256,408
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 07/25/22 11/30/21 237 632,669,130 US Treasury Notes 08/15/22 11/30/21 258 808,293,876
US Treasury Notes 08/15/22 11/30/21 258 810,537,702
Federal National Mortgage Association 09/06/22 11/30/21 280 855,170,400 Federal National Mortgage Association 10/05/22 11/30/21 309 955,477,440 US Treasury Notes 10/15/22 11/30/21 319 551,561,846
Medium Term Investments (1 year to 5 years)
US Agency Securities
US Treasury Notes 01/15/23 11/30/21 411 1,344,531,426
Federal National Mortgage Association 01/19/23 11/30/21 415 1,300,651,500 US Treasury Notes 01/31/23 11/30/21 427 747,375,538
Federal Home Loan Bank 02/17/23 11/30/21 444 1,355,227,416 US Treasury Notes 02/28/23 11/30/21 455 1,490,333,845
US Treasury Notes 03/15/23 11/30/21 470 1,496,621,940
US Treasury Notes 03/31/23 11/30/21 486 1,592,837,298
1 Item 1N - 7

TREASURER'S MONTHLY REPORT

CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE MATURITY
November 30, 2021
Description Maturity/Called Current No. of Days X Cost Date Date Days
Medium Term Investments (1 year to 5 years) - Continued US Treasury Notes 04/15/23 11/30/21 501 1,256,169,324
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 06/26/23 11/30/21 573 1,432,944,075 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 07/10/23 11/30/21 587 1,634,209,174 US Treasury Notes 07/15/23 11/30/21 592 1,479,190,736
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 08/24/23 11/30/21 632 1,310,062,688 US Treasury Notes 09/15/23 11/30/21 654 1,303,043,988
US Treasury Notes 10/15/23 11/30/21 684 1,498,510,620
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 10/16/23 11/30/21 685 2,047,334,850 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 12/04/23 11/30/21 734 1,734,191,706 US Treasury Notes 06/15/24 11/30/21 928 1,157,915,712
US Treasury Notes 03/31/25 11/30/21 1,217 2,429,912,097 Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corp 04/01/25 11/30/21 1,218 3,209,520,132 US Treasury Notes 07/31/25 11/30/21 1,339 3,654,152,424 US Treasury Notes 08/31/25 11/30/21 1,370 3,709,074,980 US Treasury Notes 10/31/25 11/30/21 1,431 3,866,690,790 US Treasury Notes 01/31/26 11/30/21 1,523 4,140,965,419 Corporate Bonds/Obligations (5 years or less)
Apple Incorporated 02/09/22 11/30/21 71 145,172,280
Apple Incorporated 01/13/23 11/30/21 409 427,106,430
Pepsico Inc 05/01/23 11/30/21 517 522,795,570
Microsoft Corporation 08/08/23 11/30/21 616 710,502,408 Pepsico Inc 10/07/23 11/30/21 676 699,261,160
Charles Swab Corp 03/18/24 11/30/21 839 1,054,748,850
Bank of NY Mellon 04/26/24 11/30/21 878 1,096,743,164
Amazon 05/12/24 11/30/21 894 1,119,076,122
John Deere Capital 06/07/24 11/30/21 920 1,151,104,000
Bank of America Corp 06/14/24 11/30/21 927 1,158,773,175 US Bankcorp 07/30/24 11/30/21 973 1,278,729,249
Bank of NY Mellon Corp 10/25/24 11/30/21 1,060 1,271,013,140 JP Morgan Chase & Co 04/22/26 11/30/21 1,604 2,081,291,052 Supernational (5 years or less)
Inter-American Dev Bank Note 11/15/23 11/30/21 745 1,860,432,625 Intl. Bank Recon & Development Note 04/22/25 11/30/21 1,269 3,180,621,600 Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (5 years or less)
2 Item 1N - 8

TREASURER'S MONTHLY REPORT

CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE MATURITY
November 30, 2021
Description Maturity/Called Current No. of Days X Cost Date Date Days
Patriot Bank CD 01/31/22 11/30/21 62 15,500,000
Synchrony Bank CD 03/15/22 11/30/21 105 26,250,000
Merrick Bank CD 03/21/22 11/30/21 111 27,750,000
Goldman Sachs Bank CD 08/02/22 11/30/21 245 61,250,000
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (5 years or less) - Continued American Express Centurion CD 08/22/22 11/30/21 265 66,250,000 Capital One Bank USA, NA CD 08/23/22 11/30/21 266 66,500,000 Citibank, NA CD 07/24/23 11/30/21 601 150,250,000
Comenity Capital Bank CD 10/17/23 11/30/21 686 171,500,000 UBS Bank USA CD 10/17/23 11/30/21 686 171,500,000
Asset Backed Security (5 years or less)
Toyota Auto Receivables Trust 11/17/25 11/30/21 1,448 1,810,000,000 Total Investments at Cost 286,623,176
WAM in Days 252
3 Item 1N - 9

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
03/24/2022   1. O.

City Clerk -

SUBJECT

APPROVAL OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION NEIGHBORHOOD GRANT
PROGRAM AND APPROPRIATION OF $25,000 IN GRANT FUNDING FROM

PUBLIC ARTS FUND
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve a budget allocation of $25,000 from the Public Art Fund for the Public Arts Neighborhood Grant Program.

Attachments
Item 1O

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DAT
E: MARCH 24, 2022 CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION NEIGHBORHOOD GRANT PROGRAM AND APPROPRIATION OF $25,000 IN GRANT FUNDING

FROM PUBLIC ARTS FUND
FROM: Justin Clifton, City Manager
BY: Community & Economic Development
SUMMARY:

The P
ublic Arts Commission is requesting approval of $25,000 to revive the “ Art is Everywhere” Neighborhood Grant Program (Program). Five grants in the amount of $5,000 each are being proposed to support the creation and enjoyment of public art.

RECOMMENDATION:

Appr
ove a budget allocation of $25 ,000 from the Public Art Fund for the Public Art s Neighborhood Grant Program.

BACKGROUND:

The P
rogram grew out of the “ Art is Here ” celebration in 2019, marking the Palm Springs Public Arts Commission’s 30th anniversary. Originally launched in the Spring of 2020 and then put on hold because of the COVID -19 pandemic, the Public Arts Commission would like to revive the Program with the same goal: to encourage the community to consider how art can enhance where we live, work , and play and to bring art to more shared spaces throughout the City.

The Program will be open to Palm Springs neighborhood associations or business districts who apply and submit a proposal through the Public Arts Commission website .

Each application will be agendized for discussion and review at a Public Arts Commission meeting. Once an application has been approved for further review , the Commission will appoint a Commissioner to act as a liaison to the applicant to assist in developing a proposal for the full Commission’s consideration. The Commission will also assist in pairing grant applicants with artists. The Commission will review each proposal and make recommendations for final City Council approval.

Item 1O - 1
City Council Staff Report
March 24, 2022 -- Page 2
Public Art Neighborhood Grant Program

Art projects may include temporary or permanent public art, art -related activities, or events with an artistic or performance focus. There is no application window or deadline for the Program. As this first round of grants is awarded, the Commission and Ci ty Council may later allocate more funding based on program interest and budgetary considerations.

Engagement with residents and other community and enhancement of community spaces will be strongly encouraged. Interested artists and community groups may partner with a neighborhood association or business district to submit a proposal.

Grants will be awarded based on the project’s artistic integrity, community engagement, budget requirements, feasibility, and whether it services an area in need of public arts.

Grant recipients will not be eligible to apply for a subsequent grant.

On February 23, 2022, the Public Arts Commission voted (6- 0) recommending approval of the Program.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (
CEQA) DETERMINATION:

The recommended action is not a “project” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as that term is defined by CEQA guidelines (Guidelines) section 15378.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed Mini Grant Program would be funded by the Publi c Arts Fund in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for 5 grants in a maximum amount of $5,000 per grant.

Sufficient funding is available in the current fiscal year budget.

REVIEWED BY:

Department Director: Jay Virata
Deputy City Manager: Flinn Fagg
City Manager: Justin Clifton

Item 1O - 2

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
03/24/2022   1. P.

City Clerk -

SUBJECT
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2061 ADOPTING A

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE
APPLICATION FROM RMHP (RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME PARK) TO R-1-C (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR AN UNDEVELOPED 1.35-ACRE PARCEL (APN: 508-240-020) LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SUNNY DUNES AND SOUTH SUNRISE WAY, SECTION 23.

RECOMMENDATION:

Waive the second reading of the ordinance text in its entirety and read by title only; and adopt Ordinance No. 2061 entitled," AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION FROM RMHP (RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME PARK) TO R-1-C (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR AN UNDEVELOPED 1.35-ACRE PARCEL (APN: 508-240-020) LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SUNNY DUNES AND SOUTH SUNRISE WAY, SECTION 23."

Attachments
Item 1P

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: March 24, 2022 CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 20 61

ADOPTING A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND APPROVING A

CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION FROM RMHP (RESIDENTIAL
MOBILE HOME PARK) TO R-1-C (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR AN UNDEVELOPED 1.35-ACRE PARCEL (APN: 508-240-020) LOCATED

AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SUNNY DUNES AND SOUTH
SUNRISE WAY, SECTION 23.

FROM: Justin Clifton, City Manager

BY: Monique Lomeli, Interim City Clerk

RECOMMENDATION:

Waive the second reading of the ordinance text in its entirety and read by title only; and adopt Ordinance No. 2061 entitled, " AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION

AND APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION FROM RMHP (RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME PARK) TO R -1-C (SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR AN UNDEVELOPED 1.35 -ACRE PARCEL (APN: 508 -240-020) LOCATED AT THE

NORTHWEST CORNER OF SUNNY DUNES AND SOUTH SUNRISE WAY, SECTION

23."

BACKGROUND:

On March 10, 2022, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 2061 for first reading, as noted below:

MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KORS , SECOND BY MAYOR MIDDLETON, CARRIED 4-0, to introduce Ordinance No. 2061 entitled, “AN ORDINANCE OF

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,

ADOPTING A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND APPROVING A CHANGE OF

ZONE APPLICATION FROM RMHP (RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME PARK) TO R-1-C (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR AN UNDEVELOPED 1.35 -ACRE PARCEL (APN: 508 -240-020) LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SUNNY DUNES AND SOUTH SUNRISE WAY, SECTION 23.”

This report provides for the City Council to waive further reading and adopt the ordinance.

The ordinance shall be effective 30-days from adoption.

Item 1P - 1
City Council Staff Report
March 10, 2022 -- Page 2
Second Reading of Ordinance Relating to District Boundaries

REVIEWED BY:

Department Director: Monique Lomeli
City Manager: Justin Clifton

ATTACHMENT:

Ordinance No. 2061.

Item 1P - 2
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 1P - 3
ORDI
NANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND APPROVING A

CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION FROM RMHP
(RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME PARK ) TO R-1-C
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ) FOR AN
UNDEVELOPED 1.35 -ACRE PARCEL (APN: 508- 240-
020) LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF

SUNNY DUNES AND SOUTH SUNRISE WAY, SECTION

23. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:

A. Modlin Homes, LLC, (“Applicant”) has submitted an application with the City pursuant to Chapter 94.07.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code for a Change of Zone from RMHP to R -1-C for the undeveloped 1.35 -acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Sunny Dunes and South Sunrise W ay (Case No. 5.1517-CZ).

B.

On January 2 6, 20 22, a duly-noticed public hearing on the application was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law ; and at said meeting , the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 6 896, recommending City Council approve Case No. 5.1517-CZ.

D. A notice of the public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California to consider the proposed change of zone application was given in accordance with applicable law.

C. On March 10, 2022, a public hearing on the application for the project was held by the City Council of the City of Palm Springs , after which the City Council introduced and waived further reading of this Ordinance.

D. T he proposed project is considered a “project” pursuant to the terms of the California Env ironmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15332 (In -Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. Staff has recommended an adoption of a Categorical Exemption since proposed project meets the following criteria:

1. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and will meet applicable zoning designation if approved by the City Council;

2. The project is located within the City limits on a 1.35 -acre site Item 1P - 4
Ordinance No.

Case No. 5.1517-CZ March 10, 2022

(which is less than 5 acres) and substantially surrounded by urban uses;

3. The project is not located on sites that have value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species;

4. The project will not result in any significant impacts relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and

5. The project can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

E. T he City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presents.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1:

The City Council hereby adopt s a Categorical Exemption for this Ordinance and finds that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15332 (In- Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. Within 5 days of approval of this Ordinance, a Notice of Exemption shall be prepared and filed with the Riverside County Clerk.

SECTION 2:

Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 94.07.00(A) – “ the council in reviewing a proposed change of zone shall consider whether the following conditions exist in reference to the proposed zoning of the subject property”:

1. The proposed change of zone is in conformity with the general plan map and report.

The requested change of zone is from RMHP to R -1-C; the General Plan designation of the property is VLDR (Very Low Density Residential), which permits a density range of 2.1 – 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed change of zone would be in conformity with the G eneral Plan land use designation given that the goal of the General Plan is to provide for neighborhood-related residential uses in the area. The proposed change of zone is being made in accordance with the procedures set forth in State Planning law and the change of zone hearings are being held in accordance with applicable laws.

The proposed change of zone will not require an amendment to the General Plan because the R-1-C zoning district is consistent with the VLDR designation, which is for low-density residential uses. The proposed change of zone will result in the creation of four lots, which is consistent with the General Plan for the very -low Item 1P - 5
Ordinance No.

Case No. 5.1517-CZ March 10, 2022

density designation of the subject site. This is merely a corrective action to align the parcel’s zoning designation with its current G eneral Plan designation. If approved, the new zoning will be in conformity with the Ge neral Plan map and will further support and serve the General Plan Land Uses of the adjacent and surrounding properties.

2. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone, in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to s imilar or re lated uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the commission and council.

The subject property is currently undeveloped, and the proposed zoning designation to R-1- C standards will be suitable on the site in terms of density, access, lot sizes, and relationship to similar or related uses in the immediate neighborhood. There are eight existing lots to the southwest of the subject site; the lots are all developed with single-family homes, and they are all zoned R-1-C.

Access into the p roposed lots will be from Sunrise Way. The proposed lot sizes are in conformity with the minimum lot size required for the R -1-C zone. The future homes on the site will be consistent with the existing residential uses to the southwest of the location. The proposed R -1-C zone will also be consistent in terms of intensity of use to the adjacent mobile homes west of the site.

3. The proposed change of zone is necessary and proper at this time and is not likely to be detrimental to the adjacent property or residents.

The proposed change of zone of the approximately 1.35- acre parcel to R -1-C is proper at this time given that the parcel has remained undeveloped. In part, this has been due to the parcel’s mismatched General Plan and zoning designations.

The proposed change will specifically allow the property to be developed appropriately and thereby help the City to meet its stated housing goals and needs. The proposed zone change will not have adverse effects on existing and future surrounding land uses given that properties to the southwest and west of the site are also residential uses. Also, the adjoining parcel to the southwest is zoned R-1-C, and so are the other seven lots with existing single- family homes.

And finally , the narrow shape and location of the land may be too sm all to accommodate other uses such as a neighborhood commercial development or office use. Additionally, the proposed change of zone is necessary because the size of the parcel does not meet the minimum lot size required for a mobile ho me park development. According to Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 92.07.03 (A), no parcel of land containing less than ten (10) acres may be used for the purposes permitted in the R-MHP zone, the subject parcel size is 1.35 acres.

Item 1P - 6
Ordinance No.

Case No. 5.1517-CZ March 10, 2022

SECTION 3:

Pursuant to California Law, thi s ordinance was introduced at first reading on March 10, 2022 and adopted at second reading on March 24 , 2022 for the approval of Case 5.1517-CZ Change of Zone.

SECTION 4:

The City Council adopts an ordinance to amend the City’s zoning map to change the zoning designation from RMHP ( Residential Mobile Home Park ) to R-1- C (Single-Family Residential ) for an undeveloped 1.35- acre site located at the northwest corner of Sunny Dunes Drive and South Sunrise Way.

SECTION 5:

Effective Date: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after passage.

SECTION 6:

Publication: The City Clerk is hereby ordered to and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance, and to cause the same or summary thereof or a display advertisement, duly prepared according to law, to be published in accordance with law.

ADOPTED this ______ day of March 2022.

Lisa Middleton, Mayor

ATTEST:

________________________________
Monique M. Lomeli, Interim City Clerk
Item 1P - 7

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
03/24/2022   2. A.

City Clerk -

SUBJECT

REQUEST BY AG LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC FOR GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION OF ‘INDUSTRIAL’ (IND) TO ‘VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL’ (VLDR), CHANGE OF ZONE FROM ‘PLANNED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PARK’ (M-1-P) TO ‘SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL’ (R-1-C), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM)

AND ADMINISTRATIVE MINOR MODIFICATION (AMM) APPLICATIONS TO SUBDIVIDE 2.53 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND INTO EIGHT (8)

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AT 2700 EAST ALEJO ROAD (CASE 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM) RECOMMENDATION:

Open the public hearing and receive public testimony.1.

Introduce by title only and waive further reading of an Ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE 5.1521 CZ, CHANGE OF ZONE, TO AMEND THE CURRENT ZONE DESIGNATION OF ‘PLANNED RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PARK’ (M-1-P) TO ‘SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL’ (R-1-C) FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.53- ACRE LOT INTO EIGHT (8)
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AT 2700 EAST ALEJO ROAD, SECTION 12.”

2. Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE 5.1521 GPA, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, TO AMEND THE CURRENT LAND USE
DESIGNATION OF ‘INDUSTRIAL’ (IND) TO ‘VERY LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL’ (VLDR) FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.53-ACRE LOT INTO EIGHT (8) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS FOR FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT AT 2700 EAST ALEJO ROAD, SECTION 12.”

3. Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE TTM 38049, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND CASE 7.1645 AMM, ADMINISTRATIVE MINOR MODIFICATION, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.53-ACRE LOT INTO EIGHT (8) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS WITH THE LOT WIDTH OF 117 FEET INSTEAD OF THE CODE-REQUIRED 130-FOOT-MINIMUM FOR LOT 4 AND LOT 8 FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AT 2700 EAST ALEJO ROAD, SECTION 12.”

4. Attachments
Item 2A

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: MARCH 24, 2022 PUBLIC HEARING

SUBJECT: REQUEST BY AG LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC FOR GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
OF ‘INDUSTRIAL’ (IND) TO ‘VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL’ (VLDR), CHANGE OF ZONE FROM ‘PLANNED RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PARK’ (M-1-P) TO ‘SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL’ (R- 1-C), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) AND ADMINISTRATIVE
MINOR MODIFICATION (AMM) APPLICATIONS TO SUBDIVIDE 2.53 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND INTO EIGHT (8) SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AT 2700 EAST ALEJO ROAD (CASE 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM)

FROM: Justin Clifton, City Manager

BY: Development Services Department

SUMMARY:

This is a request for a General Plan Amendment from the current ‘Industrial’ (IND) land use designation to ‘Very Low Density Residential’ (VLDR), a Change of Zone from ‘Planned Research and Development Park’ (M -1-P) to ‘Single -Family Residential’ (R-1- C), and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) and Administrative Minor Modification (AMM) applications to subdivide 2.53 acres of undeveloped land into eight (8) single- family residential parcels for future development. AMM approval is requested for a reduced lot width in accordance with Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.06.01(A)(4) , and no above-ground structures are being proposed at this time.

On February 23, 2022, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project to the City Council subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony.

2. I ntroduce by title only and waive further reading of Ordinance No. ____, “ AN

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE 5.1521 CZ, CHANGE OF ZONE, TO AMEND THE CURRENT ZONE DESIGNATION OF ‘PLANNED RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PARK’ (M -1-P) TO ‘SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL’ (R-1-C) FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.53 - ACRE LOT INTO EIGHT (8) SINGLE - Item 2A - 1
City Council Staff Report
March 24, 2022 -- Page 2
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM

FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AT 2700 EAST ALEJO ROAD, SECTION 12.”

3. Adopt Resolution No._____, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE 5.1521 GPA,

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, TO AMEND THE CURRENT LAND USE
DESIGNATION OF ‘INDUSTRIAL’ (IND) TO ‘VERY LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL’ (VLDR) FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.53 -ACRE LOT INTO EIGHT (8) SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS FOR FU TURE DEVELOPMENT AT 2700 EAST ALEJO ROAD, SECTION 12.”

4. And adopt Resolution No. _____, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE TTM 38049, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND CASE 7.1645 AMM, ADMINISTRATIVE MINOR MODIFICATION, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.53 -ACRE LOT INTO EIGHT (8) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS WITH THE LOT WIDTH OF 117 FEET INSTEAD OF THE CODE -REQUIRED 130-FOOT-MINIMUM FOR LOT 4 AND LOT 8 FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AT 2700 EAST ALEJO ROAD, SECTION 12.”

BUSINESS PRINCIPAL DISCLOSURE:

The property is owned by AG Land Investments, LLC. The entity consists of members named Adam Gilbert and Anthony Gatto. Each member holds 50% ownership of the entity. Public Integrity Disclosure Form is attached to this report (Attachment D).

BACKGROUND:

The applicant is seeking a General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Tentative Tract Map, and Administrative Minor Modification approval for the subdivision of 2.53 acres of undeveloped land into eight (8) single- family residential parcels for future development (APNs: 507-380-019 & 507-380-020). On February 23, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval to the City Council subject to conditions of approval. The February 23, 2022, Planning Commission meeting staff report and an excerpt from the draft meeting minutes are attached to this report (Attachments G & H).

STAFF ANALYSIS:

The detailed analysis of the proposed project relative to the applicable criteria and findings is provided in the February 23, 2022, Planning Commission meeting staff report (Attachment G ). Detailed findings are also included in the attached resolutions and ordinance. In summary, the Planning Commission made the following findings in recommending approval to the City Council as follows:

Item 2A - 2
City Council Staff Report
March 24, 2022 -- Page 3
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM

1. General Plan Amendment (GPA). The proposed single- family residential use is compatible with the surrounding land uses and development patterns, particularly the existing single-family residences to the west. Additionally, it is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, particularly Policies LU 6.2 and HS1.1, and Goal LU 1, which encourage infill residential development projects.

2. Change of Zone (CZ). The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning code regulations if all applications (GPA, TTM, and AMM) that were submitted in conjunction with this CZ application are approved altogether as conditioned. The Commission also found that the subject property is suitable for the proposed uses and that residential use is necessary and proper at this time and will not be detrimental to the adjacent properties or residents, and the residential use is consistent with the General Plan Housing Element, which aims to respond to the statewide housing shortage.

3. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) . The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning code regulations if all applications (GPA, CZ, and AMM) that were submitted in conjunction with this TTM application are approved altogether as conditioned. The site is physically suitable for future residential development at the density proposed. Further, the project is not likely to cause environmental damage or substantial injury. Although the project site is located in an urban area, the Initial Study finds that nesting birds may exist amongst the sparse vegetation on site.

Condition of Approval ENV 1 is recommended to ensure the protection of the nesting birds.

4. Administrative Minor Modification (AMM). The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning code objectives if all applications (GPA, CZ , and TTM) that were submitted in conjunction with this AMM application are approved altogether as conditioned. The approval of the AMM is justified by the historic development pattern of the site’s vicinity, and it will not adversely affect the nearby existing developments and residents.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
:

This project is considered a project under the definitions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City has evaluated the project under CEQA Guidelines and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and circulated for a 20- day public comment period ( Attachment E). The comments received during the comment period are attached to this report (Attachment F). No comments have been received that would necessitate recirculation of the environmental analysis. S taff finds that the analysis is a complete description of the project and its potential adverse impacts. The recommended Mitigation Measures are anticipated to reduce any potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.

Item 2A - 3
City Council Staff Report
March 24, 2022 -- Page 4
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM

NOTIFICATION:

Pursuant to Section 94.09.00 (Public Hearing) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, written notice has been mailed to all property owners and residents within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property and notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

REVIEWED BY:

Department Assistant Director: David A. Newell
Deputy City Manager: Flinn Fagg
City Manager: Justin Clifton

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Vicinity Map
B. Draft Resolution
C. Draft Ordinance
D. Public Integrity Disclosure Form
E. Initial Study/MND
F. Public Comments for Initial Study/MND
G. February 23, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report H. Excerpt from draft February 23, 2022, Planning Commission meeting minutes I. Aerial View
J. TTM 38049
Item 2A - 4
Att
achment A
Item 2A - 5

Department of Planning Services
Vicinity Map

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, Case 38049 TTM, Case 7.1645 AMM
AG Land Investments, LLC
2700 East Alejo Road
(APN: 507-380-019 & 507-380-020)
Item 2A - 6
•
= .

W E
s
~
\ -
l/ ...... M1P
....__
V
"
'---
I,,"'-- I ~ ' '---
~
I 0::

C
R1 C-
j ;:i..
'-R1C- R1 C !::,
~~
r z .
<· ~-
C v xV "' V V 0:: A
..J '---
C ~
0:: <· PO 0:: o' >-' C
0:: w· ..J
O::· ..J w w :E w t-: 0:: :E
z . 0:: O '
0 ~ u i
:E 'l I
AL:EJ O·RD
- r
\ -- I .____
~v~
-
'---
\ -
'--- ~~
- - _, _
~1~
A
__,,,,..- > I
Legend 0
~ Project Site
D 500-Foot Radius
I
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE 5.1521

GPA, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, TO AMEND THE
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION OF ‘INDUSTRIAL’
(IND) TO ‘VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL’ (VLDR)

AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.53- ACRE LOT INTO EIGHT
(8) SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS FOR
FUTURE DEVEL OPMENT AT 2700 EAST ALEJO ROAD,
SECTION 12.

WHEREAS, AG Land Investments, LLC, (the “Applicant”) has filed Case 5.1521 General Plan Amendment (GPA), Case 5.1521 CZ Change of Zone (CZ), Case TTM 38049, Tentative Tract Map (TTM), and Case 7.1645 AMM Administrative Minor Modification (AMM) applications in accordance with Sections 94.07.00 (Change of Zone),

94.06.01(Minor Modifications), and 9.60 (Subdivision of Land – General Provision) of the Plan Springs Zoning and Municipal Codes to subdivide a 2.53- acre undeveloped lot into eight (8) single- family residential lots for future development at 2700 East Alejo Road; and

WHEREAS, the current General Plan land use and zone designations of the project site are ‘Industrial’ (IND) and ‘M-1-P’ (Planned Research and Development Park), respectively; and

WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designation from ‘Industrial’ (IND) to ‘Very Low Density Residential’ (VLDR); and

WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Change of Zone (CZ) from the current ‘Planned Research and Development Park’ (M -1-P) to ‘Single -Family Residential’ (R-1- C); and

WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) to subdivide the existing 2.53-acre undeveloped lot into eight (8) single-family residential parcels; and

WHEREAS, the applicant has requested an Administrative Minor Modification (AMM) to reduce the Code-required minimum lot width from 130 feet to 117 feet for Lot 4 and Lot 8; and

WHEREAS, on February 23, 2022, a public hearing on Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, Case TTM 38049, and Case 7.1645 AMM w as held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 (Absent: Ervin & Moruzzi) to recommend approval to the City Council subject to conditions.

WHEREAS, on March 24, 2022, a public hearing on Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, Case TTM 38049, and Case 7.1645 AMM were held by the City Council in accordance with Item 2A - 7
Resolution No. _____

applicable law.

WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a “project” pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and an Environmental Assessment has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the meeting on the Project, including but not limited to the staff report, all environmental data including the environmental assessment prepared for the project and all written and oral testimony presented.

WHEREAS, State of California Governmental Code Sections 65350 – 65362, outlines the procedures and requirements for Cities and Counties to create and amend their General Plan. There are, however, no specific findings for a General Plan Amendment. The City Council has evaluated the requested GPA based upon the following:

• Compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent land uses • Development patterns of the neighborhood.
• Applicable Goals, Policies and Actions of the General Plan.

The City Council specifically finds as follows:

1. Findings of Compatibility of the proposed land use designation with existing adjacent land uses.

The project proposes to change the current General Plan land use designation of IND (Industrial) to VLDR (Very Low Density Residential) for future single- family residential use. The City Council finds that the proposed VLDR land use designation is compatible with the adjacent land uses, particularly to the existing single-family residences to the west that are also located within the VLDR designation area. The approval of the General Plan Amendment would allow further expansion of the residential area.

2. Findings of consistency with development patterns in the neighborhood.

Policy LU 6.2 of the General Plan Land Use Element encourages new residential infill development projects (Palm Springs 2007 General Plan, page 2- 27).

Additionally, Housing Element Policy HS1.1 states as follows:

“Provide adequate residential sites to accommodate and encourage a broad range of housing opportunities.”

The General Plan Amendment will allow the addition of new single- family residences to the existing residential neighborhood to the west that was established around 1960. Hence, the General Plan Amendment is consistent with Item 2A - 8
Resolution No. _____

the development pattern of the neighborhood and meets this requirement.

3. Consistency with Goals, Policies and Action Items of the General Plan.

The approval of the General Plan Amendment would allow future development of eight (8) single- family residences. Policy LU 6.2 of the Land Use Element encourages new residential infill development (Palm Springs 2007 General Plan, page 2- 27), and the General Plan Amendment will help achieve the goal.

Additionally, the proposed project allows the City to achieve Goal LU 1 of the Land Use Element which states as follows:
“Establish a balanced pattern of land uses that complements the pattern and character of existing uses, offers opportunities for the intensification of key targeted sites, minimizes adverse environmental impacts, and has positive ec onomic results” (Palm Springs 2007 General Plan, page 2-20).

The proposed single-family residential use complements the existing single-family residences to the west. The project site has remained undeveloped, and the in-fill development of eight (8) new single -family residences will deliver positive economic impacts to the City.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

That the foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2
. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s CEQA Guidelines.

The City Council f inds that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the Gener al Plan Amendment will have a less than significant impact on the environment. The City Council independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND prior to its review of this Project and the MND reflects the City Council‘s independ ent judgment and analysis. Therefore, the City Council hereby adopts the MND for this Project.

SECTION 3
. That the City Council hereby approves Case 5.1521 GPA to amend the current General Plan land use designation from ‘Industrial’ (IND) to ‘Very Low Density Residential’ (VLDR) for the subdivision of a 2.53- acre lot into eight (8) single- family residential parcels for future development at 2700 East Alejo Road. The General Plan land use map shall be updated to reflect said amendment.

ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022.

Item 2A - 9
Resolution No. _____

JUSTIN CLIFTON

CITY MANAGER

ATTEST:

MONIQUE M. LOMELI, CMC

INTERIM CITY CLERK
Item 2A - 10
Resolution No. _____

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )

I, MONIQUE M. LOMELI, Interim City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. ____ is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on _______________________, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Springs, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.

MONIQUE M. LOMELI, CMC

INTERIM CITY CLERK
Item 2A - 11
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE TTM
38049, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND CASE 7.1645 AMM,

ADMINISTRATIVE MINOR MODIFICATION, FOR THE
SUBDIVISION OF A 2.53 -ACRE LOT INTO EIGHT (8)

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS WITH THE LOT
WIDTH OF 117 FEET INSTEAD OF THE CODE-REQUIRED
130-FOOT-MINIMUM FOR LOT 4 AND LOT 8 FOR FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT AT 2700 EAST ALEJO ROAD, SECTION

12. WHEREAS, AG Land Investments, LLC, (the “Applicant”) has filed Case 5.1521 General Plan Amendment (GPA), Case 5.1521 CZ Change of Zone (CZ), Case TTM 38049, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) , and Case 7.1645 AMM Administrative Minor Modification (AMM) applications in accordance with Sections 94.07.00 (Change of Zone),

94.06.01(Minor Modifications), and 9.60 (Subdivision of Land – General Provision) of the Plan Springs Zoning and Municipal Codes to subdivide a 2.53- acre undeveloped lot into eight (8) single- family residential lots for future development at 2700 East Alejo Road; and

WHEREAS, the current General Plan land use and zone designations of the project site are ‘Industrial’ (IND) and ‘M-1-P’ (Planned Research and Development Park), respectively; and

WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designation from ‘Industrial’ (IND) to ‘Very Low Density Residential’ (VLDR); and

WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Change of Zone (CZ) from the current ‘Planned Research and Development Park’ (M -1-P) to ‘Single -Family Residential’ (R-1- C); and

WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) to subdivide the existing 2.53-acre undeveloped lot into eight (8) single-family residential parcels; and

WHEREAS, the applicant has requested an Administrative Minor Modification (AMM) to reduce the Code-required minimum lot width from 130 feet to 117 feet for Lot 4 and Lot 8; and

WHEREAS, on February 23, 2022, a public hearing on Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, Case TTM 38049, and Case 7.1645 AMM w as held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law ; the Planning Commission voted 5-2 (Absent: Ervin & Moruzzi) to recommend approval to the City Council subject to conditions; and

WHEREAS, on March 24, 2022, a public hearing on Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, Case TTM 38049, and Case 7.1645 AMM w as held by the City Council in accordance with Item 2A - 12
Resolution No. _____

applicable law; and

WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a “project” pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and an Environmental Assessment has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the meeting on the Project, including but not limited to the staff report, all environmental data including the environmental assessment prepared for the project and all written and oral testimony presented; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66474 (Subdivision Map Act), the City Council finds that with the incorporation of the conditions attached in Exhibit A, the following findings are hereby made with respect to the Tentative Tract Map 38049:

1. The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

With approval of the General Plan and Change of Zone applications, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. The density requirement for the VLDR designation area is 2.1 to 4.0 DU/Acre, while the project proposes one (1) single-family residential unit on each lot. The proposed lot sizes are 13,246 and 15,381 square feet, which meet the density requirement. The City Council is requiring that the approval of the TTM application to be contingent upon the approval of the General Plan and Change of Zone applications. The project site is not located within a specific plan area.

2. The design of improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.

The proposed project meets the minimum lot size and dimensions requirements of the R -1-C Zone, with the exception of the lot width for Lot 4 and Lot 8. The applicant has submitted an AMM application to address the lot width issue, and the City Council is approving this TTM application to be contingent upon the approval of the Change of Zone and AMM applications. All street and other improvements are subject to the Conditions of Approval associated with TTM 38049. Hence, the project meets this finding as conditioned.

3. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development contemplated by the proposed subdivision.

The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan density requirement, and the lot configurations meet the zoning code requirements except for the lot width of two (2) parcels. AMM approval is requested to address the lot width issue. The project proposes low -density residential development adjacent to a secondary thoroughfare, and it is compatible with the existing single- family residences Item 2A - 13
Resolution No. _____

immediately adjacent to the west. The project site is generally flat with topography that is consistent with other single- family home sites in the area. For the project to fully meet this finding, the City Council is requiring this TTM application to be contingent upon the approval of an AMM application.

4. The site is physically suited for the proposed density of development.

The sizes of the proposed parcels are 13,246 and 15,381 square feet, while the applicable General Plan density requirement is 2.1 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre.

The project proposes one (1) dwelling unit per lot and meets the applicable density requirement.

5. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitats.

An Initial Study was conducted as a part of this application review. Although the project site is surrounded by developed residential and commercial uses, nesting birds may exist amongst the sparse vegetation on site. To ensure that the project will not interfere with the nesting birds, the City Council requires a pre-construction nesting bird survey to be conducted by a biologist no more than 14 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities (Condition ENV

1.). The mitigation measures will ensure the subdivision is not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure other habitats.

6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.

The proposed subdivision is for a single-family residential neighborhood which will be built subject to the City zoning and development codes. The codes are designed and intended to prevent development projects from causing serious adverse health impacts on the site and its surroundings. The homes built on each lot will be required to connect to sewer, water, and other utility providers, to ensure the public health and safety is protected. Therefore, the project meets this finding.

7. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision.

There are ingress/egress and incidental purpose easement and public utility easement along the north side of the project site. Additionally, there is a 14- foot- wide public easement along the west property line of the project. The public easement is located in the proposed 25- foot front yard setback area where no structure is proposed. The easement will not interfere with the access or the use of the proposed subdivision.

WHEREAS, the findings for an Administrative Minor Modification (AMM) request are outlined in Section 94.06.01(B)(3) (Minor Modifications) of the Palm Springs Zoning Item 2A - 14
Resolution No. _____

Code (PSZC), and the City Council finds as follows; and

1. The requested minor modification is consistent with the general plan, applicable specific plan(s) and overall objectives of the zoning ordinance.

General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone applications have been filed in conjunction with this application. With the approval of the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone applications, the project meets this finding.

Therefore, the project meets this finding as conditioned.

2. The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the approval or conditional approval of the minor modification;

The proposed lot width reduction is requested for Lot 4 and Lot 8, the most southern lots that are adjacent to East Alejo Road only. The lot width reduction will provide additional distance from the adjacent property to the south, which is a city yard. Therefore, the project meets this finding.

3. The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity; and

The approval of the AMM application allows shorter lot width for Lot 4 and Lot 8, which would result in smaller lots compared to what would be if they were to be created in full conformance with the applicable development standards. Although no development plan has been submitted in conjunction with this application, all buildings will be required to be built to the Uniform Building Code, Zoning Code, and Fire Code. Therefore, the City Council finds that the approval of this AMM will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity.

4. The approval of the minor modification is justified by environmental features, site conditions, location of existing improvements, or historic development patterns of the property or neighborhood.

Per General Plan, the lot size of VLDR land use designation area generally ranges between 8,500 square feet and 16,500 square feet (Palm Springs 2007 General Plan, page 2- 5). If the project site were to be divided into six (6) single- family residential lots instead of eight (8) for the sole purpose of meeting the lot width requirement, that would create lots averaging approximately 18,367 square feet in area. Such parcels will be significantly larger than the adjacent single- family residential parcels. Hence, the approval of this AMM application is justified by the historic development pattern of the site’s vicinity.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Item 2A - 15
Resolution No. _____

SECTION 1. That the foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s CEQA Guidel ines.

The City Council finds that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the implementation of the project will have a less than significant impact on the environment.

The City Council independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND prior to its review of this Project and the MND reflects the City Council‘s independent judgment and analysis. Therefore, the City Council hereby adopts the MND for this Project.

SECTION 3
. That the City Council hereby approves Case TTM 38049, Tentative Tract Map, and Case 7.1645 AMM, Administrative Minor Modification, to subdivide a 2.53- acre lot into eight (8) single- family residential parcels with the reduced lot width of 117 feet instead of the code- required 130- foot-minimum for Lot 4 and Lot 8 for future development at 2700 East Alejo Road.

ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022.

JUSTIN CLIFTON

CITY MANAGER

ATTEST:

MONIQUE M. LOMELI, CMC

INTERIM CITY CLERK
Item 2A - 16
Resolution No. _____

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )

I, MONIQUE M. LOMELI, Interim City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. ____ is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on _______________________, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Springs, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.

MONIQUE M. LOMELI, CMC

INTERIM CITY CLERK
Item 2A - 17
RESOLUTION NO.__________

EXHIBIT A

Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ; Case 38049 TTM; Case 7.1645 AMM
AG Land Investments, LLC
2700 East Alejo Road

March 24, 2022

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Development Serv ices Director, Building Official, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition.

Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.

ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS

ADM 1. Project Description
. This approval is for the project described per Case

5.1521 GPA/CZ and Case 38049 TTM; except as modified with the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program and the conditions below; ADM 2. Conform to all Codes and Regulations . The project shall conform to t he conditions contained herein, all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, and any other City County, State an d Federal Codes, ordinances, resolutions and laws that may apply.

ADM 3. Indemnification. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding agai nst the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ , Case 38049 TTM, and Case

7.1645 AMM. The C ity of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds t o pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsibl e to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the Item 2A - 18
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022 applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein , except, the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein.

ADM 4. Maintenance and Repair . T he property owner(s) and successors and assignees in in terest shall maintain and repair the improvements including and without limitation all structures, sidewalks , parking areas, landscape, irrigation, lighting, signs, walls, and fences betw een the curb and property line, in a first class condition, free fr om waste and debris, and in accordance with all applicable law, rules, ordinances and regulations of all federal, state, and local bodies and agencies having jurisdiction at the property owner’s sole expense. This conditio n shall be included in the record ed covenant agreement for the property if required by the City.

ADM 5. Right to Appeal . Decisions of an administrative officer or agency of the City of Palm Springs may be appealed in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 2.05.00.

ADM 6. Public Art Fees . This project shall be subject to Chapters 2.24 and 3.37 of the Municipal Code regarding public art. The project shall either provide public art or payment of an in- lieu fee. In the case of the in- lieu fee, the fee shall be based upon the total building permit valuation as calc ulated pursuant to the valuation table in the Uniform Building Code, the fee being 1/2% for commercial projects or 1/4% for residential projects with first $100,000 of total building permit valuation for individual s ingle-family units exempt. Should the public art be located on the project site, said location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning and the Public Arts Commission, and the property owner shall enter into a recorded agreeme nt to maintain the art work and protect the public rights of access and viewing.

ADM 7. Park Development Fees . The developer shall dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu of a dedication, at the option of the City. The in -lieu fee shall be computed pursuant to O rdinance No. 1632, Section IV, by multiplyi ng the area of park to be dedicated by the fair market value of the land being developed plus the cost to acquire and improve the property plus the fair share contribution, less any credit given by the City, as may b e reasonably determined by the City based upon the formula contained in Ordinance No. 1632. In accordance with the Ordinance, the following areas or features shall not be eligible for private park credit: golf courses, yards, court areas, setbacks, devel opment edges, slopes in hillside areas ( unless the area includes a public trail) landscaped development entries, meandering streams, land held as open space for wildlife habitat, flood retention facilities and circulation improvements such as bicycle, hik ing and equestrian trails (unless such systems are directly linked to the City’s community -wide system and shown on the City’s master plan).

ADM 8. The final development plans shall show eight (8) residential lots.

Item 2A - 19
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022

RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) CONDITIONS:

ALUC 1. Any new outdoor lighting shall be hooded or shielded to prevent ei ther the spillage o f l umens or refl ection into the sky. Outdoor lighting shall be downward facing.

ALUC 2.

The following uses/activities are not included in t he proposed project and shall be prohibited at this site:

(a) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or a mber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA -approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator.

(b) Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected t owards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport.

(c) Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large conc entrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area. (Such uses include landscaping utilizing water features, aquacult ure, outdoor production of cereal grains, sunflower, and row crops, composting operations , wastewater man agement facilities, artificial marshes, trash transfer stations that are open on one or more sides, recycling centers containing putrescible wastes, c onstruction and demolition debris facilities, fly ash disposal, and incinerators.)

(d) Any use which wo uld generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation.

(e) Children's schools, da y care centers, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, and highly noise-sensitive outdoor nonresidential uses, and hazards to flight.

(f) Highly noise-sensitive outdoor nonresidential uses.

(g) Any use which results in a hazard to flight, including physi cal (e.g. tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interreference with the safety of aircraft operations.

ALUC 3. The attached "Notice of Airport in Vicinity" shall be provided to all prospective purchasers and occupants of the property and be record ed Item 2A - 20
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022 as a deed notice. In the event that the Office of the Riverside County Assessor-Clerk-Recorder declines to record said notice, the text of the notice shall be included on the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) of the final map, if an ECS is otherwise required.

ALUC 4. Any proposed detention basins or facilities shall be designed and maintained to p rovide for a maximum 48- hour detention period following the design storm, and remain totally dry between rainfalls.

Vegetation in and around the detention basins that would provide food or cover for birds would be incompatible with airport operations and shall not be utilized in project landscaping. Trees shall be spaced so as to prevent large expanses of contiguous canopy, when mature.

Landscaping in and around the detention basin(s) shall not include trees or shrubs that produce seeds, fruits, or berries.

Landscaping in the detention basin, if not rip -rap, should be in accordance with the guidance provided in ALUC "LANDSCAPING NEAR AIRPORTS " brochure, and the "AIRPORTS, WILDLIFE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT" brochure available at
RCALUC.ORG which list acceptab le plants from Riverside County Landscaping Guide or other alternative landscaping as may be recommended by a qualified wildlife hazard biologist.

A notice sign , in a form similar to that attached hereto, shall be permanently affixed to the stormwater bas in with the following language: "There is an airport nearby . This stormwater basin is designed to hold stormwater for only 48 hours and not attract birds.

Proper maintenance is necessary to avoid bird strikes" . The sign will also include the name, telephone number or other contact information of the person or entity responsible to monitor the stormwater basin.

ALUC 5. The ALUC overflight informational b rochure shall be provided to prospective purchasers showing the locations of aircraft flight patterns, the frequency of overflights, the typical altitudes of the aircraft, and the range of noise levels that can be expecte d from individual aircraft overfl ights, as well as Compatibility Factors ex hibit from the Palm Springs Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

ALUC 6. The project does not propose rooftop solar panels at this time.

However, if the project were to propose solar rooftop panels in the future, the applicant/developer shall prepare a solar glare study that analyzes glare impacts, and this study shall be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission.

Item 2A - 21
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 5 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022 CC&R’s

ADM 1. The applicant prior to issuance of building permits shall submit a draft declaration of cov enants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning and Zoning for approval in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, to be recorded prior to approval of a final map. The CC&R's shall be enforceable by the City, shall not be am ended without City approval, shall require maintenance of all property in a good condition and in accordance with all ordinances.

ADM 2. At the time of filing of the CC&R’s, the applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Springs, a deposit in the amount of $ 4,008, for the review of the CC&R's by the City Attorney. An additional filing fee shall also be paid to the City Planning Department for administrative review purposes.

Cultural Resources

ADM 3. Given that portions of the project area are within an alluvial formati on, the possibility of buried resources is increased. A Native American Monitor shall be present during all ground-disturbing activities.

a. Experience has shown that there is always a possibility of buried cultural resources in a project area. Given that, a Native American Monitor(s) shall be present during all ground disturbing activities including cl earing and grubbing, excavation, burial of utilities, planting of rooted plants, etc.

Contact the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian Cultural Office for additional information on the use and availability of Cultural Resource Monitors. Should buried cultu ral deposits be encountered, the Monitor shall contact the Director of Planning and Zoning and after the consultation the Director shall have the author ity to halt destructive construction and shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist to investigate and, if necessary, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a treatment plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and Agua Caliente Cultural Resource Coordinator for approval.

b. Two copies of any cultural resource documentation generated in connection with this project, including reports of investigations, record search results and site records/updates shall be forwarded to the Tribal Planning, Building, and Engineering Department and one copy to the City Planning and Zoning Department prior to final inspection.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONDITIONS

ENV 1. If unavoidable project construction activities must begin during the nesting bird season (February 1st through August 31st), a pre- construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to initiation of Item 2A - 22
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 6 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022 ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting pre- construction bird survey shall be conducted b y a biologist familiar with identification of avian species known to occur in Riverside County. The nesting bird survey shall be conducted on foot inside the project boundary, including a 300-foot buffer for passerines (s ong birds) and 500- foot buffer for raptors in areas of suitable habitat. Inaccessible areas will be surveyed using binoculars to the exte nt practical. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (dependent upon species, the proposed work activity, the existing disturbances associated with lan d uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange co nstruction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. If a raptor nest is observed in a tree proposed for removal, the app licant must consult with CDFW. All construction personnel be notified of the existence of the buffer zon e and to avoid entering the buffer zone during nesting season.

No ground disturbing activities sh all occur within this buffer area until the avian biolo gist has confirmed the breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged . Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. F ocused surveys for burrowing owl shall be conduc ted by a qualified biologist and in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidelines (THCP Section

4.8.4.2(g))

ENV 2. The applicant shall pay the THCP (Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan) Valley Floor Planning Area Fee as required by the THCP.

ENV 3. If buried cultural materials are discovered during the earth-moving operations, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and signif icance of the finds and, if necess ary, develop a treatment pan in c onsultation with the City of Palm Springs and the appropriate Native American tribes.

ENV 4. In th e unexpected event human remains are uncovered during const ruction activities, all const ruction work taking place within the vicinity of the discovered remains must cease and the necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery of human remains. I f the remains discovered are determined by the coroner to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC would in turn contact the Most Likely D escendant (MLD) would determi ne further action to be taken. The MLD would have 48 hours to access the site and make a recommendation regarding disposition of the remains.

ENV 5. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall obtain written approval to proceed with construct ion from the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist. The applicant shall contact the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or the Tribal Archae ologist at Item 2A - 23
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 7 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022 (760) 699- 6800, to de termine their requirements, if any, associated with grading or other construction. The applicant is advised to contact the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist as early as possible. If required, it is the responsibility of the applicant to coordination scheduling of Tribal monitors during grading or other construction, and to arrange payment of any required fees associated with Tribal monitoring.

ENV 6. California Fish & Game Fees Required
. The pr oject is required to pay a fish
and game impact fee as defined in Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This CFG impact fee plus an administrative fee for filing the action with the County Recorder shall be submitted by the applicant to the City in the form of a money order or a cashier's check payable to the Riverside County Clerk prior to the final City action on the project (either Planning Commission or City Council determination) . This fee shall be submitted by the City to the County Clerk with the Notice of Determination.

Action on this application shall not be final until such fee i s paid. The project may be eligible for exemption or refund of this fee by the California Department of Fish & Game. Applicants may apply for a refund by th e CFG at www.dfg.ca.gov for more information.

ENV 7. Mitigation Monitoring. The mitigation measures of the environmental assessment shall apply. The applicant shall submit a signed agreement that the mitigation measures outlined as part of the mit igated negative declaration will be included in the plans prior to Planning Commission consideration of the environmental assessment.

ENV 8. Long Term Soil Stabilization and Dust Control. Those portions of the sit e that are to be graded, cleared, and grubbed of natural vegetation for th e installation of the solar panel structures shall be provided with a long- term soil stabilization program acceptable to the City of Palm Springs to control wind borne dust and parti culates. This may be either an overlay of gravel at sizes of 3/4” or larger or other equivalent means as approved by the Dust Control Management Division of the City Public Works Department.

ENV 9. Cultural Resource Survey Required. Prior to any ground disturbing activity, including clearing a nd grubbing, installation of utilities, and/or any construction related excavation, an Archaeologist qualified according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines, shall be employed to survey the a rea for the presence of cultural resources identifiable on the ground surface. Copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated in connection with this project shall be submitted to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.

ENV 10. Cultural Resource Site Monit oring. Th ere is a possibility of buried cultural or Native American tribal resources on the site. A Native American Monitor shall be present during all ground-disturbing activities.

Item 2A - 24
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 8 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022 a). A Native American Monitor(s) shall be present during all ground dis turbing activities including clea ring and grubbing, excavation, burial of utilities, planting of rooted plants, etc. Contact the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian Cultural Office for additional information on the use and availability of Cultural Resource Monito rs. Should buried cult ural deposits be encountered, the Monitor shall contact the Director of Planning. After consultation the Dire ctor shall have the authority to halt destructive construction and shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist to furt her investigate the site. If necessary, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a treatment plan for submission to the State Histor ic Preservation Officer and Agua Caliente Cultural Resource Coordinator for approval. b). Two copies of any cultural resource documentation generated in connection with this project, including reports of investigations, record search results and site recor ds/updates shall be forwarded to the Tribal Planning, Building, and Engineering Department and one copy to the City Planning Department prior to final inspection.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS

PLN 1. Approval of Case 5.1521 CZ (Change of Zone) shall be conti ngent upon the approval of Case 5.1521 GPA (General Plan Amendment), Case 38049 TTM (Tentative Tract Map), an d Case 7.1645 AMM (Administra tive M inor Modification).

PLN 2. Approval of Case 38049 TT M (Tentative Tract Map) shall be contingent upon the approval of Case 5.1521 GPA ( General Plan Am endment) and Case

5.1521 CZ (Change of Zone).

PLN 3. Approval of Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ and Case 38049 TTM shall be contingent upon the approval of Case 7.1645 AMM.

PLN 4. Construction of any residential unit shall meet minimum soundproof ing requirements prescribed pursuant to Section 1092 and related sections of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code. Compliance s hall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director of Building and Safety.

PLN 5. The street address numbering/letteri ng shal l not exceed eight inches in height.

PLN 6. Tentative Tract Maps shall be valid for a period of two (2) years. Extension s of time may be granted by the P lanning Commission upon demonstration of good cause.

PLN 7. The project is subject to the City of Palm Spr ings Water Efficient Lands cape Ordinance. The applicant shall submit an application for Final Landscape Document Package t o the Director of Planning for review and approval prior Item 2A - 25
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 9 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022 to the issuance of a building permit. Refer to Chapter 8.60 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements.

PLN 8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Bui lding Official. Refer to Chapter 8.50 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements.

PLN 9. The grading plan shall show the disposition of all cut and fill materials. Limits of site disturbance shall be shown and all disturbed areas shall be fully restored or landscaped.

PLN 10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, locations of all telephone and electrical boxes m ust be indicated on the building plans and must be completely screened and located in the interior of the building. Electrical transformers must be located toward the interior of the project maintaining a sufficient distance from the frontage(s) of the project. Said transf ormer(s) must be adequately and decoratively screened.

PLN 11. The applicant shall prov ide written notice to all buyers of the adjacent land uses and noise impacts in a recordable form to be approved by the City Attorney at the City Attorney’s reasonable discretion. In the event the CC&Rs are not required or proposed for the project, the requirement of the CC&Rs shall be removed from the required conditions or not be required.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

STREETS

ENG 1. Any imp rovements within the public right -of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit . All improvements are s ubject to inspection and a 24 to 48 hour inspection notification is required.

ENG 2. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a registe red California civil e ngineer to the Engineering Services Department .

The plan(s) shall be approved by the City Engineer prio r to issuance of any building permits.

ALEJO ROAD

ENG 3. Construct a 6 inch curb and gutter, 32 feet north of centerline along the entire frontage, with a 25 feet radius curb return and spandrel at the northeast corner of the intersection of Alejo Road and Juanita Road and remove and replace the existing curb return and spandrel located at t he northwest corner of Alejo Road and Commercial Item 2A - 26
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 10 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022 Road in accordance with Ci ty of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206.

ENG 4. Remove and replace the existing 6 feet wid e cross gutter at the intersection of Alejo Road and Juanita Road and the intersection of Alejo Road and Commercial Road with a flow line par allel with and located 32 feet north of the centerline of Alejo Raod in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206.

ENG 5. Construct an 8 feet wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210.

ENG 6. Construct a Type A curb ramp meeting current California State Accessibility standards at the northeast corner of the intersection of Alejo Road and Juanita Road in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 212.

ENG 7. Remove and replace the existing curb ramp at the northwest corner of Alejo Road and Commercial Road and construct a Type A curb ramp meeting cur rent California State Accessibility standards in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 212.

ENG 8. Construct pavement with a minimum pavement section of 3 inches asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inches crushed miscellaneous base w ith a minimu m subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, or equal, from edge of proposed gutter to clean sawcut edge of pavement along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110. (Additional pavement removal and replacement may be required upon review of existing pavement cross -sections, and to ensure grade breaks of th e pavement cross- section do not occur within a travel lane.) If an alternative pavement section is proposed, the proposed pavement section sha ll be designed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer using "R" values from the project site and submitted to the City Engineer for approval.

ENG 9. Remove and replace existing asphalt concrete pavement where required, in accordance with applicable City standards.

ENG 10. A ll broken or off grade street improvements along the project frontage shall be repaired or replaced.

COMMERCIAL ROAD

ENG 11. Upon development of lots 5 thru 8, the developer shall construct a driveway approach with access to Commercial Road in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201.

Item 2A - 27
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 11 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022

ENG 12. Construct a 5 feet wide sidewalk behind the curb along the e ntire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210.

ENG 13. Construct a Type C curb ramp meeting current California State Accessibility standards on the south side of the existing driveway approach for APN#507- 380-018 in accordance wi th City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 214.

ENG 14. All broken or off grade street improvements along the project frontage shall be repaired or replaced.

JUANTA ROAD

ENG 15. Construct a 6 inch curb and gutter, 12 feet east of centerline along the entire f rontage to join existing improvements located at the north property line in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200.

ENG 16. Upon development of lots 1 thru 4, the developer shall c onstruct a driveway approach with access to Juanita Road in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201

ENG 17. Construct an 8 feet wide meandering sidewalk behind the cur b along the entire frontage in ac cordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210.

ENG 18. Construct pavement with a minimum pavement sec tion of 3 inches asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inches crushed miscellaneous base with a minimum subgrade of 24 i nches at 95% relativ e compaction, or equal, from edge of proposed gutter to clean sawcut edge of pavement along the entire frontage in accord ance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110. (Additional pavement removal and replacement may be required upon review of ex isting pavement cross- sections, and to ensure grade breaks of the pavement cross -section do not occur within a travel lane.) If an alternative pavement section is proposed, the proposed pavement section shall be designed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer using "R" values from the project site and submitted to the City Engineer for approval.

ENG 19. Remove and replace existing asphalt concrete pavement where required, in accordance with applicable City standards.

ENG 20. All broken or off grade street improvements along t he project frontage shall be repaired or replaced.

Item 2A - 28
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 12 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022

SANITARY SEWER

ENG 21. All sanitary facilities shall be connected to the public sewer system.

New laterals shall not be connected at manholes.

GRADING

ENG 22. Submit a Rough Grading Plan prepared by a C alifornia registered civil engineer to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval.

A Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and/or its grading contractor and submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval. The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall be required to comply with Chapter 8.50 of the City o f Palm Springs Municipal Code, and shall be required to utilize one or more “Coachella Valley Best Available Control Measures” as ident ified in the C oachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook for each fugitive dust source such that the applicable performance standards are met. The applicant’s or its contractor’s Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by staff that has completed the South Co ast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Class. The applicant and/ or its grading contractor shall provide the Engineering Services Department with current and valid Certificate(s) of Completion from AQ MD for staff t hat have completed the required training. For information on attending a Fugitive Dust Control Clas s and information on the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook and related “PM10” Dust Control issues, please contact AQMD at (909) 396-3752, or at http://www.AQMD.gov . A
Fugitive Dust Control Plan, in conformance with the Coachella V alley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook, shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Servi ces Department prior to approval of the Grading plan. The Grading Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permit.

a. The first s ubmittal of the Rough Grading Plan shall include the following information: a copy of final approved conformed copy of Conditions of Approval; a copy of a final approved conformed copy of the Site Plan; a copy of current Title Report; a copy of Soils Report.

ENG 23. Prior to approval of a Grading Plan (or issuance of a Grading Permit) , the applicant shall obtain written approval to procee d with construction from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist ( a copy of the written approval must be provided to the City) . The applicant shall contact the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or the Tribal Archaeologist at
ACBCI-
[email protected] to deter mine their requirements, if any, associated with grading or other construction. The applicant is advised to contact the Tribal His toric Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist as early as possible. If required, it is the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate scheduling of Tribal monitors during grading or other Item 2A - 29
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 13 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022 construction, and to arrange payment of any required fees as sociated with Tribal monitoring.

ENG 24. In accordance with an approved PM-10 Dust Control Plan, temporary dust control perimeter fencing shall be installed. Fencing shall have screening that is tan in color; green s creening will not be allowed. Temporary dust control p erimeter fencing shall be installed after issuance of Grading Permit, and immediately prior to commencement of grading operations.

ENG 25. Temporary dust control perimeter fence screening shall be appropriately maintained, as required by the City Engineer . Cuts (vents) made into the perimeter fence screening shall not be allowed. Perimeter fencing shal l be adequately anchored into the ground to resist wind loading.

ENG 26. Within 10 days of ceasing all construction activity and when construction activities are not scheduled to occur for at least 30 days, the disturbed areas on- site shall be permanently stabili zed, in accordance with P alm Springs Municipal Code Section 8.50.022. Following stabilization of all disturbed areas, per imeter fencing shall be removed, a s required by the City Engineer.

ENG 27. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall provide v erification to the City that the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan (THCP) fee has been paid to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in accordance with the THCP.

ENG 28. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks to keep nuisance water fro m entering the public streets, roadways, or gutters.

ENG 29. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the California General Construction Stormwater Permit (Water Quality Order 2009- 0009-DWQ as modified September 2, 2009) is required for the proposed devel opment via the California Regional Water Quality Control Board online SMARTS system .

A copy of the executed letter issuing a Waste Discharge I dentification (WDID) number shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading or building permit.

ENG 30. This project requires preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). As of September 4, 2012, all SWPPPs shall inc lude a post -construction management plan (including Best Management Practices) in accordance with the current Construction General Permit. Where applicable, the approved final project -specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be incorporated by referenc e or attached to the SWPPP as the Post -Construction Management Plan. A copy of the up- to-date SWPPP shall b e kept at the project site and be available for review upon request.

Item 2A - 30
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 14 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022 ENG 31. In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 8.50.022 (h), the applicant shall post with the City a cash bond of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per disturbed acre (if there is disturb ance of 5,000 square feet or more) at the time of issuance of grading permit for mitigation measures for erosion/blowsand relating to this property and development..

ENG 32. A Geotechnical/Soils Report prepared by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer shall be required for and incorporated as an integral part of the grading plan for the proposed development. A copy of the Geotechnical/Soils Report shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department with the first submittal of a grading plan.

ENG 33. T he applicant shall provide Grading Certification for all buil ding (or structure) pads in conformance with the approved grading pla n to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval.

ENG 34. In cooperation with the California Agricultural Commissione r and the California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project, applicants for grading permits involving a grading plan and involving the export of soil will be required to present a clearance document from a Department of Food and A griculture representative in the form of an approved “Notification of Intent To Move Soil From or Within Quarantined Areas of Orang e, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties” ( Revised - RIFA Form CA -1) prior to approval of the Grading Plan (if required). The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 6819 East Gage Avenue, Commerce, Ca 90040 (Phone(760)782-3271,(562)505-6415),[email protected].

DRAINAGE

ENG 35. The applicant shall accept and convey all stormwater runoff across the property and conduct the runoff to an approved drainage system. On- site retention may be allowed on that portion of the property where hi storically, stormwater runoff is conveyed. The incremental increase of stormwater runoff due to development of the property s hall be retained on- site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

ENG 36. The project is subject to flood control and drainage implement ation fees.

The acreage drainage fee at the present time is $ 10,311.99 per acre in accordance with Resolutio n No. 15189. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit.

GENERAL

ENG 37. Any utility trenches or other excavations within existing asphalt concrete pavement of off -site streets required by the proposed development shall Item 2A - 31
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 15 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022 be backfilled and r epaired in accordance wit h City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115.

ENG 38. All proposed utility lines shall be installed underground.

ENG 39. The record property o wner shall enter into a covenant agreeing to underground all of the existing overhead utilities required by the Municipal Code in the future upon request of the City of Palm Springs City Engineer at such time as deemed necessary. The covenant shall be executed and notarized by the property owner and submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. A current title report or a copy of a current tax bill and a copy of a vesting grant deed shall be provided to verify current property owner ship. A covenant preparation fee in effect at the time that the covenant is submitted shall be paid by the a pplicant prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.

ENG 40. All existing utilities shall be shown on the improvement plans if required for the pr oject. The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line.

ENG 41. Upon approval of any improvement plan (if required) by the City Engineer, the improvement plan shall be provided to the City in digital format, consisting of a DWG (AutoCAD 2015 drawing file), DXF (AutoCAD ASCII drawing exchange file), and PDF (Adob e Acrobat 6.0 or greater) formats.

Variation of the type and format of the digital data to be submitted to the City may be authorized, upon prior approval by the City Engineer.

ENG 42. The original improvement plans prepared for the proposed development and approved by the City Engineer (if required) shall be documented with record drawing “as -built” information and returned to the Engineering Services Department prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy.

Any modifications or changes to approved improvement plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to construction.

ENG 43. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut -off ar ea of any intersection or driveway which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate s ight distance per City of Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 93.02.00, D.

ENG 44. All proposed trees within the public right -of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed in accordance with City o f Palm Springs Sta ndard Drawing No. 904.

MAP

ENG 45. The developer shall apply for an annexation to the City of Palm Springs Community Facil ities District established for public safety Item 2A - 32
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 16 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022 services and submit required applications, waivers, and consent forms to the annexation prior to approval of a final map. Payment of an annexation fee ($7,500) and shall be made at the time of the application. The annexati on shall be completed by action of the city council in a public hearing, prior to processing a final map for approval.

ENG 46. A Final Map shall be prepared by a California registered Land Surveyor or qualified Civil Engineer and submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval. A Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the subject property, the traver se closures for the existing parcel and all lots created therefrom, and copies of record documents shall be submitted with the Fina l Map to the Engineering Services Department as part of the review of the Map.

The Final Map shall be approved by the City Co uncil prior to issuance of building permits.

ENG 47. Acceptance of public improvements required of this development shall be completed by resolution of the City Council to release the faithful performance bond and acceptance of replacement maintenance bond to be held for one year. An inspection will be performed nine months after said acceptance as part of the notice of completion process, a notice of completion will be filed certifying the improvements are complete.

TRAFFIC

ENG 48. A minimum of 48 inches of clearance for accessibility shall be provided on public sidewalks. Minimum clearance on public sidewalks sh all be provided by either an addit ional dedication of a sidewalk easement if necessary and widening of the sidewalk, or by the relocat ion of any obstructions within the public sidewalk along the frontage of the subject property.

ENG 49. All damaged, destroyed, or modified pavement l egends, traffic control devices, signing, striping, and street lights, associated with the proposed development shall be replaced as required by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

ENG 50. Submit traffic stripin g and signage plans for Alejo Ro ad from Commercial Road to Juanita Road, prepared by a California registered civil engineer, for review and a pproval by the Cit y Engineer. All required traffic striping and signage improvements shall be completed in conjunction with required street improve ments, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and prior to release of any securities for the project.

ENG 51. Install traffic strip ing and signage improvements to match existing striping located on Alejo Road adjacent to the project . Submit traffi c Item 2A - 33
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 17 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022 striping and signage plans to the City Engineer for review and approval.

ENG 52. Construction signing, lighting and barricadi ng shall be provided during all phases of construction as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Eng ineer. As a minimum, all construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be in accordance with Part 6 “Temporary Traffic Control” of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD), dated November 7, 2014, or subsequent editions in force at the time of construction.

ENG 53. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee which shall be paid prior to issuance of building permit.

FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
FID 1. These Fire Department conditions may not provide all requir ements.

Owner/developer is responsible for all applicable state and locally adopted fire codes. Detailed plans are still required for review. Conditions are subject to final plan check and review.

FID 2. Fire Department Conditions were based on the 2019 California Fire Code as adopted by Ci ty of Palm Springs, Palm Springs Municipal Code, PSFD Appendix “T ” Development Requirements . This building w ill require fire sprinklers.

FID 3. Conditions of Approval – “Conditions of Approval” received from the Palm Springs Planning Department must be submitt ed with each plan set. Failure to submit will result in a delay of plan approval.

FID 4. Plans and Permits (CFC 105.1):

Permits and scaled drawings are required for this project. Plan reviews can take up to 20 working days. Submit a minimum of three (3) sets of drawings for review. Upon approval, the Fire Prevention Bureau will retain one set.

Plans shall be submitted to:

City of Palm Springs
Building and Safety Department
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Counter Hours: 8:00 AM – 6:00 PM, Monday – Thursday

A deposit for Plan Check and Inspection Fees is required at the time of Plan Submittal. These fees are established by Resolution of the Palm Springs City Council.

Item 2A - 34
Resolution No.

Conditions of Approval Page 18 of 18
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM March 24, 2022

Complete listings and manufacturer’s technical data sheets for all system materials shall be included with plan submittals. All system materials shall be UL listed or FM approved for fire protection service and approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation.

Plans shall include all necessary engineering features, including all hydraulic reference nodes, pipe lengths and pipe diameters as required by the appropriate codes and standards. Plans and supporting data, (calculations and manufacturers technical data sheets) including fire flow data, shall be submitted with each plan submittal. Complete and accurate legends for all symbols and abbreviations shall be provided on the plans.

FID 5. Access During Construction (CFC 503): Access for firefighting equipment shall be provided to the immediate job site at t he start of c onstruction and maintained until all construction is complete. Fire apparatus access roads shall hav e an un obstructed width of not less th an 24 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13' -6". Fire Department access roads shall have a n all-weather driving surface and support a minimum weight of 73,000 lbs.

FID 6. Required access (CFC 504.1): E xterior doors and openings required by this code or the California Building Code shall be maintained readily accessible for emergency access by the fire department. An approved access walkway leading from fire apparatus access roads to exterior openings shall be provided when required by the fire code official.

FID 7. Residential Smoke Alarms Required: Shall be interconnec ted so that operation of any smok e alarm or fire sprinkler flow switch causes all smoke alarms within the dwelling & guest house to sound and activate the exterior horn/strobe

FID 8. NFPA 13D Fire Sprinklers Required: An aut omatic fire sprin kler system is required. On ly a C-16 licensed fire sprinkler contractor shall perform system design and i nstallation. Syste m to b e desig ned and installed in accordance w ith NFPA sta ndard 13D, 2016 Ed itions, as modif ied by local ordinance.

END OF CONDITIONS

Item 2A - 35

Attachment B

Item 2A - 36

Attachment C

Item 2A - 37
ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE 5.1521

CZ, CHANGE OF ZONE, TO AMEND THE CURRENT ZONE
DESIGNATION OF ‘PLANNED RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PARK’ (M -1-P) TO ‘SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL’ (R-1-C) FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.53-
ACRE LOT INTO EIGHT (8) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PARCELS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AT 2700 EAST
ALEJO ROAD, SECTION 12.

City Attorney’s Summary
This ordinance amends the zoning designation of certain property located at 2700 East Alejo Road from ‘ ‘Planned Research and Development Park’ (M -1-P) to ‘Single Family Residential’ (R-1- C) in order to permit the development of eight (8) single-family residential parcels. The ordinance also makes certain findings required by the Palm Springs
Municipal Code for zoning changes to land.

WHEREAS, AG Land Investments, LLC, (the “Applicant”) has filed Case 5.1521 General Plan Amendment (GPA), Case 5.1521 CZ Change of Zone (CZ), Case TTM 38049, Tentative Tract Map (TTM), and Case 7.1645 AMM Administrative Minor Modification (AMM) applications in accordance with Sections 94.07.00 (Change of Zone),

94.06.01(Minor Modifications), and 9.60 (Subdivision of Land – General Provision) of the Plan Springs Zoning and Municipal Codes to subdivide a 2.53- acre undeveloped lot into eight (8) single- family residential lots for future development at 2700 East Alejo Road; and

WHEREAS, the current General Plan land use and zone designations of the project site are ‘Industrial’ (IND) and ‘M-1-P’ (Planned Research and Development Park), respectively; and

WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designation from ‘Industrial’ (IND) to ‘Very Low Density Residential’ (VLDR); and

WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Change of Zone (CZ) from the current ‘Planned Research and Development Park’ (M -1-P) to ‘Single -Family Residential’ (R-1- C); and

WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) to subdivide the existing 2.53-acre undeveloped lot into eight (8) single-family residential parcels; and

WHEREAS, the applicant has requested an Administrative Minor Modification Item 2A - 38
Ordinance No. _____

(AMM) to reduce the Code-required minimum lot width from 130 feet to 117 feet for Lot 4 and Lot 8; and

WHEREAS, on February 23, 2022, a public hearing on Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, Case TTM 38049, and Case 7.1645 AMM w as held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law ; the Planning Commission voted 5- 2 (Absent: Ervin & Moruzzi) to recommend approval to the City Council subject to conditions; and

WHEREAS, on March 24, 2022, a public hearing on Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, Case TTM 38049, and Case 7.1645 AMM were held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and

WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a “project” pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and an Environmental Assessment has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the meeting on the Project, including but not limited to the staff report, all environmental data including the environmental assessment prepared for the project and all written and oral testimony presented; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the approval of the Change of Zone application (Case 5.1521 CZ) would allow the future development of eight (8) single- family residences at the site, and it is consistent with the intent of the General Plan Housing Element which aims to respond to the statewide housing shortage crisis.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1
. That the findings and determinations reflected above are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference herein as the cause and foundation for the action taken by and through this Ordinance.

SECTION 2
. The City Council hereby approves Case 5.1521 CZ, amending the current zone designation of the project site, 2700 East Alejo Road, from ‘Planned Research and Development Park’ (M -1-P) to ‘Single -Family Residential’ (R-1- C). The zoning map shall be updated to reflect said amendment.

SECTION 3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s CEQA Guidelines.

The City Council finds that, with th e incorporation of mitigation measures, the implementation of the project will have a less than significant impact on the environment.

The City Council independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND prior to its review of this Project and the MND reflects the City Council‘s independent Item 2A - 39
Ordinance No. _____

judgment and analysis.

SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary thereof, to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law and this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PALM SPRINGS CITY
COUNCIL THIS _____ DAY OF _________, 2022.

LISA MIDDLETON
MAYOR

ATTEST:

MONIQUE M. LOMELI, CMC

INTERIM CITY CLERK

Item 2A - 40
Ordinance No. _____

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )

I, MONIQUE M. LOMELI, Interim City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. ____ is a full, true, and correct copy, and was introduced at a regular meeting of the Palm Springs City Council on March 24, 2022 and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on __________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Springs, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.

MONIQUE M. LOMELI, CMC

INTERIM CITY CLERK
Item 2A - 41

Attachment D

Item 2A - 42
Item 2A - 43

1. 2.

3. 4 .

5. Name of Entity

PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM
AG LAJD T,0 vr mv1 DJri;- I LLC
Address of Entity (Principle Place of Business)
2-41& f 5AJJTA YrJE?. 1 VALw-- )prz1rJGs, (A-
Local or Californi a Address (if different than #2)
State where Entity is Registered with Secretary of State 122t L/
~AUHfiliVI A
If other than California, is the Entity also reaistered in California? n Yes n No Type of Entity
0 Corporation [M.imited Liability Company O Partnersh ip O Trust O Other (please specify)

6. Officers, Directors, Members, Managers, Trustees, Other Fiduciaries (pleas e specify) Note: If any response is not a natural person, please Identify all officers, directors, members, managers and other fiduciaries for the member, manager, trust or other entity ADAM 6tl-°6tE.f D Officer O Director (29 Member D Manager [name]
D General Partner O Limited Partner
Other
A ~.rn-1 o tJ 'I (1A---n0 D Officer D Director [Z} Member D Manage r [nam e]
D General Partner D Limited Partner
Other
D Officer D Director O Member O Manager
[name]
O General Partner O Limited Partner
Other

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

(Revised 05/16/19)
Item 2A - 44

7. Own ers /Inv estors with a 5% beneficial interest In the Aooli cant Entity or a related entitv

EXAMPLE
JAN£D0£ 50%, ABC COMPANY, Inc.
[n ame of owner/inv estor] [percentage of beneficial Interest In entity and name of entltvl
A.

AtA'N\ G_11,5fe_f 50%
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficia l Interest In entity and name of entity]
B.

At-Jiko~\/ GA7TO 5o¼
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entitv)
C.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest In entity and name of entity)
0 .
[name of owner/investor) [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entitvl
E.
[name of owner/investor] (percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entltvl

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT .

Signature of Disclosing Party, Printed Name, Title Date Ub U-e7 1--/i[p/ c_ oc_ c_

PENALTIES
Falsification of information or failure to report information required to be reported may subject you to administrative action by the City.
(Revised 05/16/ 19)

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

Attachment E

Item 2A - 45

Public Review Draft
2700 East Alejo Road Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Lead Agency:

City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262

Prepared by:

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

January 2022
Item 2A - 46
cl l:i

Item 2A - 47

TABLE OF CONTENTS
2700 East Alejo Road Project i January 2022
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Authority ................................... ........................................................................................................................... 2 Scope of Environmental Review ...................................... ..................................................................................... 2 Impact Assessment Terminology .............................................................. ............................................................ 2 Organization of the Initial Study ...................................... ..................................................................................... 3 Documents Incorporated by Reference ................................... ............................................................................ 3 Project Description ................................... ................................................................................................... 4 Project Location and Setting ................................... ............................................................................................. 4 Environmental Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 12 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................................................... 15 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 29 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 33 Energy ................................................................................................................................................................. 36 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................................... 38 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................................. 41 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................................................... 47 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................................ 53 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................................... 56 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 57 Noise .............................................................................................................................................................. 58 Population and Housing ................................................................................................................................. 63 Public Services ................................................................................................................................................ 64 Recreation ...................................................................................................................................................... 66 Transportation and Traffic ............................................................................................................................. 67 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................... 69 Utilities and Services ...................................................................................................................................... 71 Wildfire .......................................................................................................................................................... 75 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................................................... 77 Report Preparers ....................................................................................................................................... 81

Item 2A - 48
Chapter 1

1.1 1.2

1.3 1.4

1.5 Chapter 2

2.1 Chapter 3

3.1 3.2

3.3 3.4

3.5 3.6

3.7 3.8

3.9 3.10

3.11 3.12

3.13 3.14

3.15 3.16

3.17 3.18

3.19 3.20

3.21 Chapter 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
2700 East Alejo Road Project ii January 2022
List of Tables
Salton Sea Air Basin Attainment Status .......................................................................................... 17 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds for Coachella Valley1,2 ............................................. 18 Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions ....................................................................... 24 Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions ...................................................................................... 25 Maximum Number of Acres Disturbed Per Day .............................................................................. 27 Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors ................................................................ 27 Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................... 45 City of Palm Springs CAP Applicable Measures Project Comparison .............................................. 45 Construction Equipment Noise Level Compliance .......................................................................... 60

List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Regional Location Map ..................................................................................................................... 6 Exhibit 2 Project Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................................... 7 Exhibit 3 Site Photos ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Exhibit 4 Tentative Tract Map ........................................................................................................................ 11 Appendix
Appendix A – 2700 East Alejo Road Residential Project Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum, Ganddini Group, Inc., May 19, 2021
Appendix B – Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Tentative Parcel Map No. 38049, CRM TECH, September 21, 2021
Appendix C – 2700 East Alejo Road Residential Project Focused Noise Analysis, Ganddini Group, Inc., June 2, 2021
Item 2A - 49
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9

ACRONYMS
2700 East Alejo Road Project iii January 2022
Acronyms
AB Assembly Bill
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BAU Business as Usual
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CA EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDC California Department of Conservation
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFG California Fish and Game
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
COP Citizens on Patrol
CVAG Coachella Valley Association of Governments
CVMSHCP Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan dB Decibel
dBA A-weighted decibels
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control DVD Desert Valley Disposal Inc.

DWR Department of Water Resources
DWA Desert Water Agency
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG Greenhouse Gas
Item 2A - 50

ACRONYMS
2700 East Alejo Road Project iv January 2022
HMBEP Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan
HSC Health and Safety Code
HVAC Heating and Ventilation
IND Industrial
IS Initial Study
ITE Institute of Engineers
Lbs/day Pounds per Day
Leq Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level
LST Localized Significance Threshold
M-1P Planned Research and Development Park Zone
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MMTCO2e Million Metric Tons of CO2 Emitted
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWMA Medical Waste Management Act
N2O Nitrous Oxides
NAASQ National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NO Nitric Oxide
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx Nitrogen Oxide
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 Ozone
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PM Particulate Matter
PM10 Particulate Matter Equal to or less than 10 Microns in Diameter PM2.5 Particulate Matter Equal to or less than 2.5 Microns in Diameter PPM Parts per Million
PPV Peak Particle Velocities
PRC California Public Resources Code
PSI Pounds per square inch
PSUSD Palm Springs Unified School District
R-1C Single-Family Residential, 10,000 square feet
RCALUC Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCS/SCS Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy RMS Root Mean Square
Item 2A - 51

ACRONYMS
2700 East Alejo Road Project v January 2022
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Associations of Government
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SoCal Gas Southern California Gas
SOI Sphere-of-Influence
SOx Sulfur Oxide
SP Service Populations
Sq. ft Square feet
SRA Source Receptor Area
SSAB Salton Sea Air Basin
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TTM Tentative Tract Map
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife
UST Underground Storage Tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB Vibration decibels
VLDR Very Low Density Residential
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
WMP Water Management Plan
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan

Item 2A - 52

ACRONYMS
2700 East Alejo Road Project vi January 2022

This page intentionally left blank.

Item 2A - 53
1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 1 January 2022
Introduction
Project Title: 2700 East Alejo Road Project
Case No. 5.1521 – Change of Zone and General Plan Amendment 38049 – Tentative Tract Map

7.1645 – Administrative Minor Modification

Assessor’s Parcel No. Assessor’s Parcel Number (APNs): 507-380-019 and 507-380-020

Lead Agency Name and

Address:

City of Palm Springs

3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262

Project Location:

North side of E. Alejo Road and between N. Commercial Road and N. Juanita Drive

Project Sponsor’s Name
and Address:

AMG Ventures, LLC
2496 E Santa Ynez Way
Palm Springs, CA 92264

General Plan Designation:

Existing: Industrial
Proposed: Very Low Density Residential

Zoning:

Existing: Planned Research and Development Park
Proposed: Single-Family Residential

Project Description The proposed Project consists of the development of eight single -family residential lots within a 2.53-acre property.

Contact Person:

Noriko Kikuchi, Associate Planner
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262

Phone Number:

760-323-8245

Date Prepared:

January 2022

Item 2A - 54
Chapter 1
1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 2 January 2022
Authority
The City of Palm Springs is the lead agency for the proposed Project. The City Council is the governing body for the approval of the Project and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Because the Project involves a change to the existing site, the City Council’s consideration of the P roject and its potential environmental effects is a discretionary action that is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Subsequent Initial Study (IS) and its appendices have been prepared in accordance with CEQA (Statute), the State’s Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (Guidelines) (as amended, 2018), and the City’s CEQA Guidelines for preparation of an IS. This IS, when combined with the Not ice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, serves as the environmental document for the proposed project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.).

Scope of Environmental Review
The IS evaluates the proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts on the following topics:

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

Impact Assessment Terminology
The Environmental Checklist identifies potential impacts using four levels of significance as follows:

• No Impact. A finding of no impact is made when it is clear from the analysis that the proposed project would not affect the environment.
• Less than Significant. A finding of less than significant is made when it is clear from the analysis that a proposed project would cause no substantial adverse change in the environment and no mitigation is required.
• Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A finding of less than significant with mitigation incorporated is made when it is clear from the analysis that a proposed project would cause no substantial adverse change in the environment when mitigation measures are successfully implemented by the project proponent.
• Potentially Significant. A finding of potentially significant is made when the analysis concludes that the proposed project could have a substantially adverse impact on the environment related to one or more of the topics listed in the previous section, Scope of Environmental Review.

Item 2A - 55

1.1 1.2

1.3 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 3 January 2022
Organization of the Initial Study
The content and format of this IS meet the requirements of CEQA. This IS contains the following sections:

• Chapter 1 Introduction. This chapter provides a brief summary of the proposed Project, identifies the lead agency, summarizes the purpose and scope of the IS, and identifies documents incorporated by reference.
• Chapter 2 Project Description. This chapter provides a project overv iew including a description of the regional location and Project vicinity, including Exhibits; and provides a description of the Project elements, e.g., dimensions of the Project, and identifies other agencies that may have permitting authority over the project.
• Chapter 3 Environmental Evaluation. This chapter provides a copy of the City’s Environmental Checklist and responses to each question posed in the checklist. This chapter also provides a brief description of the sources used to evaluate the proposed Project, a brief description of the existing conditions for each topic and an analysis of potential environmental impacts. Mitigation measures are also identified where necessary.
• Chapter 4 List of Preparers. This chapter identifies City staff and consultants who were responsible for the preparation of the IS and implementation of the Project.

Documents Incorporated by Reference
As allowed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, a Mitigated Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document that is generally available to the public. The document used must be available for public review for interested parties to access during public review of the Subsequent Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. The City of Palm Springs General Plan document is incorporated by reference.

This document is also available for review at Palm Springs City Hall at 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262. The project specific reports are attached to the Subsequent Initial Study as appendices. The General Plan is located on the City’s website at:
https://www.palmspringsca.gov/government/departments/planning/general-plan .

Item 2A - 56

1.4 1.5
1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 4 January 2022
Project Description
Project Location and Setting
Project Location
The proposed Project is located within two vacant and undeveloped parcels at 2700 East Alejo Road in the City of Palm Springs (City), Riverside County, California (Exhibit 1 – Regional Location Map, Exhibit 2 – Project Vicinity Map, and Exhibit 3 – Site Photos). The site encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 507-380- 019 and 507-380-020. The approximately 2.53 -acre Project site is located to the north side of E. Alejo Road between N. Commercial Road and N. Juanita Drive.

The Project site is located in the north- central portion of the City, approximately one mile west of the Palm Springs International Airport. Land to the immediate north is developed with a chu rch and UPS store; land to the immediate east is developed with a medical office building; land to the immediate south is developed with industrial uses and single-family homes; and land immediately to the west are developed with single -family homes.

Project Description
The proposed Project includes an amendment to the City of Palm Springs General Plan to change the land use designation from ‘Industrial’ (IND) to ‘Very Low Density Residential’ (VLDR ) and the zoning of the Project site from Planned Research and Development Park (M-1P) to Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (R-1C), respectively. Approval of the GPA, Change of Zone, and Tentative Tract Map would allow for the development of eight single-family residential lots within the Project site as shown in Exhibit 4 – Tentative Tract Map (TTM).

According to the TTM, the minimum lot size consists of 13,246 square feet (sq. ft.) and the maximum lot size consists of 15,381 sq. ft.

Based on information provided by the Project Applicant, the Project is expected to be constructed in four phases: grading, building construction, paving (i.e., asphalt paving) , and architectural coating . Construction equipment would be used for up to eight hours per day and include air compressors, cement and mortar mixers, generator sets, cranes, forklifts, pavers, rollers, rubber tired dozers, tractors/loaders/blackhoes, graders, paving equipment, and welders. For purposes of this analysis in this MND, construction is anticipated to begin early 2022 and take approximately 12 months to complete. The anticipated opening year for the proposed Project is 2023.

Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
The Project site is currently equipped with a curb and gutter on the east side along N. Commercial Road. Electric and natural gas service would be provided to the Project site by Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company, respectively. Water and sewer service would be provided to the Project site by Desert Water Agency, and waste management would be provided by Desert Valley Disposal.

Item 2A - 57
Chapter 2

2.1 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 5 January 2022
Surrounding land uses include:

DIRECTION GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION ZONING DESIGNATION North Industrial Planned Research and Development Park
East Industrial Planned Development
South Public/Quasi Airport
West Very Low Density Residential Single-Family Residential 10,000 sq. ft.

Project Related Approvals
The discretionary approvals required by the City include:

• General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone No. 5.1521
• Tentative Tract Map No. 38049
• Administrative Minor Modification No. 7.1645
• Adoption of 2700 East Alejo Road Project IS/MND

Administrative approvals are required by the City related to the design and construction of stormwater drainage infrastructure, Desert Water Agency (DWA) for construction of water and sewer infrastructure and connected to the water and sewer distribution and conveyance s ystems, and Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board for issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and approval of the Project’s Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).

Item 2A - 58
ExhibitRegional Loc ation Map
Mountain
Center
111
111
10 10
Agua Caliente
Mount San
Jacinto State
Park
Idyllwild
Thousand
Palms
North Palm
Springs
Dos Palmas
Corners
Desert Hot
Springs
Rancho Mirage
P alm Desert
Cat hedral Cit y
P alm S prings
Cahuilla Hills
Sky Valley
Palm Desert
Country
Hidden Palms
Willis Palms
Indian Wells
Earthstar Geographics, Loma Linda University, UC Riverside, Agua Caliente Band of Indians, County of Riverside, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP

A, NPS, USDA
2700 East Alejo Road 1
1 IN=3 MI
Project Site
Item 2A - 59
The
~ ~ Altum
i;I L;IGroup
ExhibitProject Vicinity Map
E El Alameda
E Ta mar isk Rd
N Cerr
itos D
r
E Desert Palm s Dr
E McManu s Dr
N Sun set Way
E Park D r
E B el ding Dr
E Am ado Rd
N
Fa
rrel
l Dr
E T amari sk Rd
E
Research Dr
E Alejo Rd
N Farrell Dr
N Burton Way
N Burton Way
E Plaimor Ave
N Orch
id Tr
ee Ln
N Ju an
ita Dr
N Monterey Rd
N Ci
vic Dr
N Civic Dr
E A mado Rd
E Civic Dr
N El
Cielo R
d
Station No. 2
(442)
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Loma Linda University, UC Riverside, Agua Caliente Band of Indians, County of Riversid e, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph,
INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA
2700 East Alejo Road 2
1 IN=0.1 MI
Legend
Project Site
Item 2A - 60
--•The
~ ~ Altum
i;I L;IGroup
Exhibit
3 Photo Loca�on Map
2700 East Alejo Road Project
Item 2A - 61
The
i:] [:ii Altum Group
Exhibit
3 Site Photos
2700 East Alejo Road Project
1 2
3 4
Item 2A - 62
The
~ ~ Altum
~ L;IGroup
Exhibit
3 Site Photos
2700 East Alejo Road Project
5 Item 2A - 63
The
~ ~ Altum
~ L;IGroup
Exhibit
4 TentaƟve Tract Map
2700 East Alejo Road Project
Point 2
Facing North
Point 4
Facing East
Point 5
Facing Northwest
Point 7
Facing West
Point 8
Facing South
Point 9
Facing East
Item 2A - 64
LOT 53
-
L OT 54
LO T 55
J
LOT 56 J
LOT 57 J F.F.•44150
The
~ ~ Altum
~ L;IGroup
£_ ANEAS&ENTFOll#OIESSA>DEGIESSAMJHCDENTAl..l'tff'06£S
NTfEr:x,ca.e,(rlECOllJEDSEl'TEMBER2'197PAS/NNSTRU.ENT
N0.2051$QCffD4l.lECQl)S.
& ANEAS9JENTFOllll(J(TTOUANT'A#ilfi"MI.O'm41c,USE#D<XN1m.cT :5;;Jrt£~~~u:ff'
N FAVCJIOF: QTYOFPAI..Mi/191GS.

AFFECTS: ASDESaEEDTtEIEN
_& ANEASDENTFOIIPUBUCVTUTESAMJHCDENTAl..1'1.111'0SES.IECOllJED DECEMBEll3;ffl80"'8/NNSTFUeffN0.22!!22SOF~IECQllS.

NFA\"Q'i'OF: ooa4L. TB..£1'HO/<EAN)OOll'A.N'fOFC4£.FaNA IIFFECTSI ASDESCMJEDTtEIEN

PARCEL I
PM 13336
. ,, i,:MB 641391
IN 77/E CITY OF PALII SPRINGS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38049
PARCEL 2 & 3 OF PARCEL MAP 13336, P.M.B. 64/39
OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST, S.B.M.

SANBORN ARCHITECTURE GROUP, Inc. DECEMBER 2021
PARC EL 2

JUANITA DRIVE
I

ALEJO ROAD
TENTAll~E MAP

PROJECT DATA
PRO.ECTDATA;
AGI.ANOIN~TIJENTS,l.L.C:
2496 £ SANTA YNEZ WAY
PALJ,J SPRINGS, CA. 9226~
SANBORN AROIITCCTURE: GROUP, INC.
n-780 SAN JACINTO DR. SI.Arc £-1
RANCHO /JIJRAGE, CA. 92270
870 £. ~AROI OR. S1E 12
PALJI SPR/NCS, CA. 92262
l£Gl,L 0£SCRfPTKW: PARCa 2,:J, PM fJJJ6, Plll8 64/J9;
CORNER OF Al£.X, ROAD &- COl,IJ,l£RC/Al ROAD
PAUi SPRINGS. CA. 92262
TOTAL NO. OFNUll8£R£D LOTS - 8
TOTAL NO. OF I.ErTERro COMNON LOTS - 0
8 NUll8£R LOTS AREA • 2." ACRES
IIINI/JUIILOTSIZE • fl248 S.F.

IJAXJl,IIJJJ LOT SIZE• I :J81 S.F.

Al,£RAGC LOT StZE - I 77~ S.F.
"''"" SO<I'"
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 12 January 2022
Environmental Evaluation
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

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

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

DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

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

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

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) ha s been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as describe on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

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

__________________________________________________ _______________ Signature Date

Item 2A - 65
Chapter 3

[8J

  
[8J

~




[8J

 
~

 
  
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 13 January 2022
Aesthetics
Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Circulation Element, 2007 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located in the western region of the Coachella Valley within the City of Palm Springs, at the north side of E. Alejo Road , west of N. Commercial Road and east N. Juanita Drive. Palm Springs. The Project site is surrounded by the San Bernardino (north and northwest), Little San Bernardino (northeast), San Jacinto (west and southwest), and Santa Rosa (southeast) Mountain Ranges. The San Jacinto, San Bernardino and Santa Rosa Mountains Ranges rise over the valley floor at elevations consisting of 11,489 feet (3,502 meters), 8,716 feet (2,657 meters), 10,834 feet (3,302 meters), respectively. Additionally, the foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains extend along the westerly and southerly portion of the City, approxi mately two miles west of the Project site. From the Project site , the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains provide a picturesque visual backdrop primarily to the southwest and south.

Impacts

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

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

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

a. Less than Significant Impact. There are no designated scenic vistas or scenic resources on or near the Project site. The closest scenic resources are the scenic views of the San Jacinto Mountains (located approximately 3.5 miles from the Project site) that occur to the west, south, and southw est; views of the San Bernardi no Mountains (located approximately 9.0 miles) that occur to the north and northwest; and, views of the Little San Bernardino Mountains (located approximately 11.0 miles) that occur at great distance to the northeast. Surrounding the Project site, views of the lower elevations of the aforementioned are partially blocked due to existing development and distance from the Item 2A - 66

3.1 3.1.1

3.1.2 3.1.3




 ~ 
  ~
 ~ 
 ~ 
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 14 January 2022
mountains; however, views of the middle and upper elevations of these mountains are kept visibly intact.

The Project site is not located within a designated view corridor as identified in the City of Palm Springs General Plan Figure 9 -4. The Project site is located in a developed urban area of the City and surrounded by commercial and residential developments. Development allowable under the proposed Project would be similar in nature to the existing residential development to the west, and would therefore not impede views of, or otherwise substantively affect scenic vistas. Prior to development of the Project site , the City will review and approve the proposed architectural plans to ensure the proposed development meets the City’s development standards for the Very Low Density Residential land use designation and Single-Family Residential zone.

Based on the preceding, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

b. No Impact. According to the City’s General Plan, the majority of the City’s roadways provide views to the San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mountains; however, no surrounding roadways are designated by the state as scenic highways. Furthermore, according to the California Scenic Highway Program, SR - 111, which is located approximately 1 mile north of the Project site , is classi fied as Eligible Scenic Highway – Not Officially Designated. Due to the distance between SR -111 and the Project site , the Project site is not visible to vehicles driving along SR -111. In addition, there are no historic buildings nor any unique geologic or topographic features such as rock outcrops, bodies of water, ridges or canyons found on or within the Project site . Therefore, due to topography and intervening development, proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but n ot limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.

c. Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned previously, the Project site is located in an urbanized area.

Implementation of the Project would result in the visual conversion of the site from vacant, undeveloped land to eight single-family homes. The Project would be compatible with the size, scale, and aesthetic features of other existing single -family homes l ocated to the west of the Project site .

Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply with the applicable development standards and design guidelines in the City of Palm Springs Zoning Code Sections 92.01.01 through 92.01.04, which regulates the visual quality of new development and ensures that new development does not detract from any scenic attributes/qualities in the surrounding area. Because the Project is located in an urbanized area and because the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

d. Less than Significant Impact. Under existing conditions, the Project site contains no sources of artificial lighting. The Pr oject would introduce new sources of lighting, including streetlights and security lighting. Subject to City review and approval, all Project lighting would be required to conform to regulations, guidelines, and standards established under the City’s Zoning Code Section 93.21.00, Outdoor Lighting Standards , which ensures adequate lighting for public safety while also minimizing light pollution and glare and public nuisances . Mandatory compliance with the City’s Zoning Code would ensure that the Project would not introduce any permanent design features that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. I mpacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Item 2A - 67
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 15 January 2022
Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Sources
• City of Palm Springs, Sustainability Plan, May 2016
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Recreation, Open Space and Conservation Element, 2007 • City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Recreation, Land Use Element, 2007 Environmental Setting
Historically, agriculture was once a significant part of the Coachella Valley’s economy. However, changes in the local economy over time have shifted, nearly eliminating all significant agricultural production within the Coachella Valley. According to the City of Palm Springs Sustainability Plan (May 2016), though the City of Palm Springs neit her grows, processes, nor distributes food, the City’s policies can foster an environment that supports these activities. Moreover, according to the General Plan, Palm Springs lacks oil, gas, geothermal energy, and agricultural resources, and the forests of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains are protected from logging. Based on the General Plan, the Project site has not been designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance and/or properties with Williamson Act Contracts.

Furthermore, there is no presence of forestland nor timberland.

Impacts

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

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
Item 2A - 68

3.1.4 3.1.5

3.2 3.2.1

3.2.2 3.2.3


  [g]
  [g]
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 16 January 2022

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?

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

a. No Impact. According to Map My County, the entire Project site is designated as Urban and Built -Up Land. There are no portions of the site that contain Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (“Farmland”); therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

b. No Impact. The Project site’s existing and proposed zoning designation is not zoned for agricultural use. As shown on Map My County, the Project site is not a part of an agricultural preserve and is therefore not located within a Williamson Act contract area. The Project would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or with a Williamson Act contract or land within a Riverside County Agricultural Preserve; therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

c. No Impact. The Project site is not zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production, nor is it surrounded by forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production land. According to the City of Palm Springs Zoning Map, there are no lands located within the City of Palm Springs that are zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, the Project has no potential to conflict with any areas currently zoned as forest, timberland, or Timberland Production and would not result in the rezoning of any such lands. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

d. No Impact. The Project site does not contain a forest and is not designated as forest land; therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

e. No Impact. “Farmland” is defined in Section II (a) of Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines as “Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance” (“Farmland”). As disclosed above under Section 3.2.3(a), the Project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use.

As discussed under Section 3.2.3(c) and (d), the Project would not convert forest land to non -forest use. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Item 2A - 69
   [8J
   [8J
   [8J
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 17 January 2022
Mitigation
No mitigation measure is required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

Air Quality
Sources
• The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook
• 2700 East Alejo Road Residential Project Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum, Ganddini Group, Inc., May 19, 2021. (Appendix A)
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Land Use Element, 2007.

Environmental Setting
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Res ources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards contain established levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards include “criteria pollutants” based on the documented effects on human health. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas.

CARB divides the state into air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The Project site is located in the City of Palm Springs within the Coachella Valley. The Coachella Valley, including t he City of Palm Springs and the Project site , is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). All development within the SSAB is subject to SCAQMD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (2003 CV PM10 SIP). The SCAQMD operates and maintains regional air quality monitoring stations at numerous locations throughout its jurisdiction. The Project site is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes monitoring stations in Palm Springs and Indio.

As shown in Table 1, Salton Sea Air Basin Attainment Status, below, the SSAB has been designated by the EPA as a federal non -attainment area for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM10). Currently, the Basin is in attainment with the national ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (S O2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The Basin has been designated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as a non-attainment area for Ozone and PM10.

Salton Sea Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant State Status National Status
Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon monoxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Nitrogen dioxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Sulfur dioxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
PM10 Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Item 2A - 70

3.2.4 3.2.5

3.3 3.3.1

3.3.2 Table 1
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 18 January 2022
Pollutant State Status National Status
Source (Federal and State Status): California Air Resources Board & https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations (2018 & 2019).

Many air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominate pollution generators in the basin, often occurs hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure. Therefore, the SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the SSAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. A regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table 2, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds for Coachella Valley , below.

SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds for Coachella Valley1,2 Mass Daily Thresholds
Pollutant Construction (lbs/day) Operation (lbs/day)
NOx 100 100
VOC 75 75
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
Toxic Air Contaminants, Odor and GHG Thresholds
TACs
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index > 1.0 (project increment)
Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 GHG 10,000 MT/yr CO2e for industrial projects
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant SCAQMD Standards
NO2 -1-hour average 0.18 ppm (338 µg/m^3)
PM10 -24-hour average
Construction
Operations

10.4 µg/m^3

2.5 ug/m^3
PM2.5 -24-hour average
Construction
Operations

10.4 µg/m^3

2.5 µg/m^3
SO2
1-hour average
24-hour average

0.25 ppm

0.04 ppm
CO
1-hour average
8-hour average
20 ppm (23,000 µg/m^3)
9 ppm (10,000 µg/m^3)
Lead
30-day average
Rolling 3-month average
Quarterly average

1.5 µg/m^3

0.15 µg/m^3

1.5 µg/m^3
Notes:

Item 2A - 71
Table 2
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 19 January 2022
Mass Daily Thresholds
1 Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf 2 Construction thresholds apply to both the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley. For Coachella Valley, the mass daily thresholds for operation are the same as the construction thresholds

Regulatory Setting

City of Palm Springs
Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Palm Springs, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through its police power and decision- making authority. The City of Palm Springs Air Quality Element of the General Plan contains the following air quality goals and policies that are applicable to the Project:

GOAL AQ 1 Improve regional air quality to protect the health of the community.

Policies
AQ 1.1 Work to attain ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter, and sulfate standards as enforced by SCAQMD.

AQ 1.2 Identify and implement regional mechanisms that reduce air emissions and improve regional air quality as outlined in the Coachella Valley Association of Governments’ Memorandum of Understanding and SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan.

AQ 1.3 Continue to incorporate, where appropriate, provisions of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan into the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

AQ 1.4 Incorporate the provisions of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan into project r eview procedures.

AQ 1.5 Support measures for improving air quality in the South Coast and Salton Sea Air Basins, while opposing measures that may result in transferring air pollution via “credits” to the Inland Empire.

AQ 1.6 Support measures that improve air quality in the Los Angeles air basin, while opposing measures that transfer air pollution via “credits” to the Inland Empire.

AQ 1.7 Participate in meetings between the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and SCAQMD to discuss and imple ment regional actions to reduce local air emissions. A comprehensive range of options should be considered including, but not limited to, the following:
• Supplement existing public transit opportunities with additional routes and/or frequency to facilitate intercity travel.
• Provide local subsidies or other incentives to encourage the use of public transit. • Implement a subregional transportation-demand management program. • Restrict the development of uses that degrade the air quality. • Work with the SCAQMD to focus on the reduction of trip length and total vehicle miles traveled rather than the jobs/housing balance ratio, which can still result in significant trip lengths.

AQ 1.8 Support and implement the provisions of the Coachella Valley Dust Control Ordinance, Handbook, and Memorandum of Understanding.

Item 2A - 72
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 20 January 2022

GOAL AQ 2 Control suspended particulate matter emissions from human activity or from erosion of soil by wind.

Policies
AQ 2.1 Require those projects meeting specialized criteria as identified in the Zoning Ordinance to submit a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.

AQ 2.2 Encourage the use of landscaping, vegetation, and other natural materials to trap particulate matter or control other pollutants. Establish windbreaks immediately downwind of large open spaces. Tree species used for windbreaks should be drought tolerant.

AQ 2.3 Reduce the transport of blowsand adjacent to paved roadways and residential areas through the use of chemically stabilizing soil surfaces or snow fence windbreaks. Chemical stabilizing measures should only be used in areas where they will not impact endangered habitats or species.

AQ 2.4 Continue to remove blowsand from City streets and relocate it downwind on a regular and post event basis as part of routine street-cleaning programs.

AQ 2.5 Prohibit the use of off-road vehicles in blowsand areas.

AQ 2.6 Prohibit the transport of earth/soil through the City when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour per the City’s PM10 Ordinance.

AQ 2.7 Require the planting of vegetative ground covers as soon as possible on construction sites.

AQ 2.8 Consider adding provisions to the City’s Municipal Code to phase out the use of gas -powered lawn mowers and replace them with electric mowers and to prohibit the use of leaf blowers.

AQ 2.9 Phase mass grading in a way that minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, the exposure of large expanses of graded areas to wind that causes blowing sand.

AQ 2.10 Encourage that landscape plans submitted with new development take into consideration drought tolerance and pollen generation through the selection of appropriate plantings.

GOAL AQ 3 Protect people and land uses that are sensitive to air contaminants from sources of air pollution to the greatest extent possible.

Policies
AQ 3.1 Discourage the development of land uses and the application of land use practices that contribute significantly to the degradation of air quality.

AQ 3.2 Carefully consider the placement of sensitive land uses (schools, residences, daycare, medical uses, etc.) in proximity to sources of air contaminants that pose significant health risks.

GOAL AQ 4 Reduce vehicular emissions.

Policies
AQ 4.1 Encourage the use of mass transit, carpooling, and other transportation options, including alternative-fuel vehicles and bicycles, to reduce vehicular trips.

Item 2A - 73
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 21 January 2022
AQ 4.2 Coordinate with regional service providers to improve regional transportation services.

AQ 4.3 Establish a shuttle service linking the airport, attractions, convention center, major resort activities, and the Downtown area.

AQ 4.4 Encourage walking or bicycling for short -distance trips through the creation of pedestrian- friendly sidewalks and street crossings and efficient and safe bikeways.

AQ 4.5 Integrate land use and transportation planning to the greatest extent possible.

AQ 4.6 Encourage the development of mixed-use and multi-use projects.

AQ 4.7 Study, and implement if feasible, the development of a combined shuttle program from the airport to major hotels in Palm Springs.

AQ 4.8 Consider the development of “cell phone” parking lots at the airport. These lots would provide short-term parking (less than 30 minutes) that allows passengers to call their rides when they are ready to be picked up. This approach can minimize the drive through traf fic (and subsequently vehicular emissions) generated by circling the airport loop until passengers are available for pickup.

Impacts

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

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

a. Less than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD has established the AQMP to achieve State and Federal air quality standards. On June 30, 2016, the SCAQMD released its Draft 2016 AQMP . The Plan was approved by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) on June 15, 2017. Therefore, the applicable air quality plan for the Project is the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct Item 2A - 74

3.3.3   ~ 
  ~ 
  ~ 
  ~ 
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 22 January 2022
other policies. The pollutant reducing mechanisms in the AQMP are based, in part, on urban growth projections estimated by the SCAG. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:

1. Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.

2. Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2016 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

Below, Criterion 1 and Criterion 2 are discussed.

Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis completed for the Project, s hort-term P roject-related construction activities would not exceed applicable regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD (see Table 3 below). The Project will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.1 in regards to the reduction of fugitive dust emissions. Furthermore, the Project would not exceed applicable Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) established by the SCAQMD (see Table 6 below). As such, P roject construction -source emissions would not conflict with the SCAQMD AQMP. Project construction source emissions would not cause or substantially contribute to violation of the CAAQS or NAAQS.

Based on the air quality modeling analysis comple ted for the Project, long -term Project operations would not exceed applicable regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD and would not result in a significant cumulative impact (see Table 5 below). Project operational-source emissions would not result in or cause a significant localized air quality impact. Additionally, Project-related trips would not cause or result in CO concentrations exceeding applicable state and/or federal standards.

Therefore, the Project w ould not exceed air pollutant concentration standards and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for Criterion 1.

Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP?
Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the Project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy prepared by the SCAG (SCAG 2016) includes chapters on: the challenges in a changing region, creating a plan for our future, and the road to greater mobility and sustainable growth. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regio nal plans under CEQA. For this P roject, the City of Palm Springs Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP.

Regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by SCAG, are based in part on the City’s General Plan land use designations. These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP . These demographic trends are incorporated into the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy compiled by SCAG, to determine priority transportation projects and determine vehicle miles traveled within the SCAG region.

Item 2A - 75
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 23 January 2022
The Project is cur rently designated IND (Industrial), however, the Applicant is proposing to re- designate the parcel to VLDR (Very Low Density Residential) . The Very Low Density Residential land use designation accommodates a range of 2.1-4.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The Project includes a General Plan Amendment from Industrial to Very Low Density Residential.

The SCAQMD does not require strict consistency with all aspects of the AQMP in order to make a finding of no conflict with the AQMP. Rather, a project is consi dered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The Project would implement contemporary energy-efficient technologies and regulatory/operational programs required per Title 24, CalGreen and Ci ty standards. Generally, compliance with SCAQMD emissions reductions and control req uirements also act to reduce P roject air pollutant emissions. Project compliance with regulatory/operational programs is consistent with and supports overarching AQMP air pollution reduction strategies. Project support of these strategies promotes timely attainment of AQMP air quality standards and would bring the P roject into conformance with the AQMP . As such, the Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.

Based on the above, the Project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact will occur in relation to implementation of the AQMP. No mitigation is required.

b. Less than Significant Impact. The Project consists of the development of eight single -family homes.

Construction of the eight single-family homes is anticipated to begin early 2022 and to be completed by early 2023.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site that may be impacted by the development of the Project are the existing single-family residential dwelling units located approximately 50 feet (15 meters) to the west (acros s Juanita Drive) and 70 feet (21 meters) to the southwest (across the intersection of East Alejo Road and Juanita Drive) of the Project site. CalEEMod (Version 2016.3.2) software was utilized to analyze short-term construction and long-term operational related impacts of the Project. The model is considered to be an accurate and comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality and GHG emissions impacts from land use projects throughout California and is recommended by the SCAQMD.

Construction-Related Impacts
The Project will be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for the reduction of fugitive dust emissions. SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.1 establish these procedures. Compliance with these rules is achieved through application of standard best management practices in construction and operation activities, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, managing haul road dust by application of water, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent and stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. In addition, any operator applying for a grading permit, or a buildin g permit for an activity with a disturbed surface area of more than 5,000 square feet, shall not initiate any earth -moving operations unless a Fugitive Dust Control Plan has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook and approved by the City. It is anticipated that the Project will obtain and prepare the required Fugitive Dust Control Plan.

Item 2A - 76
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 24 January 2022
Regional Impacts
The phases of construction activities that were analyzed for the Project include grading, building construction, paving, and the application of architectural coatings. The construction -related criteria pollutant emissions for each phase are shown below in Table 3, Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions. Table 3 also shows the combined emissions from building construction, paving and architectural coating phases of construction as it is possible that these phases could occur simultaneously. Table 3 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less -than-significant regional air quality impact would occur from construction of the Project. No mitigation is required.

Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation
On-Site1 0.19 1.90 2.26 0.00 0.13 0.10
Off-Site2 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.01
Subtotal 0.20 1.90 2.35 0.00 0.15 0.11
Grading
On-Site1 2.29 24.74 15.86 0.03 3.72 2.38
Off-Site2 0.07 0.59 0.50 0.00 0.17 0.05
Subtotal 2.36 25.33 16.36 0.03 3.89 2.43
Building
Construction
On-Site1 1.90 17.43 16.58 0.03 0.96 0.90
Off-Site2 0.37 2.17 2.73 0.01 0.82 0.22
Subtotal 2.27 19.60 19.30 0.04 1.78 1.13
Paving
On-Site1 1.05 8.79 12.19 0.02 0.44 0.40
Off-Site2 0.07 0.04 0.49 0.00 0.17 0.05
Subtotal 1.12 8.83 12.68 0.02 0.60 0.45
Architectural
Coating
On-Site1 49.30 1.30 1.81 0.00 0.07 0.07
Off-Site2 0.06 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.14 0.04
Subtotal 49.36 1.33 2.22 0.00 0.21 0.11
Total for overlapping phases3 52.75 29.76 34.20 0.06 2.59 1.68 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
Notes:

Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2

1On-site emissions from equipment operated on-site that is not operated on public roads. On-site grading PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions show mitigated values for fugitive dust for compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 2 Off-site emissions from equipment operated on public roads.

3 Construction, painting and paving phases may overlap.

Operations-Related Impacts
The greatest cumulative operational impact on the air quality to the Basin would be the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and industrial development. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact.

Item 2A - 77
Table 3
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 25 January 2022

Regional Impacts
The potential operations -related air emissions have been analyzed below for the c riteria pollutants and cumulative impacts. The operations related criteria air quality impacts created by the Project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model and based on the proposed eight single -family residential homes . The CalEEMod model a nalyzes operational emissions from area sources, energy usage, and mobile sources. The operating emissions were based on the year 2023, which is the anticipated opening year for the Project.

Mobile Sources
Mobile sources include emissions from the additi onal vehicle miles generated from the Project. The proposed Project is exempt from preparing either a Traffic Impact Analysis or Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis per Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines due to the Project generating less than 100 peak hour vehicle trips and less than 110 daily vehicle trips, respectively; therefore, the vehicle trips associated with the Project have been analyzed by inputting the trip generation rates for single-family residential uses provided in the Institute of Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (September 2017) into the CalEEMod Model. The ITE trip generation rates for single-family residential uses are 9.44 t rips per dwelling unit per day on weekdays , 9.54 trips per dwelling unit per day on Saturday, and 8.55 trips per dwelling unit per day on Sunday. The program then applies the emission factors for each trip which is provided by the EMFAC2014 model to determine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions. The CalEEMod default trip lengths were used in this analysis.

Area Sources
Area sources include emissions from hearths, consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural coatings. No changes were made to the default area source parameters.

Energy Usage
Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on -site. No changes were made to the default energy usage parameters.

Project Impacts
The Project would result in a long-term increase in air quality emissions due to Project -generated vehicle trips and ongoing operation of the Project. T he worst-case summer or winter ROG, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 daily emissions created from the Proje ct’s long-term operations have been calculated and are summarized below in Table 4, Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions:

Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources1 0.47 0.13 0.71 0.00 0.01 0.01
Energy Usage2 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01
Mobile Sources3 0.12 0.68 1.12 0.01 0.37 0.10
Total Emissions 0.59 0.87 1.86 0.01 0.39 0.12
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Item 2A - 78
Table4
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 26 January 2022
Notes:

Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2; the higher of either summer or winter emissions. (1) Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment.
(2) Energy usage consists of emissions from generation of electricity and on-site natural gas usage. (3) Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.

The data provided in Table 4 above shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less-than -significant regional air quality impact would occur from operation of the Project.

Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the Project site .

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

The Project area is out of attainment for ozone and particulate matter (PM10). Construction and operation of cumulative projects will further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the Salton Sea portion of the South Coast Air Basin. The greatest cumulative impact on the quality of regional air cell would be the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic volumes from residential, commercial, and industrial development and the use of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the construction of these projects. Air quality would be temporarily degraded during construction activities that occur separately or simul taneously. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology in White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts From Air Pollution (August 2003), projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than cr iteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. With respect to long-term emissions, the Project would result in a less -than-significant cumulative impact and no mitigation is required.

c. Less than Significant Impact.

Construction-Related Local Impacts
Construction-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Salton Sea portion of the South Coast Air Basin. The proposed Project has been analyzed for the potential local air quality impacts created from: construction-related fugitive dust and diesel emissions; from toxic air contaminants; and from construction-related odor impacts.

The emission thresholds were calculated based on the Coachella Valley, source receptor area (SRA) 30 and a disturbance value of two acres per day (see Table 5). According to LST Methodology, any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25 -meter thresholds. The nearest sensitive receptors are the existing single-family residential dwelling units located approximately 50 feet (~15 meters) to the west (across Juanita Drive) and 70 feet (~21 meters) to the southwest (across the intersection of Alejo Road and Juanita Drive) of the Project site; therefore, the SCAQMD Look -up Tables for 25 meters was used. As shown in Table 6, none of the analyzed criteria pollutants wou ld exceed the calculated local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, the re will be a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required.

Item 2A - 79
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 27 January 2022
Maximum Number of Acres Disturbed Per Day
Activity Equipment Number Acres/8hr-day Total Acres

Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 0.5
Graders 1 0.5 0.5
Crawler Tractors1 2 0.5 1
Total for phase - - 2
Notes:

Source: South Coast AQMD, Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds, 2011b. (1) Tractor/loader/backhoe is a suitable surrogate for a crawler tractor per SCAQMD staff.

Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors

Activity
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Grading 16.98 9.22 3.30 2.00
Building Construction 14.60 14.35 0.70 0.67
Paving 9.33 11.70 0.49 0.45
Architectural Coating 1.41 1.81 0.08 0.08
SCAQMD Thresholds1 191 1,299 7 5
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:

Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 2 acres at a distance of 25 meters in SRA 30 Coachella Valley.
(1) The nearest sensitive receptors to the project include the existing single-family residential dwelling units located approximately 50 feet (~15 meters) to the west (across Juanita Drive) and 70 feet (~21 meters) to the southeast (across the intersection of Alejo Road and Juanita Drive) of the Project site; therefore, the 25 meter threshold was used.

Note: The project will disturb up to a maximum of 2 acres a day during grading (see Table 3).

Operations-Related Local Impacts
Project-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and federa l air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the SSAB. The Project has been analyzed for the potential local CO emissions impacts from project-generated vehicular trips and from the pot ential local air quality impacts from onsite operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions and local impacts from on-site operations.

Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicular Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most no table source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing the future without and with project CO levels to the state and federal CO standards of 20 parts per million (ppm) over one hour or 9 ppm over eight hours.

The Project is exempt from preparing either a Tr affic Impact Analysis or Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis per Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines because the Project would generate less than 100 peak hour trips and proposes less than 11 single-family housing units; therefore, no CO “hot spot” Item 2A - 80
Table 5
Table 6
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 28 January 2022
modeling was performed, and no significant long-term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality due to the on-going use of the Project.

Local Air Quality Impacts from Onsite Operations
Project-related air emissions from on-site sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, on-site usage of natural gas appliances as well as the operation of vehicles on -site may have the potential to exceed the State and Federa l air quality standards in the P roject vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Salton Sea portion of the South Coast Air Basin. The nearest sensitive receptors to Project site that may be impacted by the Project are the existing single-family residential dwelling units located approximately 50 feet(15 meters) to the west (across Juanita Drive) and 70 feet (21 meters) to the southwest (across the intersection of Alejo Road and Juanita Drive) of the Project site.

According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project, if the project includes stationary sources (such as power stations, petroleum refineries, factories etc.) , or attracts mobile sources (such as heavy-duty trucks) that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site; such as warehouse/transfer facilities. The Project does not include such uses. Therefore, due to the lack of stationary source emissions, no long -term (operational) localized significance threshold analysis is needed. Impacts associated with operation activities potentially exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant.

Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

d. Less than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that an odor impact would occur if the Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, which states: “A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. If the Project results in a violation of Rule 402 with regards to odor impacts, then the Project would create a significant odor impact.”

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

Due to the transitory nature of construction odors, a less-than-significant odor impact would occur and no mitigation would be required.

Item 2A - 81
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 29 January 2022
Operational-Related Odor Impacts
Potential sources that may emit odors during the on -going operations of the Project would include odor emissions from vehicle emissions. The Project consists of residential uses and w ould not attract a significant amount of heavy-duty truck traffic. Due to the distance of the nearest receptors from the Project site and through compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 402 no significant impact related to odors would occur during the on-going operations of the Project.

Based on the foregoing, a less-than-significant odor impact would occur from operation of the Project and no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

Biological Resources
Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Recreation, Open Space & Conservation Element, 2007. • The Coachella Valley Multiple Spe cies Habitat Conservation Plan . Accessed August 20, 2020, <http://www.cvmshcp.org/ >.
• City of Palm Springs Municipal Code. Accessed August 20, 2020, <http://www.qcode.us/codes/palmsprings/>.

Environmental Setting
The City offers unique natural habitats to a range of plants and wildlife due to its climate and natural topography. The City recognizes the value of the wildlands and wildlife and has carefully planned to protect, preserve, and enhance the regions valuable biological resources. The City is located within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Conservation Plan (CVMSHP). This is a regional pla n that is implemented throughout the Coachella Valley in an effort comply with federal and State endangered species laws.

A field study of the Project site was conducted on June 25, 2021 by one of Altum’s Environmental Planners and during the site visit field observations of the existing conditions were documented using photographs. As shown in Exhibit 3, Site Photos , t he Project site is currently undeveloped and consists of mostly sparse vegetation. No wildlife, waterways, or mature trees were noted on site. There are existing roads that bo rder the Project site which include E. Alejo Road to the south, N. Juanita Drive to the west, and N. Commercial Road to the east. The parcels immediately surrounding the Project site, are all urbanized/developed (with no vacant parcels) and consist of both residential and commercials uses. There is no habitat or other natural areas of any type surrounding the Project site.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
Endangered Species Act
Item 2A - 82

3.3.4 3.3.5

3.4 3.4.1

3.4.2 2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 30 January 2022
The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, provides for listing of endangered and threatened species of plants and animals and designation of critical habitat for listed animal species. The ESA also prohibits all persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction from “taking” endangered species, which includes any harm or harassment. Section 7 of the ESA requires that federal agencies, prior to project approval, consult the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to ensure adequate protection of listed species that may be affected by the project.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Nesting birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty (MBTA) of 1918. The MBTA provi des protection for nesting birds that are both residents and migrants whether or not they are considered sensitive by resource agencies. The MBTA prohibits take of nearly all native birds. The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, o r barter any migratory bird listed under 50 CFR 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). The direct injury or death of a migratory bird, due to construction activities or other construction-related disturbance that causes nest abandonment, nestling abandonment, or forced fledging would be considered take under federal law.

The USFWS, in coordination with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) administers the MBTA.

CDFW’s authoritative nexus to MBTA is provided in the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Sections 3503.5 which protects all birds of prey and their nests and FGC Section 3800 which protects all non -game birds that occur naturally in the State.

Impacts

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

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

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

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or

Item 2A - 83

3.4.3  [g]  
   [g]
   [g]
 [g]  
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 31 January 2022

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?

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

a. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. According the City’s General Plan, the Project site is located within the Coachella Valley Multiply Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), which aims to conserve over 240,000 acres of open space and protect 27 plant and animal species. As previously mentioned above, a site visit was conducted by one of Altum’s Environmental Planners on June 25, 2021. During the site visit it was observed that t he Project site is vacant undeveloped land. As seen in Exhibit 3, Site Photos, the Project site consists of sparse ruderal vegetation, scattered refuse, and above ground utility lines at the perimeter of the Project site . There were no natural drainages of any type observed on site that would support any protected species.

There was no evidence of any sensitive vegetation species on the Project site. Additionally, no evidence of sensitive wildlife species was noted during the site visit, and no evidence of natural stream channels was observed within the Project site. Furthermore, the surrounding area is developed with commercial and residential uses. Per the City’s General Plan Recreation, Open Space and Conservation Element, of the 22 conservation areas covered in the Plan, three (3) Conservation Areas (Snow Creek, Windy Point, Highway 111, Whitewater Floodplain, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains), are within the City.

Figure 5 -2, Biological Sensitivity & Conservation Areas, identifies areas of biological sensitivity, however, the Project site is not identified as one of those areas. Furthermore, it is not anticipated that there would be any impacts to special -status plants or wildlife species. Nonetheless, any Project - related impacts to special status plants or wildlife species would be covered under the CVMSHCP through required payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee as shown under Mitigation Measure BIO-2.

Although there are no natural burrows or man-made structures suitable for the burrowing owl, which is classified as a Species of Concern in California, there is a remote potential for the burrowing owl to migrate onto the site during Project construction due to the fact that the burrowing owl is a nomadic species. The burrowing owl is not covered under the CVMSCHP and protocol compliant preconstruction surveys are required to assure that the species does not locate on the site prior to development. The preconstruction surveys required for compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, described below under Mitigation Measure BIO-1, will address this requirement and reduce potential impacts to the burrowing owl to less-than-significant levels.

b. No Impact. As previously mentioned, the Project site is an urban area that has been highly disturbed and developed. During a field visit to the Project site, it was noted that there were no natural drainages present of any type within the vacant parcels . A review of topography map showed no “blue line streams” located on the Project site. Furthermore, as seen in Exhibit 3, Site Photos, there is no evidence Item 2A - 84
   [g]
  [g] 
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 32 January 2022
that the Project contained any riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities that would be protected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Therefore, the Project would have no impact and no mitigation is required.

c. No Impact. The Project site is an urban area that has been highly disturbed and developed. According to the field visit to the Project site and as seen in Exhibit 3, Site Photos, the Project site does not contain any federal or State -protected wetland waters, including marshes, vernal pools, coastal, etc.

Therefore, the Project would have no impact and no mitigation is required.

d. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The surrounding areas of the Project site are nearly entirely developed with residential and commercial uses with the exception of a parcel located to the north east that contains small amounts of vegetation. The adjacent parcels on all sides are developed and included existing roads, so there is no adjacent habitat that would have the potential to accommodate any terrestrial wildlife movement . The site had no evidence of wildlife or water during the site visit on those vacant parcels or within the surr ounding area. Additionally, according to the General Plan, the northwestern Palm Springs, located in the San Gorgonio Pass, is regarded as the only connection for wildlife migrating between the Peninsular and Transverse rages .

Stubbe and Cottonwood Canyons and the Whitewater River also connect areas north of I -10 and the Planning Area to portions of the Planning Area south of I-10. Also, several east-west wildlife corridors exist in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains and in the canyons and washes, whi ch are not located within the Project site.

However, nesting birds have the potential to occur given the sparse vegetation found on site. The Project’s future construction could adversely affect nesting birds if construction w as to occur while they are present or adjacent to the Project site , through direct mortality or abandonment of nest. If this was to occur it would be a violation of the MBTA and CFGC 3503, and a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will require a preconstruction nesting bird survey to mitigate any potential impacts to protect migratory nesting birds. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a biologist 14 prior to any ground disturbing activities and/or removal of any vegetation. In the event that a raptor nest is observed personnel will be notified and no ground disturbing activities will occur until the avian biologist has confirmed the breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Therefore, through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

e. No Impact. The City has not adopted any ordinances regarding tree preservation. As seen in Exhibit 3, Site Photos, the Project site mainly consists of small and medium size shru bs. No trees are located on the Project site under existing conditions. T herefore, t he Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance and would have no impact. No mitigation is required.

f. Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in an area that is almost entirely developed and is located in the City of Palm Springs, which is within the boundaries of CVMSHCP and would be subject to payment of the Development Mitigation fee per Chapter 8.95 MSHCP Mitigation Fee of the City’s Municipal Code. The fee would mitigate potential impacts to covered species within the CVMSHCP. Although the site is located within the CVMSHCP boundary, as mentioned in Sectio n 3.4.3 (a), it is not anticipated that there would be any impacts to special-status plants or wildlife species nor is the Project site located within a biological sensitive or any conservation areas. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Item 2A - 85
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 33 January 2022
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation
BIO-1 A pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting pre-construction bird survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with identification of avian species known to occur in Riverside County. The nesting bird survey shall be conducted on foot inside the project boundary, including a 300-foot buffer for passerines (song birds) and 500-foot buffer for raptors in areas of suitable habitat.

Inaccessible areas will be surveyed using binoculars to the extent practical. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (dependent upon species, the proposed work activity, the existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. If a raptor nest is observed in a tree proposed for removal, the applicant must consult with CDFW. All construction personnel be notified of the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer area until the avian biologist has confirmed the breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the direction of the qualified biologist.

BIO-2 The applicant shall pay the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee prior to building permit issuance.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, impacts on Biological Resources would be less than significant.

Cultural Resources
Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan General Plan, Recreation, Open Space & Conservation Element, 2007. • CRM TECH, Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Tentative Parcel Map No. 38049 , September 21, 2021. (Appendix B)
Environmental Setting
Between April and September 2021, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on the Project site, which consisted of a records search, historical background research, and an intensive -level field survey. The records search for the site was provided by the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at University of California, Riverside (UCR). According to the EIC, the Project site had not been surveyed for cultural resources prior to this study, and no historical or archaeological resources had been identified on or adjacent to the property. Historical sources indicate that the Project site evidently remained undeveloped open desert land until the U.S. Army Air Corps constructed a group of barracks buildings along the north side of Alejo Road in support of the World War II-era Palm Springs Army Airfield. Aerial photographs show the two buildings on the Project site during 1950 closely match the concrete foundations noted on the site today.

During the field visit conducted on August 4, 2021, CRM TECH observed two concrete foundation remains – one on the northern portion of the site and one on the southern portion of the site. No other potential Item 2A - 86

3.4.4 3.4.5

3.5 3.5.1

3.5.2 2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 34 January 2022
historical resources were identified during the field survey. The entire Project site has been disturbed in the past. Scattered household refuse and construction debris of modern origin were also observed over much of the property, none of which were of any historical or archaeological interest.

Impacts

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

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

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

a. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the records search provided by EIC, the Project site had not been surveyed for cultural resources prior to this study, and no historical resources had been identified on or adjacent to the property. According to historical aerial photographs and the field survey conducted by CRM TECH on August 4, 2021, Site CRM TECH 3733-1H was observed, which consists of two concrete foundation remains – one on the northern portion of the site and one on the southern portion of the site. Historical background research indicates that the pads are foundations left by demolished barrack buildings that were once part of the World War II-era Palm Springs Army Airfield, which operated from what is now the Palm Springs International Airport between 1939 and 1946. As such, Site CRM TECH 3733 -1H is directly associated with this colorful and well-known episode in the history of Palm Springs. Through that connection, the site is also associated with a pattern of ev ents of far-reaching influence in mid-20th century America n history, namely the American war efforts and military buildup in the 1941-1945 era.

However, with the removal of the buildings and other facilities on sit e and in the surrounding area, and with the redevelopment of the nearby properties since the 195 0s, the foundations at Site CRM TECH 3733-1H now survive out of context and no longer retain sufficien t historic integrity to relate to the period of potential significance, particularly in the aspects of setting, design, workmanship, feeling, and association . While the features are certainly of some level of local historical interest, their recordation into the California Historical Resources Invent ory largely exhausted the data potential of the site.

The 2018 historic context statement commissioned by the C ity of Palm Springs outlines the following requirements for a property related to the theme of “Wa r Effort in Palm Springs (1939-1945)” to be considered eligible for historical designation:
• date from the period of significance; and
• have a direct association with the war effort during World War II; and • display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; and • retain the essential aspects of historic integrity (Historic Resources Group 2018:163) Item 2A - 87

3.5.3  ~  
 ~  
 ~  
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 35 January 2022

Without any character -defining features of their property type or the essential aspects of historic integrity, the foundations at Site CRM TECH 3733-1H do not meet these requirements. Based on these considerations, the current study concludes that Site C RM TECH 3733-1H does not appear eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, and thus does not meet CEQA’s definition of a “historical resource.”

Notwithstanding, during earth disturbing activities of the Project, it is possible that subsurface cultural resources could be discovered. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1, if buried cultural materials are discovered during the earth- moving operations, all work in that area will be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds and if necessary develop a treatment plan in consultation with the City of Palm Springs and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Therefore, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1, impacts relating to significant historical resources would be reduced to less than significant.

b. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the records search provided by EIC, the Project site had not been surveyed for cultural resources prior to this study, and no archaeological resources had been identified on or adjace nt to the property. During the field survey conducted by CRM TECH on August 4, 2021, Site CRM TECH 3733-1H was observed and recorded as an archaeological site, which consists of two concrete foundation remains – one on the northern portion of the site and one on the southern portion of the site. As mentioned in Section 3.5.3(a), the pads are foundations left by demolished barrack buildings that were once part of the World War II -era Palm Springs Army Airfield. However, with the removal of the buildings and other facilities on the site and in the surrounding area and with the redevelopment of nearby properties since the 1950s, the foundations at Site CRM TECH 3733 -1H are not considered a significant archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Notwithstanding, during earth disturbing activities of the Project, it is possible that subsurface cultural resources could be discovered. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1, if buried cultural materials are discovered during the earth- moving operations, all work in that area will be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds and if necessary develop a treatment plan in consultation with the City of Palm Springs and the Agua Caliente B and of Cahuilla Indians. Therefore, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1, impacts relating to significant archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant.

c. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site was extensively disturbed in the past, particularly by past construction activities that are now represented by two concrete foundation remains on the property. A short but continuous stretch of disintegrating asphalt pavement extends east-west along the southern edge of the property. The vegetation observed within the Project boundaries include cacti, creosote bushes, and dried brittlebush. There is no evidence that the Project site is located within an area that would be likely of containing human remains. However , there is always the possibility that human remains could be uncovered during ground disturbing activities. In the unexpected event that human remains are found during con struction activities, those remains would require proper treatment in accordance with all applicable laws. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -2, all construction work taking place within the vicinity of the discovered remains must cease and the necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The State of California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and the California Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 5097.98, states that the County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the Item 2A - 88
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 36 January 2022
discovery of human remains. If the remains discovered are determined by the coroner to the Native American descent, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC would in turn contact the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) would determine further action to be taken. The MLD would have 48 hours to access the Project site and make a recommendation regarding disposition of the remains. Therefore, wi th incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, impacts relating to the potential disturbance of human remains would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation
CUL-1 If buried cultural materials are discovered during the earth- moving operations, all work in that area shall be halted or diverted until a qu alified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds and, if necessary, develop a treatment pan in consultation with the City of Palm Springs and the appropriate Native American tribes.

CUL-2 In the unexpected event human remains are uncovered during construction activities, all construction work taking place within the vicinity of the discovered remains must cease and the necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery of human remains. If the remains discovered are determined by the coroner to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC would in turn contact the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) would determine further action to be taken. The MLD would have 48 hours to access the site and make a recommendation regarding disposition of the remains.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure s CUL-1 and CUL -2, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.

Energy
Sources
• California Energy Commission, 2019 Building Energy Efficient Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, December 2018
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF_0.pdf

• City of Palm Springs, Palm Springs Climate Action Plan, May 2013 https://www.palmspringsca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/71620/637146749779330000#:~:t ext=To%20achieve%20the%20AB%2032,7.9%25%2C%20or%2034%2C513%20tonnes.

Environmental Setting
Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the City of Palm Springs, including the Project site. SCE utilizes a combination of coal, natural gas, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal power sources, most of which are located outside the Valley. There are high -voltage transmission lines of up to 500 kilovolts crossing the Valley on an east-west trending utility corridor generally located north of Interstate-10. The Project is currently served by SCE.

Item 2A - 89

3.5.4 3.5.5

3.6 3.6.1

3.6.2 2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 37 January 2022
Natural Gas
Natural gas for the Project site is provided by the Southern Cal ifornia Gas Company (SoCalGas). Natural gas supplies are transported from Texas to the Coachella Valley through three east -west trending transmission lines, which cross the Valley near and parallel to Interstate-10 and continue west to Los Angeles. The pipelines include one 30-inch line and two 24-inch lines, with pressures of 2,000 pounds per square inch (psi).

Impacts

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

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

a. Less than Significant Impact.

Energy Use During Construction
The Project’s construction process would consume electricity and fuel. Project -related construction activities would represent a “single -event” demand and would not require on-going or permanent commitment of energy resources. The amount of energy and fuel use anticipated by the Project’s construction activities are typical for the type of scale of construction proposed by the Project and there are no aspects of the Project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or energy - intensive. Furthermore, construction equipment would be required to conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies. Based on the foregoing, the Project’s construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Impacts during Project construction would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Energy Use During Operation
Residential operations associated with the Project would result in the consumption of natural gas and electricity. The Project provides eight single -family residences , which are not inherently energy intensive, and the Project energy demands in total would be comparable to, or less than, other single- family homes of similar scale. Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply with Title 24 standards, which would ensure that the Project’s energy demand would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Impacts during Project operation would be less than significa nt and no mitigation is required.

b. No Impact. The Project’s proposed eight single-family homes would be required to comply with the City’s building codes (Sections 8.04.010 and 8.04.065 of the City’s Municipal Code) , Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 92.00 of the City’s Municipal Code), and other standards, including the City’s Climate Action Plan provisions. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on plans for energy efficiency and no mitigation is required.

Item 2A - 90

3.6.3   ~ 
   ~
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 38 January 2022
Geology and Soils
Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Safety Element, 2007. • County of Riverside, General Plan, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, 2015. • Riverside County Planning Department, Map My County, 2021. • United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey , 2021.

Environmental Setting
The elevation of the Project site is approximately 440 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the Coachella Valley region, within the Colorado Desert. The average annual rainfall within the Coachella Valley region is less than 4 inches per year with average temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit during the summer months.

Additionally, the Project site is located in the portion of the Salton Trough physiographic province of the Coachella Valley. The Salton Trough is a geologic structural depression resulting from large scale reginal faulting. This trough is bounded by the San Andreas Fault and the Chocolate Mountains to east of the Salton Sea, and by the Peninsular Range and San Jacinto Fault Zone to the southwest. Tectonic activity that formed the trough continues at a high rate as evidence by deformed young sedimentary deposits and high levels of seismicity.

Subsurface Soils
A Web Soil Survey of the Project site was conducted on June 4, 2021, which determined that the Project site consists of soils solely containing Myoma sand. Furthermore, the near surface soils are non -expansive in nature.

Impacts

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

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

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
Item 2A - 91

3.7 3.7.1

3.7.2 3.7.3

  
 ~ 
 ~   ~    ~
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 39 January 2022

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become uns table as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on - or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

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

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

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

a-i. Less than Significant Impact. According to Map My County, the Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest fault zone to the Project site is the Riverside County fault, which is located approximately 1.71 miles west of the Project site.

Impacts associated with the rupture of a known fault wo uld be minimized due to compliance with existing building regulations. Design and construction of the new homes would comply with all seismic safety development requirements, including the Title 24 sta ndards of the current California Building Code. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact associated with rupture of a known earthquake fault and no mitigation is required.

a-ii. Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is considered likely to be subject to moderate to strong ground motion from earthquakes in the region. These ground motions are dependent primarily on the earthquake magnitude and distance to the rupture zone. As discussed in Sec tion 2.6.3(a-i) above, the Project site is located approximately 1.71 miles west of the Riverside County fault. Impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be minimized due to compliance with existing building regulations. Design and constr uction of the new homes would comply with all seismic -safety development requirements, including the Title 24 standards of the current California Building Code.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less -than-significant impac t associated with strong seismic ground shaking.

a-iii. Less than Significant Impact. According to Map My County, the Project site is located in a moderate susceptibility zone for liquefaction and according to Figure 6-1, Seismic Hazards, of the City’s General Plan, the Project site is located in a low susceptibility zone for liquefaction due to the approximate depth of groundwater being greater than 50 feet. Therefore, P roject impacts relating to seismic- Item 2A - 92
  ~ 
  ~ 
  ~ 
   ~
   ~
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 40 January 2022
related ground failure, including liquefa ction would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

a-iv. No Impact. The Project is located on an area of the City that has been developed and is relatively flat and not located immediately adjacent to any sloped hillsides. In addition, according to the Figure 6 -2, Land Susceptibility , of the City’s General Plan, the Project site is not located within an area that is considered to be of high susceptibility for landslides, moderate susceptibility landslides, or in hillside and mountainous areas. Therefore, the development of the Project would result in no impact relating to landslide hazards and no mitigation is required.

b. Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be required to comply with the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must comply with the requirements of the State Water Resources Board Construction General Permit. The SWPPP would be submitted to and approved by the City prior to construction. The SWPPP would identify best management practices (BMPs) to reduce soil erosion during construction (see Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality).

Therefore, impacts related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

c. Less than Significant Impact. As previously discussed in Section 2.6.3 (a)(i through iv) the Project is not located within an active or potentially active fault zone, or in an area at risk of landslide or liquefaction; therefore, the Project site has unlikely potential for liquefaction or landslides. Additionally, the near surface soils of the Project site consist of fine sands. Furthermore, design and construction of the Project would comply with all seismic safety development requirements, inclu ding the Title 24 standards of the current California Building Code. Therefore, the P roject would result in less -than- significant impacts associated with landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, and no mitigation is required.

d. Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned above, the Project site consists of Myoma sands. Due to the low clay content in underlying soils, these near surface soils are non-expansive. The Project site is not located in an area known for expansive soi l (as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994)), and the potential for the Project to create substantial risks to life or property, relating to expansive soils, is very low. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

e. No Impact. The Project would not involve the use of septic tanks or any other alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project would be served through the Desert Water Agency (DWA). Therefore, there would be no impa cts associated with septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems, and no mitigation is required.

f. No Impact. According to Map My County, the Project site is located in a low potential zone regarding paleontological sensitivity. Per the City’s Recreat ion, Open Space, and Conservation Element of the General Plan, the Project site is not located in area likely containing prehistoric resources. Accordingly, the Project’s construction activities would have no reasonable potential to unearth significant paleontological resources and would therefore have no potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature either directly or indirectly. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Item 2A - 93
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 41 January 2022
Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sources
• 2700 East Alejo Road Residential Project Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum , Ganddini Group, Inc., May 19, 2021. (Appendix A)
• City of Palm Springs, Palm Springs Climate Action Plan, May 2013 https://www.palmspringsca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/71620/637146749779330000#:~:t ext=To%20achieve%20the%20AB%2032,7.9%25%2C%20or%2034%2C513%20tonnes.

Environmental Setting
The Project is within the Salton Sea portion of the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

SCAQMD Regulation XXVII currently includes three rules:
• The purpose of Rule 2700 is to define terms and post global warming potentials. • The purpose of Rule 2701, SoCal Climate Soluti ons Exchange, is to establish a voluntary program to encourage, quantify, and certify voluntary, high quality certified GHG emission reductions in the SCAQMD.
• Rule 2702, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program, was adopted on February 6, 2009. The purpose of this rule is to create a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program for GHG emission reductions in the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD will fund projects through contracts in response to requests for proposals or purchase reductions from other parties.

SCAQMD Threshold Development
On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an interim greenhouse gas significance threshold for stationary sources, rules, and plans where the SCAQMD is lead agency (SCAQMD permit threshold). The SCAQMD permit threshold consists of five tiers. However, the SCAQMD is not the lead agency for this project. Therefore, the five permit threshold tiers do not apply to the proposed Project.

The SCAQMD is in the process of preparing recommended significance thresholds for greenhouse gases for local lead agency consideration (“SCAQMD draft local agency threshold”); however, the SCAQMD Board has not approved the thresholds as of the date of the Notice of Preparation. The current draft thresholds consist of the following tiered approach:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption pursuant to the CEQA.
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether the p roject is consistent with a GHG reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant GHG emissions.

Item 2A - 94

3.7.4 3.7.5

3.8 3.8.1

3.8.2 2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 42 January 2022
• Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to a project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are under one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:
o All land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
o Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e per year; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year.
o Based on land type: Industrial (where SCAQMD is the lead ag ency), 10,000 MTCO2e per year.
• Tier 4 has the following options:
o Option 1: Reduce emissions from business as usual (BAU) by a certain percentage; this percentage is currently undefined.
o Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures. o Option 3 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and employees: 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans. o Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans.
• Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.

The SCAQMD’s draft threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level.

Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap carbon dioxide concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing global climate. Specifically, the Tier 3 screening level for stationary sources is based on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects. A 90 percent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified stationary source projects would be subject to a CEQA analysis, including a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration, or an environmental impact report, which includes analyzing feasible alternatives and imposing feasible mitigation measures. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate may be more appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change because most projects will be required to implement GHG reduction measures. Further, 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. This asse rtion is based on the fact that staff estimates that these GHG emissions would account for slightly less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target (85 MMTCO2eq/year). In addition, these small projects may be subject to future applicable GHG control regulations that would further reduce their overall future contribution to the statewide GHG inventory. Finally, these small sources are already subject to BACT for criteria pollutants and are more likely to be single-permit facilities, so they are more likely to have few opportunities readily available to reduce GHG emissions from other parts of their facility.

SCAQMD Working Group
Since neither the CARB nor the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has developed GHG emissions threshold, the SCAQMD formed a Working Group to develop significance thresholds related to GHG emissions. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual thresholds of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land uses.

Item 2A - 95
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 43 January 2022
Regulatory Setting
Climate Action Plan
The City adopted th e City of Palm Springs Climate Action Plan (CAP) in May 2013. The City’s CAP acts as a framework for the development and implementation of policies and programs to reduce the City’s emissions.

This plan sets forth goals to reduce emissions to achieve the t argets of AB 32. The Climate Action Plan states that the community will have to implement emissions reductions of 4,263 tons to achieve the AB 32 target by 2020. This reduction equates to just one percent of the forecasted 2020 level. Further, in order to fulfill the Kyoto Protocol target of seven percent below 1990 levels, the City will have to reduce projected emissions by a total of 324,513 tons or a 7.9 percent emissions reduction. These CAP targets are based on a predicted population growth rate of 18% between 2010 and 2020.

The City’s CAP has identified 78 measures to be implemented over the course of an eight year period, beginning in 2013, in order to achieve the CAP’s emission reduction goals. The measures represent 75,984 tons of annual CO2e savings, which is larger than that needed for the City to be incompliance with both AB 32 levels and the Kyoto Protocol.

Methodology
The Project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste, water, and construction equipment. The following provides the methodology used to calculate the project - related GHG emissions and the project impacts.

The CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 was used to calculate the GHG emissions from operation/implementati on of the proposed Project. The Project's emissions were compared to the tier 3 SCAQMD draft screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons
CO2e per year for all land uses. Each source of GHG emissions is described in greater detail below.

Area Sources
Area sources include emissions from hearths, consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural coatings. No changes were made to the default area source parameters.

Energy Usage
Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on -site. No changes were made to the default energy usage parameters.

Mobile Sources
Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle miles generated from operation/implementation of the proposed project. The vehicle trips associated with the proposed project have been analyzed based on the ITE trip generation rates for single-family residential uses. The program then applies the emission factors for each trip which is provided by the EMFAC2014 model to determine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions.

The CalEEMod default trip lengths were used in this analysis.

Waste
Waste includes the GHG emissions generated from the processing of waste from the proposed project as well as the GHG emissions from the waste once it is in terred into a landfill. No changes were made to the default waste parameters.

Water
Item 2A - 96
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 44 January 2022
Water includes the water used for the interior of the building as well as for landscaping , and is based on the GHG emissions associated with the energy used to transport and filter the water. No changes were made to the default water usage parameters.

Construction
The construction -related GHG emissions were also included in the analysis and were based on a 30 -year amortization rate as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group meeting on November 19, 2009. The construction-related GHG emissions were calculated by CalEEMod.

Thresholds of Significance
The Project utilizes the SCAQMD draft local agency tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land use types as a screening threshold.

Impacts

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

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

a. Less than Significant Impact. The Project allows for the development of eight single-family residential dwelling units. The Project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste, water, and construction equipment. The CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 was utilized by Ganddini Group, Inc., to calculate the GHG emissions from the Project. As shown in Table 7, the Project would result in approximately 137.09 MTCO2e per year and would not exceed the SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, P roject GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Item 2A - 97

3.8.3   [8J 
  [8J 
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 45 January 2022
Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)
Category Bio-CO2 NonBio-
CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area Sources1 0.00 5.68 5.68 0.00 0.00 5.80
Energy Usage2 0.00 35.28 35.28 0.00 0.00 35.44
Mobile Sources3 0.00 78.66 78.66 0.00 0.00 78.76
Solid Waste4 1.91 0.00 1.91 0.11 0.00 4.74
Water5 0.17 3.33 3.49 0.02 0.00 4.05
Construction6 0.00 8.27 8.27 0.00 0.00 8.31
Total Emissions 2.08 131.21 133.29 0.14 0.00 137.09
SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold 3,000.00
Exceeds Threshold? No
Notes:

Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 for Opening Year 2023. 1 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment. 2 Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 3 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 4 Solid waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 5 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 6Construction GHG emissions CO2e based on a 30 year amortization rate.

b. Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

The applicable plan for the Project is the City of Palm Springs CAP; however, as the CAP only provides emissions targets up to the year 2020 and the Project will not be operational until 2023, the Project has also been compared to the applicable measures of the CARB Scoping Plan.

Consistency with City of Palm Springs CAP
The City’s CAP was adopted to guide the City in decisions that lead to the largest and most cost - effective emissions reductions. This plan sets forth goals to reduce emissions to achieve the targets of AB 32. In order to achieve these targets, the CAP presents a number of GHG emissions -reducing programs and policies that are to be implemented by the City. As specified in the CAP, these measures are to be implemented over a course of eight years beginning in 2013. The Project would be expected to comply with all applicable emissions -reducing measures identified within the CAP. Project compliance with the CAP measures is detailed in Table 8.

City of Palm Springs CAP Applicable Measures Project Comparison Sector CAP Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Project Compliance with Measure
Sphere - "Where We Live"
Solid Waste
Solid Waste Diversion: Increase solid waste
diversion rate by 5% to 80.1% by 2015 potentially
through awareness programs, recognition and
other financial instruments.

Consistent. The Project will be required
to comply with AB 341, which includes
recycling programs that reduces waste to
landfills by a minimum 75% by 2020.

Item 2A - 98
Table 7
Table 8
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 46 January 2022
Sector CAP Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Project Compliance with Measure
Solid Waste
Solid Waste Diversion: Increase solid waste
diversion rate by an additional 10% to 90.1% by
2020 potentially through awareness programs,
recognition and other financial instruments.

Consistent. The Project will be required
to comply with AB 341, which includes
recycling programs that reduces waste to
landfills by a minimum of 75% by 2020.

Water
Gray-Water Ready Ordinance: Require all new
residential development to be constructed for easy
implementation of gray water systems that redirect
water from wash basins, showers, and tubs.

Consistent. The Project is a residential
project and will be required to be
constructed for easy implementation of
gray water systems that redirect water
from wash basins, showers, and tubs.

Sphere- " How We Build"
Residential
Buildings
Green Building Program: Promote the voluntary
Green Building Program to prepare for enhanced
Title 24 requirements and green building
standards.

Consistent. The California Green Building
Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title
24) was adopted as part of the California
Building Standards Code in the CCR. Part
11 establishes voluntary standards, that
will become mandatory in the 2019
edition of the Code, on planning and
design for sustainable site development,
energy efficiency (in excess of the
California Energy Code requirements),
water conservation, material
conservation, and internal air
contaminants. The Project will be subject
to these mandatory standards.

Residential
Buildings
Shade Trees: Promote properly sited and selected
shade trees in 100% of new construction to reduce
heat island and provide shade to offset air
conditioning.

Consistent. The Project involves the
construction of eight single-family
residential homes. The proposed Project
would be subject to and comply
with applicable City of Palm Springs
Municipal Code regulations
regarding the number of trees to be
planted for single-family residential uses.

Water
Storm water Capture: Promote storm water
capture and retention for exterior landscape use
(cisterns, rain barrels) to demonstrate 10 new
systems by 2020.

Consistent. The Project would be
required to comply with City of Palm
Springs Municipal Code (i.e., Section

8.70.100 etc.) regulations regarding
stormwater retention for single-family
residential uses.

Notes:

Source: City of Palm Springs Climate Acton Plan (2013)

Consistency with AB-32 and SB-32
As stated previously, the SCAQMD's tier 3 thresholds used Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for deriving the screening level. The California Governor issued Executive Order S-3-05, which sets targets for GHG emission reductions, in June 2005, established the following reduction targets:
• 2010: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels
• 2020: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels
Item 2A - 99
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 47 January 2022
• 2050: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires CARB, to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission ca p which was phased in starting in 2012.

Therefore, as the Project's emissions meet the threshold for compliance wi th Executive Order S-3-05, the Project's emissions also comply with the goals of AB 32 and the City’s CAP. Additionally, as the Project meets the current interim emissions targets/thresholds established by SCAQMD, the Project would also be on track to meet the reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 mandated by SB-32. Furthermore, the majority of the post 2020 reductions in GHG emissions are addressed via regulatory requirements at the State level and the Project will be required to comply with these regulations as they come into effect.

At a level of 137.09 MTCO2e per year, the Project's GHG emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO 2e per year and is in compliance with the reduction goals of the City’s CAP, the CARB Scoping Plan, AB-32, and SB-32. Furthermore, the Project will comply with applicable Green Building Standards and City policies regarding sustainability (as dictated by the City's General Plan and CAP). Project impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance
Not applicable.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Safety Element, 2007. • Department of Toxic Control Substances. Accessed June 8, 2021, <https://dtsc.ca.gov/>. • State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker. Accessed June 8, 2021, <https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/>.
• Center for Disease Control. Accessed June 8, 2021,
< https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/environmental/background/medical-waste.html>. • Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Accessed June 8, 2021. <https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthcarefacilities/index.html>. • California Department of Public Health. Accessed June 8, 2021. <https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CEH/DRSEM/Pages/EMB/MedicalWaste/MedicalWaste.aspx#>.

Environmental Setting
The Project site is located on two undeveloped parcels in an urban area of Palm Springs. During the site visit there were no observations made of a ny signs of hazardous materials onsite or signs of any underground storage tanks. The site was mainly occupied by sparse vegetation and small amounts of refuse. Surrounding uses include commercial to the north, south, and east, and residential west of the Project site.

Item 2A - 100

3.8.4 3.8.5

3.9 3.9.1

3.9.2 2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 48 January 2022

Local Schools
The nearest school is Palm Springs High School, which is located approximately 1 mile southwest of the Project site at 2401 E Baristo Road.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
Center for Disease Control (CDC)
The CDC is a national p ublic health institute whose main goal is to protect public health and safety through control and prevention of disease, injury, and disability. The CDC especially focuses its attention on infections disease, food borne pathogens, environmental health, occupational safety and health, health promotion, injury prevention, and educational activities that are designed to improve the health of citizens. Currently, the CDC regulates medical waste at the Federal level with their Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities (2003). These guidelines are a compilation of recommendations for the prevention and control of infectious diseases that are associated with healthcare environments.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The 1976 Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the 1984 RCRA amendments regulate the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous and non -hazardous wastes. The legislation mandated hazardous wastes be tracked from the point of generation to their ultimate fate in the environment. This includes detailed tracking of hazardous materials during transport and permitting of hazardous material handling facilities. The 1984 RCRA amendments provide the framework for a regulatory program designed to prevent releases from underground storage tanks (UST).

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 introduced active federal involvement wi th emergency response, site remediation, and spill prevention, most notably through the Superfund program. The act was intended to be comprehensive in encompassing both the prevention of, and response to, uncontrolled hazardous substances release. The act includes environmental response, providing mechanisms for reacting to emergencies and to chronic hazardous material releases. In addition to establishing procedures to prevent and remedy problems, it is also designed to plan for and respond to failure in other regulatory programs and to remedy problems resulting from action taken before the era of comprehensive regulatory protection.

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit The NPDES program regulates municipal, industrial, and construction stormwater discharges. The necessary NPDES permits required for project construction and operation are a Construction General Permit and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Construction activities that would be subject to the Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires completion and implementation of a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes a list of Best Management Practices (BMP) that would be implemented in order to prevent soil erosion and discharge of construction-related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water sources. The SWPPP would be implemented during construction at the site an d a copy of the SWPPP must be maintained onsite during construction. A WQMP is also required to be prepared for the Project, which includes BMPs to be implemented during post -construction operations for all phases of development within the Project site.

Item 2A - 101
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 49 January 2022
State
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
This agency regulates any aspect of healthcare waste management that involves worker safety. This includes sharps management (including approved sharps container storage) and how medical waste bags or containers are labeled, the requirements for storage of any medical waste, as well as standards in place that protect workers from exposure to blood-borne pathogens.

California Department of Public Health
To protect the public and the environment fro m potentially infectious disease-causing agents, the Medical Waste Management Program (Program), in the Environmental Management Branch, regulates the generation, handling, storage, treatment, and disposal of medical waste by providing oversight for the implementation of the Medical Waste Management Act (MWMA). The MWM A permits and inspects all medical waste offsite treatment facilities and medical waste transfer stations. In addition to the treatment methods specifically allowed in the MWMA, there are alternative medical waste treatment technologies approved for use in California.

Additionally, the MWMP acts as the local enforcement agency in a number of local jurisdictions that elected to have the State implement the large quantity generator inspection program for medical waste management.

California Health and Safety Code
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) has established rules governing the use of hazardous materials and the management of hazardous wastes. California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Sections 25531, et. seq. incorporates the requirements of Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act and the Clean Air Act as they pertain to hazardous materials.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
The State Water Resources Control Board provides technical assistance and evaluation for the underground storage tank program in addition to handling the oversight and enforcement for the aboveground storage tank program.

California Environmental Protection Agency Unified Program The California Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) oversees California’s Unified Program. This program protects Californians form hazardous waste and hazardous materials by ensuring that local regulatory agencies consistently apply statewide standards. This program also consolidates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities six environmental and emergency response programs.

Department of Toxic Substances Control
The Department of Toxic Sub stances Control (DTSC) provides technical assistance and evaluation for the hazardous waste generator program including onsite treatment (tiered permitting).

County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health
The Department of Environmental health is designated as the CUPA by CalEPA. The role of the CUPA is to assure consolidation, consistency, and coordination of the hazardous materials programs within the County. The Branch is responsible for inspecting facilities that handle hazardous materials, generate hazardous waste, treat hazardous waste, own/operate underground storage tanks, own/operat e aboveground petroleum storage tanks, or handle other materials subject to the California Accidental Release Program. In addition, the Branch Item 2A - 102
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 50 January 2022
maintains an emergency response team that responds to hazardous materials and other environmental health emergencies.

Hazardous Materials Business Plan
This business plan program regulates the storage and handling of hazardous materials through education, facility inspections and enforcement of State law. A Hazardous Materials Disclosure program requires the creation and maintenance of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) . It requires all handlers to disclose their inventory of hazardous materials and it is made available to first responders in the county for emergency response activities. A hazardous material handler is identified as any facility storing hazardous materials and/or waste in quantities greater than or equal to:
• 55 gallons of a liquid substance
• 500 pounds of a solid substance
• 200 cubic feet of compressed gas
Impacts

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

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions invo
lving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?

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

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

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

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

Item 2A - 103

3.9.3   ~ 
  ~ 
   ~
  ~ 
  ~ 
   ~
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 51 January 2022

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

a. Less than Significant Impact. Proposed construction activities for the development of the Project may involve the use and transport of hazardous materials, which include but not limited to fuels, gasoline, hydraulic fluid, lubricants, and other liquids associated with the operation of heavy equipment utilized for construction. Additionally, materials that are consistent with building constr uction would also be present on site and these materials may include paints, solvents, concrete, adhesives, roofing materials, and others. Additionally, transportation, storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local statues and regulations. This includes the preparation of a SWPPP that would outline specific BMPs that would be administered during the construction of the Project in order to prevent the discharge of construction-related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water sources. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA; 42 USC 6901 et seq.) would require businesses with substantial quantities of hazardous materials to adhere to strict requirements in regards to handlings, transportation, and storing of supplies. Furthermore, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq. protects against the risk to life, property, and the environment that are associated in the transportation of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. Upon completion of the proposed construction, all hazardous materials would be removed from the Project site. Therefore, with all ap plicable regulations in place, impacts associated with accidental release of hazardous substances during construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Long-term operations of the Project would involve limited use of substances typically associated with individual households. Typical materials would include paints, cleaning solvents, fertilizers, and motor oil. The Project would be required to comply with Federal, State, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, use, emission, and disposal of hazardous substances. With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project is not expected to pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine, transp ort, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

b. Less than Significant Impact. Accidents involving hazardous materials that could pose a signi ficant hazard to the public or the environment would be highly unlikely during the construction and long- term operation of the Proje ct and are not reasonably foreseeable. As discussed above under Section

3.9.3(a), the transport, use, and handling of hazardous materials on the Project site during construction is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater ri sk for upset and accidents than would occur on any other similar construction site. Upon buildout, the Project site would operate as a residential use. Based on the operational characteristics of residential uses, there is limited use of hazardous substanc es; however, as discussed above under Section 3.9.3(a), the Project Applicant would be required to com ply with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations related to the transport, handling, and usage of hazardous material. Accordingly, impacts as sociated with the Item 2A - 104
   ~
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 52 January 2022
accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant during both construction and long-term operation of the Project and no mitigation would be required.

c. No Impact. The nearest school is Palm Springs High School, which is located approximately 1 mile southwest of the Project site at 2401 E Baristo Road. The Project would not impact schools within 0.25- miles by emitting hazardous or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, the Project would have no impact and no mitigation is required.

d. Less than Significant Impact. According to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), there are no Federal Superfund sites within the vicinity of the Project site . All environmental cleanups and any permitted hazardous material facilities are listed in the Envirostor database, including Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Lability Act ( CERLA) sites as well.

Additionally, according to the California State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker, the Project site is not located within any cleanup sites. The nearest cleanup site is located approximately 3,680 feet to the east , which is the Palm Springs Army Air Field and had a potential contaminant of concern (explosives). The clean-up status on this site is inactive and needs evaluation as of July 1, 2005.

However, the Project is not located on a site that is listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Thus, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.

e. Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located approximately 1 mile from the Palm Springs International Airport. According to the General Plan’s Safety Element Figure 6-8, Airport Compatibility Plan, the Project site is located in Zone C and the Extended Approach/Departure Zone. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan provides Basic Compatibility Criteria, which include s such considerations such as the prohibition of tall structures, hazardous materials storage, siting of high - occupancy buildings and facilities, and c riteria infrastructure within compatibility zones, as well as limits on dwelling units per acre. The residential use proposed by the Project is permitted in Zone C by the 2005 Palm Springs International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and would therefore be consistent with the ALUCP. The Project would not interfere with flight operations at the Palm Springs International Airport. The Project would not result in safety hazards for people residing or working in the Project area. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

f. No Impact. As previously mentioned in Section 3.20.3(a), the City has developed the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), a multi-hazard document that addresses the City’s planned response and short- term rec overy to extraordinary emergency situation that are associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The Project would adhere to any applicable mitigation strategies listed within the EOP to assure that the P roject would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuatio n plan. Therefore, the Project would have no impact and no mitigation is required.

g. No Impact. No wildlands are located in the vicinity of the Project site and the Project site is not located within a fire hazard severity zone . The Project site is located in an urban area of the City , which is surrounded by residential and commercial uses. The nearest wildland to the Project site is the San Jacinto Mountains, which is approximately 2.1 miles to the west of the Project site. Based on the urban location of the Project site and lack of wildland in the Project vicinity, t he development of the Project would not expose people or structures to wildland fires . Therefore, no impact would occur and n o mitigation is required.

Item 2A - 105
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 53 January 2022
Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Sources
The following sources were utilized to support the conclusions made in this section:
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, 2007.
• Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group, 2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater Resource Plan, December 2018. • City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Recreation, Open Space, and Conservation Element, 2007 • Coachella Valley Water District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2020 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located within the north-central portion of the City of Palm Springs, at the north side of E .

Alejo Road and between N. Commercial Road and N. Juanita Drive. The Project site consists of approximately

2.53 acres, and the area is relatively flat and entirely un developed. The existing and surrounding land uses at the Project site are provided in Section 1.2.

Impacts

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

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

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

c.i.) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-site;
Item 2A - 106

3.9.4 3.9.5

3.10 3.10.1

3.10 .2

3.10.3 


 ~ 
 ~ 
 ~ 
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 54 January 2022

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c.ii.) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;

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

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

a. Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater regulations for construction which are required when there is a soil disturbance of more than one acre. The Applicant will be required to com ply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the NPDES permit for municipal, construction, and industrial activities as outlined by the California State Water Resources Control Board or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Colorado River Basin – Region 7). A project specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must also be prepared to determine and describe the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented on the Project site . The Project would be required to meet all applicable water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, thus avoiding any violation of such standards or requirements.

There are three groundwater subbasins: Whitewater River, Missions Creek, and Indio that serve the Palm Springs area. According to the General Plan, since the 1900’s and leading through today, depletion of groundwater basins has been accelerating since the expansion of agricultural activities.

Consequently, groundwater demand exceeds available recharge and in turn causing an “overdraft”. To ensure water availability, Coachella Valley water agencies contract with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to exchange their water entitlement from the State Water Project for like amounts from the Colorado River. Water is diverted and percolates into the Whitewater Subbasin via MWD’s aqueduct that crosses the Whitewater River. The mentioned agreement is intended to assure adequate water supplies through the year 2035. Furthermore, the aforementioned water agencies are required to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years. This plan helps set forth a program to meet water demands during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The UWMP helps to ensure that water supplies are being planned for and meet future gro wth. The 2020 UWMP determined that adequate water supplies would be available to serve existing service areas through the year 2040. As such, since the Project site is within the City’s existing service area and has been accounted for within these water projections, the proposed Project would be consistent with the 2020 UWMP and would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies. Therefore, impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Item 2A - 107
  ~ 
  ~ 
  ~     ~
  ~ 
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 55 January 2022
The Project will connect to existing sewer lines loca ted in the immediate Project vicinity. Wastewater will be transported to and processed at the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. The City contracts with Veolia North America (Veolia) for operation of the wastewater treatment plant, and Veolia implements all requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board which pertain to water quality and wastewater discharge. Adherence to all NPDES regulations will minimize any pollutants associated with urban runoff to a less than significant level. Therefore, with implementation of all applicable NPDES regulations, impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

b. Less than Significant Impact. The primary source of water in the Coachella Valley is groundwater extracted by deep wells and replenished with Colorado River Water. The Desert Water Agency (DWA) will provide domestic water service to the Project and is a participant in the Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group that prepared an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (WMP) in 2018. The 2018 Integrated Regional WMP determined that long-term regiona l demand for potable water is expected to increase; however, with continued conservation measures and replenishment of groundwater, sufficient supplies will be available to meet the projected demand. As such, Project water demands have already been accounted for within the 2018 Integrated Regional WMP and sufficient water supplies exist to serve the Project.

At Project buildout, water will be required to serve the needs of the proposed development of eight single-family homes. The Project will connect to existing water lines on N. Juanita Drive, and E . Alejo Road. No new wells or additional water infrastructure are proposed. The Project will be required to comply with the DWA’s and the City’s water -efficiency requirements, such as including the use of drought-tolerant planting materials and limited landscaping irrigation. The Project will also be required to comply with the DWA’s drought restrictions and water reduction measures as applicable. Therefore, compliance and implementation of DWA and City requirements would ensure that the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

c. i-iv. Less than Significant Impact. Prior to development of the Project site, the City will review and approve the proposed civil plans to ensure the proposed development is in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.70.100, which requires the Project to retain the runoff volume from a 100 -year, 24- hour storm event for the entire Project site.

Future development on the Project site will require preparation of a WQMP, which will include BMPs, both of which are requirements for the City’s NPDES implementation. The implementation of BMPs will allow for the reduction in pollutants of concern and help reduce the impacts both short and long term of water quality during the construction and operation of the Project. The implement ation of BMPs consistent with the P roject specific WQMP as well as compliance with City requirements will ensure the design of the Project will not result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The Project would result in a less than significant impact to downstream water bodies. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

d. No Impact. The Project site is located within Zone X (unshaded), which is an area of minimal flood hazard and not within the 100 -year nor 500-yea r flood plain . Furthermore, the Project site is not located within the vicinity of a water body. Due to the Project site location being a significant distance from the ocean and from any lakes or dams, there is no possibility of dam failure, tsunami or seiche.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation is required.

Item 2A - 108
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 56 January 2022

e. Less than Significant Impact. As described in Section 2.10.3 (b), Project water demand has already been accounted for in the 2018 Integrated Regional WMP and sufficient water supplies exist to serve the Project. The Project will adhere to all applicable water quality standards and will implement a Project specific WQMP approved by the City and the Regiona l Water Quality Control Board for both construction and operational activities. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance
Not applicable.

Land Use and Planning
Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Land Use Element, 2007.

Environmental Setting
The Project site is located in the northern region of the Coachella Valley within the City of Palm Springs, at the north side of E. Alejo Road and between N. Commercial Road and N. Juanita Drive. As shown in Exhibit 2 , Project Vicinity Map, the Project site is surrounded by residential uses to the west and commercial uses to the north, south, and east. The Project site is currently designated as “ Industrial” under the City’s 2014 General Plan map and it is located within the Planned Research and Development Park Zone (M-1P) , per the C ity’s Official Zoning Map, and it is proposed to be rezoned to Very Low Density Residential and Single -Family Residential, respectively. Land use designations surrounding the Project site include Industrial to the north and east, Very Low Density Residential to the west, and Public/Quasi-Public to the south.

Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

a. No Impact. The Project site is located on two vacant parcels in an urbanize d area of the City . The Project site is surrounded by both residential uses and commercial uses and is bounded by North Juanita Drive to the west and East Alejo Road to the south. As seen in Exhibit 2 – Project Vicinity Map, Item 2A - 109

3.10.4 3.10.5

3.11 3.11.1

3.11.2 3.11.3


  rgJ
 rgJ 
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 57 January 2022
the development of the Project would occur on an already developed area in the City of Palm Springs.

The Project is located in the center of the City surrounded by adjacent residential development and would not physically divide any of the established surrounding communities. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.

b. Less than Significant Imp act. As previously mentioned, the Applicant has applie d for a GPA and a Change of Zone. The GPA application requests that the Land Use designation for the entire Project site be changed to Very Low Density Residential from its original designation of Industrial, and a Change of Zone to Single-Family Residential from its original designation of Planned Research and Development Park. Approval of the GPA and Change of Zone would inherently create consistency with the City’s General Plan land use designation and zoning designation.

Prior to development of the Project site, the City would review and approve the proposed architectural plans to ensure the proposed development meets the City’s development standards for the Very Low Density Residential land us e designation and Single- Family Residential zone. Therefore, t he P roject would be developed in accordance with the proposed General Plan land use designation ( Very Low Density Residential) and would comply with all applicable policies contained in the General Plan as well as all applicable development regulations/development standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance.

Accordingly, approval of the GPA and Change of Zone would inherently create consistency wi th the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not cause significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

Mineral Resources
Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Recreation, Open Space and Conservation Element, 2007 Environmental Setting
The City’s primary mineral resources are sand and gravel, collectively referred to as aggregate, which is used for asphalt, concrete, road base, stucco, plaster, and other similar construction materials. The northern portion of the City has been classified an MRZ-3 zone. Per the City’s General Plan, (Figure 5-3, page 39), the Project site is located in MRZ-3, which indicates it is located in an area containing mineral deposits, with the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data.

Item 2A - 110

3.11.4 3.11.5

3.12 3.12.1

3.12.2 2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 58 January 2022
Impacts

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

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

a. No Impact. The California Geological Survey classifies Mineral Resources Zones (MRZs) within a region according to the following: MRZ-1, MRZ-2, MRZ-3, and MRZ-4. Per the City’s General Plan (Figure 5-3, page 39) the Project site is located in MRZ-3, which indicates it is located in an area containing mineral deposits, with the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data . The Project site is designated as Industrial under the City’s 2014 General Plan map and is located within the Planned Research and Development Park Zone, per the City’s Official Zoning Map. The proposed designation and zone is Very Low Density Residential and Single -Family Residential, respectively . Neither the existing nor proposed land use designations allows for mineral production. No portion of the Project site is designated for mineral land uses. Furthermore, if a potential mineral extraction operation were to be located within the Project site, it would be incompatible both with the land use designation and surrounding land uses. Therefore, development of the Project would result in a less -than-significant impact relating to mineral resources and no mitigation is required.

b. No Impact. Refer to Section 3.12.3(a), above. Implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

Noise
Sources
• 2700 East Alejo Road Residential Project Focused Noise Analysis, Ganddini Group, 2021 (Appendix C).

Environmental Setting
Noise
Item 2A - 111

3.12.3 3.12.4

3.12.5 3.13

3.13.1 3.13 .2


  ~
  ~
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 59 January 2022
Noise has been defined as an unwanted sound. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known a s a decibel (dB). A-weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear.

Vibration
According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment Manual, vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure -borne noise. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural or human made causes. In addition, vibration sources may be continuous , such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions.

There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings. Human body responds to average vibration amplitude often described as the root mean square (RMS). The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with di stance from the source of the vibration. More detailed information regarding vibration can be found in the Noise Analysis (Appendix C) of this document.

Impacts

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

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

Item 2A - 112

3.13.3   ~ 
  ~ 
  ~ 
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 60 January 2022
a. Less than Significant Impact. Project construction noise would occur due to the use of equipment that includes a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment is expected to occur in in stages such as site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating.

To describe the Project construction noise levels, measurements were collected for similar activities at several construction sites. Since the reference noise levels were collected at varying distances, all construction noise level measurements presented in Table 4 of the Noise Impact Analysis , have been adjusted to describe a uniform reference distance of 50 feet.

Construction Noise Analysis
Per the Noise Impact Analysis, the stages of construction, the noise impacts associated with the Project are expected to create temporarily high noise levels at the nearby receiver locations. In order to assess the worst -case construction noise levels, this analysis shows the highest noise impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level is operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity to each receiver location. Table 4 of Noise Impact Analysis, provides a summary of the construction noise levels by stage at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations.

Construction Noise Level Compliance
As seen in the referenced table above, the highest construction noise levels will occur when construction activities take place at the closest point from primary Project construction activity to each of the nearby receiver locations. As seen in Table 9, below, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 60.9 to 75.4 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. The construction noise levels will satisfy the FTA 80 dBA Leq residential significance threshold and 85 dBA Leq commercial significance threshold during Project construction activities . Therefore, the noise impact due to unmitigated Project construction noise level is less than significant at all nearby sensitive receiver locations.

Furthermore, with compliance to the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.04.220, it is assumed that construction would not occur during the noise-sensitive nighttime hours.

Construction Equipment Noise Level Compliance
Phase
Receptor
Location
Existing
Ambient
Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)
Construction
Noise Levels
(dBA Leq)
Combined
Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq) Increase (dB)
Grading
West 58.9 75.2 75.3 16.4
Southwest 54.2 70.4 70.5 16.3
North 57.1 74.1 74.2 17.1
East 57.1 75.3 75.4 18.3
South 53.2 71.4 71.5 18.3
Building
Construction
West 58.9 72.2 72.4 13.5
Southwest 54.2 67.4 67.6 13.4
North 57.1 71.0 71.2 14.1
East 57.1 72.3 72.4 15.3
South 53.2 68.4 68.5 15.3
Item 2A - 113
Table 9
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 61 January 2022
Paving
West 58.9 74.1 74.2 15.3
Southwest 54.2 69.4 69.5 15.3
North 57.1 73.0 73.1 16.0
East 57.1 74.2 74.3 17.2
South 53.2 70.4 70.5 17.3
Architectural
Coating
West 58.9 64.7 65.7 6.8
Southwest 54.2 59.9 60.9 6.7
North 57.1 63.5 64.4 7.3
East 57.1 64.8 65.5 8.4
South 53.2 60.9 61.6 8.4
Notes:
(1) Construction noise worksheets are provided in Appendix D. (2) Per measured existing ambient noise levels. STNM1 was used for receptors to the west, STNM2 for receptors to the south and southwest, and STNM3 was used for receptors to the north and east.

Off-Site Traffic Noise Analysis
Traffic generated by the operation of the P roject will influence traffic noise levels in surrounding off - site areas. As previously mentioned, the Project is exempt from preparing either a Traffic Impact Analysis or Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis per Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10
th Edition (September 2017), the Project is anticipated to generate approximately 76 vehicle trips per day on weekdays and Saturdays and approximately 68 vehicle trips per day on Sundays. Typically a doubling of traffic volumes is required to result in an increase of 3 dBA, which is considered to be a barely audible change. Project -generated trips would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes along any affected road segment. Therefore, noise impacts to off-site receptors due to Project-generated trips would be less than significant and mitigation is not required.

On-Site Traffic Noise Analysis
Noise contours were used to assess impacts to the proposed Project from future traffic noise levels .

The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA noise levels. The noise contours do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topogra phy that may attenuate ambient noise levels. In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the Project study area. As shown on Figure 5 of Noise Impact Analysis, future noise levels are expected to reach 65 dBA CNEL at the closest portion of the proposed lot pads (Lots 4 and 8). Future traffic noise levels would not exceed the City’s “conditionally acceptable” noise standard of 70 dBA CNEL for exterior use areas for residential land uses and no mitigation is required. Typical new residential construction provides approximately 20 dBA of exterior to interior noise reduction with a windows closed condition. With installation of windows and sliding glass doors that have an STC level of at least 23, and with provision of heating and ventilation (HVAC) units, interior noise levels of proposed residential buildings are not expected to exceed 45 dBA CNEL. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

b. Less than Significant. The Project does not propose or require uses or activities that would be considered substantive sources of on -going vibration. Temporary vibration that may result from Item 2A - 114
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 62 January 2022
Project construction activities are exempt from Development Code vibration level standards (Development Code Section 17.66.050 D. 4).

For the purposes of this analysis, and to substantiate whether the Project would result in “exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels,” applicable criteria developed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) were employed. The Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual indicates that received vibration levels of 0.10 Peak Particle Veloc ity (PPV) (equal to 0.071 Root Mean Square Amplitude [RMS]) could be strongly perceptible (Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans) September 2013, p. 38). For the purposes of this analysis, received vibration levels exceeding

0.10 PPV (0.071 RMS) would be considered potentially significant.

Groundborne vibration levels resulting from construction activities o ccurring within the Project site were estimate d by data pu blished by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Typical Project construction equipment would generate vibration levels of 0.003 PPV (small bulldozer) to 0 .089 PPV (larger bulldozer) as measured at 25 feet. As with received noise levels, received vibration levels attenuate with distance. In general, manmade ground-borne vibrations attenuate rapidly with distance from the source.

Heavy construction equipment could temporarily and intermittent ly operate within 50 feet of the nearest residential land uses (located northerly and westerly of the Project site). However, even at 25 feet, the maximum anticipated received vibration level (0.089 PPV) would not exceed the 0.10 PPV threshold condition. At distances approximating 50 feet, these vibration levels would be further reduced.

Based on the preceding discussions, there is little (if any) potential for the Project to result in or cause exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. This potential impact is therefore considered less-than-significant.

c. Less than Significant Impact. The Palm Springs Airport is located approximately 0.18 miles north east of the Project site. Per the City of Palm Springs General Plan Airport Compatibility Plan, the Project site is within Compatibility Zone C. Furthermore, the noise compatibility contours provided in the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (RCALUCP) show that the Project site is just outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour for the Pa lm Springs International Airport. The R CALUCP requires that any new single-family residential developments proposed within any Compatibility Zone other than Zone E must include the following measures intended to ensure that prospective buyers or renters are informed of the presence of aircraft overflights:

• During initial sales of properties within newly created subdivisions, large airport -related informational signs shall be installed and maintained by the developer. These signs shall be installed in conspicuous locations and shall clearly depict the proximity of the property to the airport and aircraft traffic patterns.
• An informational brochure shall be provided to prospective buyers or renters showing the locations of aircraft flight patterns. The frequency of overflights, the typical altitudes of the aircraft, and the range of noise levels that can be expected from individual aircraft overflights shall be described.

Item 2A - 115
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 63 January 2022
Therefore, although the P roject is within 0.18 miles of a public airport, the P roject would not expose people residing or working in the P roject area to excessive noise levels associated with airports , and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

Population and Housing
Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Housing Element, Palm Springs, 2007 (update 2014). • Southern California Association of Governments Regional Council, Profile of the City of Palm Springs , 2019. Accessed on June 7, 2021, <https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/PalmSprings.pdf>.

Environmental Setting
Based upon the 2000 Decennial Census, the City of Palm Springs had a population of 42,805 in 2000, and the population increased to an estimated 47,706 people in 2018. The number of households in 2000 was 20,515 and 23,390 by 2018. The average household size in 2018 was 2.0 persons per household, whereas 61.4% were single family homes and 32.6% were multi-family homes out of a total of 35,737 housing units.

Impacts

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

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

a. Less than Significant Impact. The Project pr oposes the future development of eight single-family residences on 2.53 acres of undeveloped land. This only leads to a negligible increase in population and is consistent with current population growth projections. Furthermore, the Project is located within existing urban development located in all directions of the Project site and will be accessible via existing roads and infrastructure. No roads or infrastructure would need to be extended to serve the Project. Because the anticipated increase in population based on the proposed residences would be negligible (and within current population growth projections), and induced population growth is also Item 2A - 116

3.13.4 3.13.5

3.14 3.14.1

3.14 .2

3.14.3  
 
~ 
 ~
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 64 January 2022
expected to be negligible . Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

b. No Impact. The future development of the eight single-family residences will take place on two vacant parcels. No existing structures or housing will be eliminated as a result of the P roject and is not expected to displace any current residents . Instead, the Project will accommodate housing that is needed by the growing population. Therefore, there would be no impacts, relating to the displacement of people or housing, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

Public Services
Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Safety Element, 2007 • City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Recreation, Open Space and Conservation Element, 2007 • Palm Springs Unified School District , 2019 CBEDS Report , 2019. Accessed on June 7 , 2021, https://www.psusd.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=6972&dataid=1386 0&FileName=2019%20CBEDS%20REPORT.pdf
Environmental Setting
Fire Protection Services
The Palm Springs Fire Department provides for fire, paramedic, and emergency services within the corporate boundaries of the City and through mutual agreements in the SOI, protecting 96 square miles of the Palm Springs area. Firefighting resources include five (5) fire stations located throughout the City with a goal that the response time to any resident is under five minutes. There are a total of 18 o n-duty firefighter personnel during a 24-hour period.

Police Protection Services
The Palm Springs Police Department offers response service, criminal investigation, traffic enforcement, and preventive patrol for the City. The departments consist of two divisions, Operations and Services, employing 88 sworn and 59 nonsworn personnel. Operations include patrol, jail, and airport operations. Services include investigation, records, animal control, and communications. Additionally, the Citizens on Patrol (COP) Program extensively trains volunteers in areas such as traffic control, safe patrol techniques, CPR, and first aid. The Department’s Community Policing Program also operates the Citizen’s Police Academy and the volunteer - based horseback Mounted Enforcement Unit.

Schools
The Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD) provides educational services for grades K -12 in the City of Palm Springs. Currently, there are 16 elementary schools, five middle schools , four high schools, and two Item 2A - 117

3.14.4 3.14.5

3.15 3.15.1

3.15.2 2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 65 January 2022
continuation schools in the City. PSUSD receives funding from school facilities fees, state funding, and local funding. PSUSD is authorized to collect school facilities fees as provided for in Government Code Section 53080 et. seq. and 65995 et seq. in the amount of $4.08 per square foot of residential development.

Parks
Palm Springs owns and maintains 156 acres of developed parkland and 160 acres of City -owned golf courses open to the public, as well as miles of developed greenbelts along major thoroughfares throughout the Ci ty.

The City categorizes parks as the following: local parks, specialty parks, community parks, and neighborhood parks. Additionally, the City contains a total of 1,517 acres of dedicated open space.

Impacts

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

PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:

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

a-i. Less than Significant Impact. The Palm Springs Fire Department provides fire protection services to the Project site and surrounding area. The nearest Palm Springs Fire Department Fire Station (No. 442) is located at 300 El Cielo Road, approximately 0.7 mile southeast from the Project site . Based on the Project site ’s proximity to the existing fire station, the Project would be adequately served by fire protection services, and no new or expanded unplanned facilities would be required. Additionally, the Project would feature fire safety and fire suppression activities, including type of building construction, fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, and paved access. The Palm Springs Fire Department will review and approve project plans to ensure all applicable fire standards and regulations are met. Therefore, impacts associated with fire protection services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

a-ii. Less than Significant Impact. The Palm Springs Police Department provides police protection services to the Project site and surrounding area. The Palm Springs Police Department is located at 200 S. Civic Drive, which is located approximately 1 mile southeast from the Project site. Based on the Project site’s proximity to the existing police station, the Project would be adequately served by police protection services, and no new or expanded unplanned facilities would be required. The Palm Springs Police Item 2A - 118

3.15.3   ~    ~    ~    ~    ~ 
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 66 January 2022
Department will review and approve project plans to ensure all applicable police standards and regulations are met. Therefore, impacts associated with police protection services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

a-iii. Less than Significant Impact . The nearest school is Palm Springs High School, which is located approximately 1 mile south of the Project site at 2401 E Baristo Road. The addition of the future eight single-family residences would not significantly increase the number of students within nearby schools.

The Project is required to pay the State mandated school impact fees, which would assist in mitigating impacts to schools. Therefore, this fee would assure that impacts would be less than significant levels and no mitigation is required.

a-iv. Less than Significant Impact. The City of Palm Springs requires new developments to dedicate land for recreational purposes or pay in -lieu fees. The Project would result in a negligible population increase and a negligible demand for park facilities. Therefore, this fee will assure that the impacts to City parks would be less than significant levels and no mitigation is required.

a-v. Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in less -than-significant impacts to other public facilities. It is not expected that the Project would result in an increase in population that would require the provision of additional public facilities within the City of Palm Springs. Access to the Project is provided by existing roads and will connect to existing utility infrastructure. New public roads or public transportation facilities, or other public facilities, are not required. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

Recreation
Sources
• City of Palm Springs Recreation, Open Space and Conservation Element, Palm Springs General Plan, 2007
Environmental Setting
The City owns and maintains 156 acres of developed parkland, 160 acres of City -owned golf courses open to the public, as well as miles of developed greenbelts along major thoroughfares throughout the City. The City is also home to private ly owned golf courses, many of which are also open to the public. These parks and recreational areas contain an array of amenities. The Whitewater Wilderness Study Area and the Murray, Andreas, and Palm Canyon recreation areas, which are operated by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, are also located within City limits.

Item 2A - 119

3.15.4 3.15.5

3.16 3.16.1

3.16.2 2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 67 January 2022
Impacts

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

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

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

a-b. Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in a negligible population increase and a negligible demand for park facilities. Based on the population generation factor of 2.0 persons per household from the 2007 General Plan, the future eight single-family residences would result in a less- than-significant impact to the City’s existing recreational facilities. There i s a low potential for the Project to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur, as well as a low potential for construction or expansion of recreational facilities which may have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on recreational facilities within the City and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

Transportation and Traffic
Sources
• 2700 East Alejo Road Residential Project Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum , Ganddini Group, Inc., May 19, 2021 (Appendix A).
• City of Palm Springs, City of Palm Springs Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, July 2020 Environmental Setting
The Project proposes the development of eight single-family residences in Palm Springs. The Project is exempt from preparing either a Traffic Impact Analysis or Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis because the Project would generate less than 100 peak hour trips and proposes less than 11 single-family housing units per the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines.

Item 2A - 120

3.16.3 3.16.4

3.16.5 3.17

3.17.1 3.17.2


 ~ 
 ~ 
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 68 January 2022
Impacts

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

b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?

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

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

a. Less than Significant Impact.

Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum (Appendix A) utilized the trip generation rates for single-family residential dwelling units provided in the Institute of Engineers Trip Generation Manual 10 th Edition (September 2017). As shown in the modeling conducted for the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum, through use of the ITE trip generation rates, the Project is an ticipated to generate approximately 76 vehicle trips per day on weekdays and Saturdays and approximately 68 vehicle trips per day on Sundays. Pursuant to the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, projects that generate 100 or less daily trips are not required to prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis that includes L evel of Service (LOS) analysis and would therefore not result in substantial adverse effects on the circulation system. Because the Proje ct would generate less than 100 daily trips, the Project would not conflict with City policy addressing the circulation system and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

b. Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 sets forth guidelines for implementing Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) for reduction of GHG emissions and development of multimodal transportation networks. SB 743 requires amendments to the CEQA Guidelines to provide for an alternative criteria to the LOS methodology for evaluating transportation impacts. Generally, “vehicle miles travelled” or VMT is considered as the most appropriate measurement of transportation impacts. VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.

The Project’s traffic was evaluated against screening criteria to determine if it could clearly be determined that the Project would not generate substantial VMT and therefore be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), or if additional analysis was needed to determine the significance of Project-related VMT. The screening criteria used in the Project analysis are established in the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines . Pursuant to the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines , residential development of 11 single-family homes (generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips) are considered to have a less-than -significant impact related to VMT. As noted in Section 2.17.3(a), the Project is Item 2A - 121

3.17.3   ~ 
  ~ 
  ~ 
  ~ 
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 69 January 2022
calculated to generate approximately 76 vehicle trips per day o n weekdays and Saturdays and approximately 68 vehicle trips per day on Sundays, and therefore would result in a less-than-significant impact related to VMT. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not generate excessive VMT and therefore would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). No mitigation is required.

c. Less than Significant. The types of traffic generated from the Project (i.e., passenger cars) would be compatible with the type of traffic observed along roadways within the Project vicinity under existing conditions. In addition, prior to development of the Project site, the City will review and approve the proposed architectural plans to ensure all proposed improvements within the public right -of-way would be installed in conformance with City design standards and that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced through implementation of the Project. In addition the Riverside County Fire Department, City Fire Services, and the City Pol ice Department will review the proposed site plan to ensure that all safety design features and geometric design are compliant with existing standards prior to final Project approval. Accordingly, the Project would not create or substantially increase safe ty hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

d. Less than Significant . The Riverside County Fire Department, City Fire Services, and the City Police Department will review the proposed site plan to ensure that all safety design features and measures related to emergency access and geometric design are compliant with existing standards prior to final Project approval. Accordingly, the Project would not create or substantially i ncrease safety hazards due to inadequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Sources
• CRM TECH, Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Tentative Parcel Map No. 38049 , September 21, 2021. (Appendix B)
Environmental Setting
On April 29, 2021, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission’s Sacred Lands File. The NAHC reported in a letter dated May 14, 2021, that the results of the Sacred Lands File search were positive for tribal cultural resources in the Project vicinity and recommended contacting the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians for further information. On May 18, 2021, an email inquiry was sent to Chairperson Ray Chapparosa of the Los Coyotes Band, but no response has been received to date. Prior to the field sur vey, CRM TECH notified Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and invited tribal participated. Despite close coordination with Andreas Item 2A - 122

3.17.4 3.17.5

3.18 3.18.1

3.18.2 2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 70 January 2022
Heredia, the cultural resources coordinator for the Agua Caliente Band, in subsequent telephone contacts, Mr.

Heredia was unable to participate in the survey on the scheduled date

Human history within the Coachella Valley, including areas of present day Palm Springs, dates back to the earliest civilization of the Cahuilla people, whose culture is present today. It was approximately 2000 years ago when the Cahuilla Indians first occupied the land that is now the Palm Springs area. Complex communities were developed in Palm, Murray, Andreas, Tahquitz, and Chino Canyons where the Cahuilla Indians managed hundreds of plant resou rces. Today the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Reservation encompasses a checkerboard of land within the City of Palm Springs.

Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:

a) 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

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lea
d agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

a. No Impact. As previously discussed in Section 2.5.3 (a) and (b) , CRM TECH observed two concrete foundation remains – one on the northern portion of the site and one on the southern portion of the site. These foundation remains are from demolished barrack buildings that were once part of the World War II-era Palm Springs Army Airfield. Without any character-defining features of their property type or the essential aspects of historic integrity, the foundations at Site CRM TECH 3733 -1H do not meet these requirements. Based on these considerations, the current study concludes that Site CRM TECH 3733-1H does not appear eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, and thus does not meet CEQA’s definition of a “historical resource.” The mitigation measures established in Section 2.5, Cultural Resources, will be applied to Section 2.18, Tribal Resources, to ensure the Item 2A - 123

3.18.3    ~
 ~  
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 71 January 2022
protection of historical and archaeological resources . Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.

b. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Sacred Lands File Search, the site was found positive for tribal cultural resources in the Project vicinity and recommended contacting the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians for further information . On May 18, 2021, an email inquiry was sent to Chairperson Ray Chappar osa of the Los Coyotes Band, but no response has been received to date. Prior to the field survey, CRM TECH notified Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and invited tribal participated. Despite close coordination with Andreas Heredia, the cultural resources coordinator for the Agua Caliente Band, in subsequent telephone contacts, Mr.

Heredia was unable to participate in the survey on the scheduled date. D ue to the site being located within an area where there is possibility for tribal cultural resources , incorporation of mitigation measure TBL -1 as conditioned by the City would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Implementation of TBL-1 would ensure consultation with the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in complete and written approval is obtained from the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians prior to any ground disturbing activities. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significan t with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation
TBL-1 The following mitigation measure has been conditioned by the City of Palm Springs regarding Tribal Cultural Resources:
• Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall obtain written approval to pr oceed with construction from the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist. The applicant shall contact the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or the Tribal Archaeologist at (760) 699-6800, to determine their requirements, if any, associated with grading or other construction. The applicant is advised to contact the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist as early as possible. If required, it is the responsibility of the applicant to coordination scheduling of Tribal monitors during grading or other construction, and to arrange payment of any required fees associated with Tribal monitoring.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure TBL-1, impacts regarding Tribal Cultural Resources would remain less than significant.

Utilities and Services
Sources
• County of Riverside, County of Riverside General Plan Environmental Impact Report No. 521 , Water Resources, 2015
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Safety Element, 2007 • City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Recreation, Open Space and Conservation Element, 2007 • Desert Water Agency, Urban Water Management Plan, 2020 • CalRecycle, SWIS Facility Detail, 2020
• Riverside County Planning Department, Map My County, 2021 Item 2A - 124

3.18.4 3.18.5

3.19 3.19.1
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 72 January 2022
• Waste Water Treatment Plant, City of Palm Springs website. Accessed at https://www.palmspringsca.gov/government/departments/public-works-engineering/waste- water-treatment-plant. Accessed on June 8, 2021.

Environmental Setting
Domestic Water
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) provide water to the City of Palm Springs. There are three (3) groundwater subbasins: 1) Whitewater River, 2) Mission Creek, and 3) Indio, which are located within the City and planning area. In recent years, groundwater demand exceeds available recharge and this has caused an “overdraft”. Additionally, Coachella Valley water agencies contract with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to exchange their water entitlement from the State Water Project for like amounts from the Colorado River.

Waste Water
Veolia Water North America is the waste water treatment plant currently operating in the City of Palm Springs.

The Waste Water Treatment Plant is responsible for removing contaminants from sewage waste water. The plant is located at 4375 E Mesquite Avenue.

Solid Waste
The Palm Springs Disposal Services provides solid waste services to the City. Solid waste generated by the City is sent to Edom Hill Transfer Station located in the City of Cathedral City. The transfer station is an 8-acre facility operated by Waste Management Inc. and is permitted to receive 2,600 tons per day. Solid waste from the transfer station is disposed of at three landfills: Lamb Canyon Landfill, Badlands Landfill, and El Sobrante Landfill.

Flood Management
The City is susceptible to flash flooding due to the steepness of local mountains and the presence of rock types that are fairly impervious. Portions of the City are susceptible to storm -induced flooding of the Whitewater River and other drainages that extend across the City. The Project site is not found within a flood hazard zone.

Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
Item 2A - 125

3.19.2 3.19.3
  ~ 
  ~ 
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 73 January 2022

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?

e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

a. Less than Significant Impact. Water demand associated with the proposed Project would consist of interior plumbing devices in the homes (i.e., sinks, toilets, faucets) as well as outdoor landscape irrigation. The Project’s water, sewer, and storm drain lines would be connected to existing lines beneath N Juanita Drive and/or E Alejo Road; therefore, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage systems. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

b. Less than Significant Impact. DWA provides domestic water services to the Project site.

Implementation of the Project’s construction would require water at a rate of 1.01 acre -feet per year per dwelling unit for residential uses. As the Project would include the development of eight dwelling units, the Project would require approximately 8.08 acre-feet of water per year. The Project water demands amount to an increase of approximately 0.02 percent of the total water demand within the Desert Water Agency (36,228) in the year 2025. Imple mentation of the Project would result in a marginal increase in water demand within the Desert Water Agency service area; however, as displayed in the Desert Water Agency Urban Water Management Plan, the district has sufficient water supplies serve to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.

Additionally, the Project will be required to implement all water conservation measures imposed by DWA under normal as well as drought conditions over the life of the Project. These include requirements of Executive Order B-29-15, mandating reductions in water use by 36% in the Coachella Valley. DWA has, in response to the Executive Order, adopted restrictions on water use that include limiting days on w hich landscaping can be irrigated; a prohibition on the use of fountains or water features; a prohibition on irrigation by any means other than drip or micro -spray systems; and a requirement that hotels offer their guests the option of not having towels and linens laundered daily.

Should additional restrictions or regulations be implemented, the Project shall be required to comply with them also. Therefore, the Project would have a less -than-significant impact and no mitigation is required.

Item 2A - 126
  ~ 
  ~ 
  ~ 
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 74 January 2022
c. Less than Signif icant Impact. Wastewater generated from the Project site would be treated at the Palm Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant. Implementation of the Project would generate wastewater at a rate of 230 gallons per day per dwelling unit. As the Project includes the development of eight dwelling units, the Project would generate approximately 1,840 gallons per day of wastewater. As the Palm Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant has a treatment capacity of 10 million gallons of wastewater per day, implementation of the Project would result in an approximately 0.02 percent of the total capacity of wastewater treated at the plant. This increase is considered minimal as the plant currently treats approximately 6 million gallons of wastewater per day and would not result in a significant impact.

The Project would tie into existing sanitary sewer lines located on N Juanita Drive and E Alejo Road, and wastewater would be transported to Palm Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant. Palm Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant implements all applicable requirement of the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board, and no violations of wastewater treatment requirements are anticipated. Therefore, the Project would have a less -than-significant impact and no mitigation is required.

d. Less than Significant Impact . Facility operators include PSDS, Burrtec, and Riverside County Waste Management, which are required to meet all local, regional, state, and federal standards for solid waste disposal. Implementation of the Project would generate solid waste at a rate of 0.41 tons per dwelling unit per year. As the Project includes the development of eight (8) dwelling units, the Project would generate approximately 3.28 tons of solid waste per year.

Solid waste generated at the Project site would be transported to the Edom Hill Transfer Station in northern Cathedral City and disposed at one of three regional landfills: 1) Lamb Canyon Landfill in Beaumont, which has a remaining capacity of 19.2 million cubic yards (2015), 2) Badlands Land fill in Moreno Valley, with a remaining capacity of 15.7 million cubic yards (2015), and 3) El Sobrante Landfill in Corona, with a remaining capacity of 143.9 million cubic yards (2018). Each landfill has available capacity to serve additional development. Facility operators, including PSDS, Burrtec, and Riverside County Waste Management, are required to meet all local, regional, state, and federal standards for solid waste disposal. Based on the foregoing analysis, the landfills that serve the Project site have sufficient capacity to serve the Project and the impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

e. Less than Significant Impact. The California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), signed into law in 1989, established an inte grated waste management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. In addition, the bill established a 50 percent waste reduction requirement for cities and counties by the year 2000, along with a process to ensure environmentally safe disposal of waste that could not be diverted. Per the requirements of the Integrated Waste Management Act, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted the County of Riverside Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP), which outlines the goals, policies, and programs the County and its cities implement to create an integrated and cost -effective waste management system that complies with the provisions of AB 939 and its diversion mandates. In order to assist the County of Riverside in achieving the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act, the Project’s building tenant(s) would be required to work with future refuse haulers to develop and implement feasible waste reduction programs, including source reduction, recycling, and composting. Additionally, in accordance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (Public Resources Code § 42911), the Project is required to provide adequate areas for collecting and Item 2A - 127
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 75 January 2022
loading recyclable materials where solid waste is collected. The collection areas are required to be shown on construction drawings and be in place before occupancy permits are issued. Additionally, in compliance with AB 341 (Mandatory Commercial Recycling Program), the future occup ant(s) of the proposed Project would be required to arrange for recycling services, if the occupant generates 4 or more cubic yards of solid waste per week. The implementation of these mandatory requirements would reduce the amount of solid waste generated by the Project and diverted to landfills, which in turn will aid in the extension of the life of affected disposal sites. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations; as such, impacts related to solid w aste statutes and regulations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

Wildfire
Sources
• County of Riverside, Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, 2019. Accessed June 11, 2021 https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/2019/ap/WCVAP_121019.pdf • City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Safety Element, 2007 Environmental Setting
The Project site is situated on the central area of Palm Springs. The Project site is located within an urbanized area of the City that is mostly developed. According to Figure 1 2, Wildfire Susceptibility (County of Riverside 2019), in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, the Project site is not located within a wildfire severity zone.

In addition, according to the City of Palm Springs General Plan, the western and southwestern portions of the City, specifically the neighborhoods located along the foothills and canyon mouths, are generally th e most susceptible to wildland fires. Furthermore, in the developed areas of the City, the landscape vegetation is carefully maintained and watered regularly, conditions that limit the possibility for vegetation fires to ignite and spread.

Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations

Item 2A - 128

3.19.4 3.19.5

3.20 3.20.1

3.20 .2

3.20.3 

 ~ 
  ~
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 76 January 2022

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?

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

a. Less than Significant Impact. The City has developed the Palm Springs Emergency Operation Plan (EOP), which is a flexible, multi -hazard document that addresses the City of Palm Springs’ planned response and short -term recovery to extraordinary emergency situation s that are associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. Within the EOP , specific strategies are included that would assist in the protection of the City and its residents. The proposed construction and operation of the Project would adhere to any specific hazard mitigation goal, objectives, and any other applicable related actions that are outlines in the EOP. The Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

b. No Impact. The Project site is located within the central portion of the City, which is mostly developed by commercial and residential uses. As previously mentioned, the Project site is not located within an area of wildfire severity zone as shown on the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, Figure 12, Wildfire Susceptibility (County of Riverside 2019). The site is surrounded by existing residential development to the west, and commercial to the north, south, and east. Areas within the City that are more susceptible to be exposed to wi ldfires include the western and southwestern portions of the City. The Project would be required to abide by all applicable rules and regulations that involve the Fire Code and the CBC. The Project would not exacerbate wildfire risk and would not expose occupants to pollutant concentrations from wildfires. Therefore, there would be no impact and no mitigation is required.

c. Less than Significant Impact. As previously mentioned, the Project site is located in an urban area of the City that is mostly developed. The area surrounding the site has established roads, powerlines and utilities that serve the surrounding area including the existing buildings and housing west of the Project site. Additionally, there are two main roads that are adjacent to the propert y, N Juanita Drive to the west and E Alejo Rd to the south, both already established and all other roads would be internal . The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the exacerbation of fire risk or a result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Item 2A - 129
  ~ 
  ~ 
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 77 January 2022
d. Less than Significant Impact. According to the City’s General Plan, the Project site is located within a small quantity hazardous materials site as shown in Figure 6-7, Hazardous Materials Sites. The Project site has a low liquefaction susceptibility (Figure 6 -1, Seismic Hazards) and does not contain any flood hazards (Figure 6-5, Flood Hazards). The General Plan maps designate areas that are associated with hazards such as landslide susceptibility, flood hazards, and direct fire protection areas. The Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides that would be as a result of runoff, post -fire, or drainage changes. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance
Not Applicable.

Mandatory Findings of Significance
Sources
All sources previously listed were used to support the conclusions made in this section.

Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the Project site is summarized within Sections 2.1 through 2.20 of the Initial Study for each environmental issue.

Impacts

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

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self -sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effec ts of past

Item 2A - 130

3.20.4 3.20.5

3.21 3.21.1

3.21.2 3.21.3


~  
~  
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 78 January 2022

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?

a. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

Biological Resources
Under existing conditions, the Project site is undeveloped and consists of sparse vegetation, scattered refuse, and above ground utility lines . Nesting birds, including the burrowing owl, have the potential to occur given the sparse vegetation on site . The P roject construction could adversely affect nesting birds if construction was to occur while they are present on site or adjacent to the Project site , . As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will require a preconstruction nesting bird survey 14 days prior to any ground disturbing or removal of vegetation to mitigate any potential impacts to protect nesting bird species. In the event that a raptor nest is observed personnel will be notified and no ground disturbing activities will occur until the avian biologist has confirmed the breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO- 1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Furthermore, although there are no special status plant or wildlife species within the Project area, any unforeseeable Project-related impacts to special status plant or wildlife species covered under the CVMSHCP would be mitigated to less-than-significant impacts through payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee under Mitigation Measure BIO 2.

Cultural Resources
The site visit conducted on August 4, 2021 indicated that the Project site is mainly undeveloped with two concrete foundation pads – one on the northern portion of the site and one on the southern portion of the site. Based on the lack of character -defining features and historic integrity, the foundation pads are not considered eligible for listing in the CRHR . However, there is always a possibility of buried cultural resources to be discovered. As, such implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 will required that if buried cultural materials a re discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work in that area will be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluated the nature and significance of the findings.

As previously mentioned, the site is mainly undeveloped with two concrete foundation pads and scattered vegetation. There is no evidence that the Project site is located within an area that would be likely to contain human remains. However, there is always a possibility of human remains could be uncovered during ground disturbing activities. Through implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL - 2 will ensure that, in the event of human remains are recovered during ground disturbing activities, that the aforementioned protocol is exercised.

Tribal Cultural Resources
As previously discussed in Section 2.17.3 (b), the Project site is located within an area that is positive for tribal cultural resources . Therefore, incorporation of mitigation measure TBL -1 as conditioned by the City would reduce impacts to less than sign ificant. Furthermore, Assembly Bill (AB 52) Tribal Item 2A - 131
 [g]  
2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 79 January 2022
Consultation notification letters were sent to Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. As of today, no response has been received from the Los Coyotes Band and the Tribe representative for Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians was not able to participate in the survey on the scheduled date. Implementation of TBL-1 would ensure consultation with the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in complete and written approval is obtained from the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians prior to any ground disturbing activities. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

b. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The environmental evaluation of this Initial Study concluded that, with adherence to all mitigation measures the P roject’s cumulatively considerable impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels.

c. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, has been d iscussed throughout this Initial Study. All Project environmental impacts would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The Project would therefore not result in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Mitigation
BIO-1 If unavoidable project construction activities must begin during the nesting bird season (February 1st through August 31st), a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting pre - construction bird survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with identification of avian species known to occur in Riverside County. The nesting bird survey shall be conducted on foot inside the project boundary, including a 300 -foot buffer for passerines (song birds) and 500 -foot buffer for raptors in areas of suitable habitat. Inaccessible areas will be surveyed using binoculars to the extent practical. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (dependent upon species, the proposed work activity, the existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright o range construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. If a raptor nest is observed in a tree proposed for removal, the applicant must consult with CDFW. All construction personnel be notified of the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer area until the avian biologist has confirmed the breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledge d. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist.

BIO-2 The applicant shall pay the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee prior to building permit issuance.

CUL-1 If buried cultural materials are discovered during the earth -moving operations, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds and, if necessary, develop a treatment pan in consultation with the City of Palm Springs and the appropriate Native American tribes.

CUL-2 In the unexpected event human remains are uncovered during construction activities, all construction work taking place within the vicinity of the discovered remains must cease and the necessary steps to Item 2A - 132

3.21.4 2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
2700 East Alejo Road Project 80 January 2022
ensure the integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery of human remains. If the remains discovered are determined by the coroner to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC would in turn contact the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) would determine further action to be taken. The MLD would have 48 hours to access the site and make a recommendation regarding disposition of the remains.

TBL-1 The following mitigation measure has been conditioned by the City of Palm Springs regarding Tribal Cultural Resources:
• Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall obtain written approval to proceed with construction from the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist. The applicant shall contact the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or the Tribal Archaeologist at (760) 699 -6800, to determine their requirements, if any, associated with grading or other construction. The applicant is advised to contact the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist as early as possible. If required, it is the responsibility of the applicant to coordination scheduling of Tribal monitors during grading or other construction, and to arrange payment of a ny required fees associated with Tribal monitoring.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
With incorporation of the above ment ioned mitigation measures, all P roject-related impacts in regard to Mandatory Findings of Significance would be reduced to less than significant.

Item 2A - 133

3.21.5 4 REFERENCES
2700 East Alejo Road Project 81 January 2022
Report Preparers
Lead Agency
Noriko Kikuchi, Associate Planner
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA. 92262

The Altum Group
Thomas Strand, Environmental Manager
Lauren Reese, Environmental Planner
Kyle Mezrahi, Assistant Environmental Planner
Yaneli Hernandez, Assistant Planner
Katie Davis, Production Manager

Subconsultants
Air Quality
Giancarlo Ganddini, Principal, PE, PTP – Ganddini Group, Inc.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Giancarlo Ganddini, Principal, PE, PTP – Ganddini Group, Inc.

Noise
Giancarlo Ganddini, Principal, PE, PTP – Ganddini Group, Inc.

Cultural Resources
Michael Hogan, Principal – CRM Tech
Tribal Cultural Resources
Michael Hogan, Principal – CRM Tech
Item 2A - 134
Chapter 4

Attachment F

Item 2A - 135
From: Moreno, Adrian (TRBL)
To: Noriko Kikuchi
Cc: Malcolm, Dan (TRBL)
Subject: 2700 East Alejo Road Project IS/MND Comments
Date: Friday, January 28, 2022 2:12:38 PM
Attachments: image001.png
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Noriko,

Tribal Planning Staff have reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the 2700 East Alejo Road Project and have the following comments:

1. Section 3.4, Biological Resources, incorrectly identifies the project site as being within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP (see page 29 specifically).

Indian Reservations are “(Not a part)”
of the CVMSHCP (see Plan Area Map). The Project Site is, however, located on the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation within the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan (THCP) boundaries.

Please update Section 3.4 accordingly.

2. The Project is not subject to the CVMSHCP Mitigation Fee as it is not located within the CVMSHCP boundaries. This Project is, however, required to pay the THCP Valley Floor Planning Area Fee as required by the THCP.

Please update Section 3.4.3 and 3.4.4
accordingly.

3. Burrowing Owl is a covered species under the THCP; therefore, focused surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidelines (THCP Section 4.8.4.2(g)). Please update Section 3.4.3.

Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions,

Adrian Moreno
Assistant Planner
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Phone: 760-699-6989

Item 2A - 136

Attachment G

Item 2A - 137

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

DATE: February 23, 2022 PUBLIC HEARING

SUBJECT: REQUEST BY AG LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC FOR GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
OF ‘INDUSTRIAL’ (IND) TO ‘VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL’ (VLDR), CHANGE OF ZONE FROM ‘PLANNED RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PARK’ (M-1-P) TO ‘SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL’ (R- 1-C) ZONE, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) AND

ADMINISTRATIVE MINOR MODIFICATION (AMM) APPLICATIONS TO SUBDIVIDE 2.53 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND INTO EIGHT (8)

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS FOR FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT AT 2700 EAST ALEJO ROAD (APN: 507-380-019 & 507- 380-020), ZONE M-1-P, SECTION 12 (CASE 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM,

7.1645 AMM) (NK)

FROM: Development Services Department

SUMMARY:

This is a request for a General Plan Amendment from the current ‘Industrial’ (IND) land use designation to ‘Very Low Density Residential’ ( VLDR), a Change of Zone from ‘Planned Research and Development Park ’ (M-1-P) to ‘Single-Family Residential’ (R-1- C) Zone, and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) and Administrative Minor Modification (AMM) applications to subdivide 2.53 acres of undeveloped l and into eight (8) single -family residential parcels for future development. AMM approval is requested for a reduced lot width in accordance with Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.06.01(A)(4). No above- ground structures are being proposed at this time.

The following applications have been filed in conjunction with this request:
• Case 5.1521 GPA to amend the current General Plan land use designation of ‘Industrial’ (IND) to ‘Very Low Density Residential’ (VLDR). • Case 5.1521 CZ to change the current zone designation of ‘ Planned Research and Development Park’ (M-1-P) to ‘Single-Family Residential’ (R-1-C). • Case 38049 TTM to subdivide the 2.53 -acre project site into eight (8) parcels for single-family residential parcels.
• Case 7.1645 AMM to reduce the code-required 130-foot-minimum lot width to 117 feet for Lot 4 and Lot 8.

Item 2A - 138
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 23, 2022 – Page 2 of 12
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM

ISSUE:

1. The proposed Lot 4 and Lot 8 are adjacent to a secondary thoroughfare (East Alejo Road), which would require a minimum lot width of 130 feet. The proposed lot width for these lots is 117 feet and requires AMM approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Plannin g Commission recommend the following actions to the City Council subject to conditions:

1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as an adequate environmental document for the proposed project and associated impacts;

2. Approve Case 5.1521 GPA to amend the General Plan land use designation of the project site from ‘Industrial’ (IND) to ‘Very Low Density Residential’ (VLDR);

3. Approve Case 5.1521 CZ to change the zone designation of the project site from ‘Planned Research and Development Park’ (M-1-P) to ‘Single-Family Residential’ (R-1-C);

4. Approve Case 38049 TTM to subdivide the 2.53 -acre project site into eight (8) single-family residential parcels; and

5. Approve Case 7.1645 AMM to reduce the code -required 130 -foot-minimum lot width to 117 feet for Lot 4 and Lot 8.

SCOPE OF REVIEW:

1. The Planning Commission shall review the General Plan Amendment application (Case 5.1521 GPA ) in accordance with State of California Government Code Sections 65350 through 65362.

2. The Planning Commission shall review the Change of Zone application (Case

5.1521 CZ) for conformance to PSZC Section 94.07.00(A).

3. The Planning Commission shall review the Tentative Tract Map application (Case 38049 TTM) for conformance to the criteria listed in Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act.

4. The Planning Commission shall review the Administrative Minor Modification application (Case 7.1645 AMM) for conformance to the criterial listed in PSZC Section 94.06.01(B)(3).

BUSINESS PRINCIPAL DISCLOSURE:

The property is owned by AG Land Investments, LLC. AG Land Investments , LLC consists of individuals named Adam Gilbert and Anthony Gatto who are the members of the entity. Each member holds 50% ownership of the entity. Public Integrity Disclosure Form is attached to this report (Attachment #5).

Item 2A - 139
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 23, 2022 – Page 3 of 12
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The project proposes to subdivide 2.53 acres of undeveloped land into eight (8) single - family residential parcels that are between 13,246 square feet and 15,381 square feet in size. The proposed lot depth is 132.18 feet, and the lot width of 100.21 feet is proposed for each if the lots on the project site except for the two (2) lots that are adjacent to East Alejo Road (Lot 4 and Lot 8). East Alejo Road is a secondary th oroughfare, and greater lot width is required for Lot 4 and Lot 8. Pursuant to Palm Springs Zoning Code Section

92.01.03(B), the code-required minimum lot width is 130 feet for lots that side a secondary thoroughfare. 117 feet is proposed for Lot 4 and Lot 8. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a 10% lot width reducti on for Lot 4 and Lot 8 via an Administrative Minor Modification (AMM) as prescribed in Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.06.01(A)(4). Project conformance with the applicable development standards is analyzed in this staff report.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Most Recent Change of Ownership
09/03/2021 AG Land Investments, LLC

Neighborhood Notice
01/28/2021 Affidavit of on-site sign posting submitted by applicant. 02/10/2022
Notice of public hearing mailed to addresses within 500-feet of the site, notifying that the subject application would be considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on February 23, 2022. 02/17/2022 Notice emailed to Neighborhood Organizations within one (1) mile of the project site.
02/11/2022 Notice of public hearing published in the local newspaper.

Field Check
02/09/2022 Staff conducted the site visit to confirm the site conditions.

Existing Street Improvement Conditions
Street Name Travel Lanes Curb & Gutter Sidewalk
East Alejo Road Y Partial Partial
North Commercial Road Y Y N
North Juanita Drive Y Partial Partial

DETAILS OF APPLICATION REQUEST:

Site Area
Net Acres 2.53 Acres

Item 2A - 140
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 23, 2022 – Page 4 of 12
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM
Surrounding
Property
Existing Land Use
Per Chapter 92
Existing General
Plan Designation
Existing Zoning
Designation
Subject Property Vacant IND (Industrial)
M-1-P (Planned
Research and
Development Park)
North Business Park IND M-1-P
South City Yard P/QP (Public/Quasi
Public) A (Airport)
East Professional/Medical
Office IND PD 158
West Single-Family
Residential
VLDR
(Very Low Density
Residential)
R-1-C
(Single-Family
Residential)

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:

Pursuant to PSZC Section 92.01.03(B) (R-1-C Zone), the following standards apply:

Standard Required/
Allowed
Provided Compliance
Min. Lot Size 10,000 SF 13,246 SF Y
Min. Lot Width 100 Feet (Interior Lots)
130 Feet (Lot 4 & 8 Only)
100.21 Feet
117 Feet
Y
Yes, with
AMM
approval
Min. Lot Depth 100 Feet 132.18 Feet Y
Min. Setbacks
(Interior Lots)
• Front
• Side (North)
• Side (South)
• Rear

25 Feet
10 Feet
10 Feet
15 Feet

25 Feet
10 Feet
10 Feet
15 Feet

Y
Y
Y
Y
Min. Setbacks
(Lot 4 & Lot 8 only)
• Front
• Side (North)
• Side (South)
• Rear

25 Feet
10 Feet
25 Feet
15 Feet

25 Feet
10 Feet
25 Feet
15 Feet

Y
Y
Y
Y
Min. Setbacks
(Lot 1 only)
• Front
• Side (North)
• Side (South)
• Rear

25 Feet
10 Feet
10 Feet
15 Feet

25 Feet
13 Feet
10 Feet
15 Feet

Y
Y
Y
Y
Item 2A - 141
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 23, 2022 – Page 5 of 12
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM
Standard Required/
Allowed
Provided Compliance
Min. Setbacks
(Lot 5 only)
• Front
• Side (North)
• Side (South)
• Rear

25 Feet
10 Feet
10 Feet
15 Feet

25 Feet
12 Feet
10 Feet
15 Feet

Y
Y
Y
Y

Existing Zoning Permitted Density Units Allowed
M-1-P (Planned Research
and Development Park)
Max. 60% lot coverage N/A
Proposed Zoning Permitted Density Units Allowed
R-1-C (Single-Family
Residential)
N/A 1 DU / Lot

Existing General Plan
Designation
Permitted Density Units Allowed
IND (Industrial) 0.50 FAR N/A
Proposed General Plan
Designation
Permitted Density Units Allowed
LVDR (Very Low Density
Residential)
N/A 2.1  4.0 DU / Acre

ANALYSIS:

Site Plan:

The project site is a 2.53-acre lot consisting of two (2) parcels located on East Alejo Road between North Commercial Road and North Juanita Drive . The site is currently undeveloped. The site’s overall topography is relatively flat, and the landscape is retained in natural condition with low -height shrubs. The project site is immediately adjacent to existing single -family residences on North Juanita Drive to the west . The adjacent properties to the south, north, and east are City Yard, business park, and professional/medical office , respectively. Egress and ingress to individual lots will be provided on North Juanita Drive and East Commercial Road.

FINDINGS – GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Case 5.1521 GPA):

State of California Governmental Code Sections 65350 through 65362, outline the procedures and requirements for Cities and Counties to create and amend their General Plan. There are, however, no specific findings for a General Plan Amendment. Staff has evaluated the proposed General Plan Amendment based upon the following criteria:

Item 2A - 142
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 23, 2022 – Page 6 of 12
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM

1. Compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent land uses.

2. Development patterns of the neighborhood.

3. Goals, Policies and Actions of the General Plan.

Criteria and Findings (Government Code Sections 65350-65362) Compliance

1. Compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent land uses Y The project proposes to change the current General Plan land use designation of IND (Industrial) to VLDR (Very Low Density Residential) for future single-family residential use. Staff finds that the proposed VLDR land use designation is compatible with the adjacent land uses, particularly to the e xisting single -family residences to the west that are also located within the VLDR designation area. The approval of the General Plan Amendment would allow further expansion of the residential area.

2. Development patterns of the neighborhood. Y
Policy LU 6.2 of the General Plan Land Use Element encourages new residential infill development projects (Palm Springs 2007 General Plan, page 2 -27). Additionally, Housing Element Policy HS1.1 states as follows:

“Provide adequate residential sites to accommodate and
encourage a broad range of housing opportunities.”

The General Plan Amendment will allow the addition of new single- family residences to the existing residential neighborhood to the west that was established around 1960. Hence, the General Plan Amendment is consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood and meets this requirement.

3. Goals, Policies and Actions of the General Plan. Y
The approval of the General Plan Amendment would allow future development of eight (8) single -family residences. Policy LU 6.2 of the Land Use Element encourages new residential infill development (Palm Springs 2007 General Plan, page 2 -27), and the Gener al Plan Amendment will help achieve the goal.

Additionally, the proposed project allows the City to achieve Goal LU 1 of the Land Use Element which states as follows:
“Establish a balanced pattern of land uses that complements the pattern and character of existing uses, offers opportunities for the intensification of key targeted sites, minimizes adverse environmental impacts, and has positive economic results ” (Palm Springs 2007 General Plan, page 2-20).

The proposed single -family residential use complements the existing single-family residences to the west. The project site has

Item 2A - 143
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 23, 2022 – Page 7 of 12
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM
Criteria and Findings (Government Code Sections 65350-65362) Compliance remained undeveloped, and the in-fill development of eight (8) new single-family residences will deliver positive economic impacts to the City.

FINDINGS – CHANGE OF ZONE (Case 5.1521 CZ):

Section 94.07.00(A) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) requires that the following conditions be met in order to justify a Change of Zone application. Staff has analyzed the findings as listed below:

Criteria and Findings [PSZC 94.07.00(A)] Compliance

1. The proposed change of zone is in conformity with the general plan map and report.

Yes, subject
to condition
The site’s General Plan land use designation is currently IND (Industrial). In conjunction with this Change of Zone application, the applicant has submitted a General Plan Amendment (GPA) application which proposes to amend the site’s current land use designation to VLDR (Very Low Density Residential). Staff is recommending a condition of approval which requires the approval of the Change of Zone to be contingent upon approval of the GPA application. With this condition, the project meets the finding.

2. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone, in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the commission and council.

Yes, subject
to condition
In conjunction with this application, Tentative Tract Map and Administrative Minor Modification applications (Case 48039 TTM & 7.1645 AMM) were submitted to subdivide the 2.53-acre lot into eight (8) single -family residential parcels. With the approval of these applications, the project would meet the R-1-C Zone lot dimensions requirements. The future single-family residential use is consistent with the intent of the R-1-C Zone, and the site is immediately adjacent to existing R-1-C single-family residences to the west. To ensure conformance with thi s finding, staff is recommending a condition of approval which requires the approval of the Change of Zone approval to be contingent upon the approval of the TTM and AMM applications.

3. The proposed change of zone is necessary and proper at this time, and is not likely to be detrimental to the adjacent property or residents.

Y
Item 2A - 144
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 23, 2022 – Page 8 of 12
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM
Criteria and Findings [PSZC 94.07.00(A)] Compliance
The approval of the Change of Zone application would allow the future development of eight (8) single-family residences at the site, and it is consistent with the intent of the General Plan Housing Element which aims to respond to the statewide housing shortage crisis. The project site is adjacent to existing single -family residences, and the future single-family residential use will not be detrimental to the adjacent property or residents.

FINDINGS – TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (Case 38049 TTM):

Pursuant to Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act, the following findings must be made relative to the proposed map:

Criteria and Findings [PSZC 94.04.01(D)] Compliance

1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map or Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with all applicable general and specific plans.

Yes, as
conditioned
With approval of the General Plan and Change of Zone
applications noted above, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. The density requirement for the VLDR designation area is 2.1 to 4.0 DU/Acre, while the project proposes one (1) single-family residential unit on each lot. The proposed lot sizes are 13,246 and 15,381 square feet, which meet the density requirement. Staff is recommending a condition of approval which requires the approval of the TTM application to be contingent upon the approval of the General Plan and Change of Zone applications.

The project site is not located within a specific plan area.

2. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map or Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the zone in which the property is located.

Yes, as
conditioned
The proposed project meets the minimum lot size and dimensions requirements of the R -1-C Zone as analyzed earlier in the staff report, with the exception of the lot width for Lot 4 and Lot 8. The applicant has submitted an AMM application to address the lot width issue, and staff is recommending a condition of approval which requires the approval o f this TTM application to be contingent upon the approval of the Change of Zone and AMM applications. All street and other improvements are subject to the Conditions of Approval associated with TTM 38049. Hence, the project meets this finding as conditioned.

3. The site is physically suited for this type of development. Yes, as conditioned
Item 2A - 145
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 23, 2022 – Page 9 of 12
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM
Criteria and Findings [PSZC 94.04.01(D)] Compliance
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan density requirement, and the lot configurations meet the zoning code requirements except for the lot width of two (2) parcels. As noted earlier in this report, AMM approval is requested to address the lot width issue. The project proposes low -density residential development adjacent to a secondary thoroughfare , and it is compatible with the existing single-family residences immediately adjacent to the west . The project site is generally flat with topography that is consistent with other single-family home sites in the area. For the project to fully meet this finding, staff is recommending a condition which requires the approval of this TTM application to be contingent upon the approval of an AMM application.

4. The site is physically suited for the proposed density of development. Y
The sizes of the proposed parcels are 13,246 and 15,381 square feet, while the applicable General Plan density requirement is 2.1 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The project proposes one (1) dwelling unit per lot and meets the applicable density requirement.

5. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitats.

Yes, as
conditioned
An Initial Study was conducted as a part of this application review.

Although the project site is surrounded by developed residential and commercial uses, nesting birds may exist amongst the sparse vegetation on site. To ensure that the project will not interfere with the nesting birds, staff is recommending a condition of approval which requires a pre -construction nesting bird survey to be conducted by a biologist no more than 14 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities (Condition ENV 1.). The mitigation measures will ensure the sub division is not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure other habitats.

6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Y
The proposed subdivision is for a single -family residential neighborhood which will be built subject to the City zoning and development codes, which are designed and intended to prevent development projects from causing serious adverse health impacts on the site and its surroundings. The homes built on each lot will be required to connect to sewer, water, and other utility providers, to ensure the public health and safety is protected. Therefore, the project meets this finding.

Item 2A - 146
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 23, 2022 – Page 10 of 12
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM
Criteria and Findings [PSZC 94.04.01(D)] Compliance

7. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision.

Y
There are ingress/egress and incidental purpose easement and public utility easement along the north side of the project site.

Additionally, t here is a 14 -foot-wide public easement along the west property line of the project . The public easement is located in the proposed 25-foot front yard setback area where no structure is proposed. The easement will not interfere with the access or the use of the proposed subdivision.

FINDINGS – ADMINISTRATIVE MINOR MODIFICATION (Case 7.1645 AMM):

Section 94.0 6.01(B)(3) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) requires that the following conditions be met in order to justify an Administrative Minor Modification application. Staff has analyzed the findings as listed below:

Criteria and Findings [PSZC 94.06.01(B)(30)] Compliance

1. The requested minor modification is consistent with the general plan, applicable specific plan(s) and overall objectives of the zoning ordinance;
Yes, as
conditioned
As noted earlier in this report, General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone applications have been filed in conjunction with this application. With the approval of the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone applications, the project meets this finding.

Staff is recommending a condition of approval which requires AMM approval to be contingent upon the approval of the General Plan and Change of Zone applications. The project meets this finding as conditioned.

2. The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the approval or conditional approval of the minor modification.

Y
The proposed lot width reduction is requested for Lot 4 and Lot 8, the most southern lots that are adjacent to East Alejo Road only.

The lot width reduction will provide additional distance from the adjacent property to the south, which is a city yard. Therefore, the project meets this finding.

3. The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity; Y
Item 2A - 147
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 23, 2022 – Page 11 of 12
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM
Criteria and Findings [PSZC 94.06.01(B)(30)] Compliance The approval of the AMM application allows shorter lot width for Lot 4 and Lot 5, which would result in smaller lots compared to what would be if they were to be created in full conformance with the applicable development standards. Although no development plan has been submitted in conjunction with this application, all buildings will be required to be built to the Uniform Building Code , Zoning Code, and Fire Code. Therefore, staff finds that the approval of this AMM will not be detrimental to the health , safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity.

4. The approval of the minor modification is justified by environmental features, site conditions, location of existing improvements, or historic development patterns of the property or neighborhood.

Y
Per General Plan, the lot size of VLDR land use designation area generally ranges between 8,500 square feet and 16,500 square feet (Palm Springs 2007 General Plan, page 2 -5). If the project site were to be divided into six (6) single -family residential lots instead of eight (8) for the sole purpose of meeting the lot width requirement, that would create lots averaging approximately 18,367 square feet in area. Such parcels will be significantly larger than the adjacent single -family residential parcels. Hence, the approval of this AMM application is justified by the historic development pattern of the site’s vicinity.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

This project is considered a project under the definitions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City has evaluated the project under CEQA Guidelines and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and circulated for a 20-day public comment period. The comments received during the comment period are attached to this report (Attachment # 7). No comments have been received that would necessitate recirculation of the environmental analysis. Staff finds that the analysis is a complete description of the project and its potential adverse impacts. The recommended Mitigation Measures are anticipated to reduce any potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.

CONCLUSION:

As analyzed in this report, the future single -family residential development at the site is appropriate considering the site’s setting and surroundings. Additionally, the proposed project meets the requirements of the California Government Code for a Gene ral Plan Amendment and required findings for the proposed Change of Zone, Tentative Tract Map, and Administrative Minor Modification applications subject to the approval of such applications altogether. The future single-family residential use will allow an in-fill project on a site that has remained vacant for years, and the single -family residential use will Item 2A - 148
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 23, 2022 – Page 12 of 12
Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, 38049 TTM, 7.1645 AMM
contribute to relieving the statewide housing shortage crisis. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Case 5.1521 GPA/CZ, Case 38049 TTM , and Case 7.1645 AMM to the City Council subject to conditions of approval (Attachment #3).

PREPARED BY: Noriko Kikuchi, AICP, Associate Planner
REVIEWED BY: David Newell, AICP, Assistant Director of Planning

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Vicinity Map

2. Aerial Map

3. Draft Resolution & Exhibit A

4. Justification Letter

5. Public Integrity Disclosure Form

6. Site Photographs

7. CEQA comments

8. CEQA Initial Study/MND

9. Plans

Item 2A - 149

Attachment H

Item 2A - 150

EXCERPT OF MINUTES
At the Planning Commission meeting of the City of Palm Springs , held on February 23, 2022, the Planning Commission took the following action:
2B. AG LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC, FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM THE CURRENT ‘INDUSTRIAL’ (IND) DESIGNATION TO ‘VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL’ (VLDR); CHANGE OF ZONE FROM ‘PLANNED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PARK’ (M-1-P) TO ‘SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL’ (R- 1-C); AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND ADMINISTRATIVE MINOR
MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVIDE 2.53 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND TO CREATE EIGHT (8) SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AT 2100 EAST ALEJO ROAD, ZONE M -1-P, SECTION 12 (CASE 5.1521 GPA / CZ, 38049 TTM AND 7.1645 AMM. (NK)
Associate Planner Kikuchi provided a presentation.

Commissioner Miller requested clarification on the location of the existing driveway on Commercial Road which leads to the adjacent commercial property to the north and questioned whether there is any existing on-site improvement or not. Staff responded that the applicant is available to respond to the question.

Vice Chair Roberts suggested that the Planning Commission consider an additional condition of approval to ensure that the future buyers and property owners will be fully aware of the site’s surroundin gs, which include commercial, industrial, and airport uses. Such uses generate noise and traffic , and an additional condition relating to the disclosure requirement of the site’s setting and surrounding environment should be considered to protect the City from potential future legal challenges.

Associate Planner Kikuchi responded that the proposed project has been reviewed by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, which imposed conditions of approval, including the disclosure of the location of aircraft flight paths.

Assistant Planning Director Newell responded that the applicant is required to provide CC&R s as currently conditioned . He added that a stipulation can be included in the CC&R s which requires the developer to disclose the information pertaining to the surrounding environment and land use to the future home buyers.

There is a noise impact and nonsuit covenant zone in the City, in which the project site may be located. If that is the case, the filing of avigation easement and nonsuit covenant with the City will be required.

Public hearing was opened.

DRAFT
Item 2A - 151
Planning Commission Minutes - Excerpt
City of Palm Springs
February 23, 2022
2 Adam Gilbert, Applicant, stated that the project site attracted inquires for future industrial development when it initially became available. However, such proposals, some of which included heavy industrial uses, were not compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood . Considering the site’s setting and hearing the voice of the neighborhood, he decided to consider residential development for the site rather than industrial development. The applicant is willing to work with the Planning Commissioners and staff to have positive impact on the community.

Questions to the applicant:

Chair Waremiuk questioned whether the project will require CC&Rs or not.

Applicant responded that the development plan has not been finalized at the moment. Although he is willing to consider having covenants in place to address the issues and concerns that were raised , it is not the applicant’s desire to potentially limit the ability of future owners /developers to build custom homes on site. That said, it is not necessarily the applicant’s plan to develop a project that requires CC&Rs.

Chair Waremiuk stated that she agrees with Vice Chair Roberts’ comments. The site is surrounded by industrial uses, and the implementation of the project should not interfere with the operation of such existing industrial uses . Therefore, the requirement of CC&Rs may be reasonable.

Assistant Director Newell stated that the project requires CC&Rs as currently conditioned. In response to the applicant’s comments, it was noted that the CC&Rs can include a stipulation which states that design review is not required for the project, and each lot shall be developed without HOA review. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider a deed restriction for each lot if CC&Rs is not the desired approach. Assistant Director Newell requested additional comments from the City Attorney.

Vice Chair Roberts stated that the proposed residential land use is suitable for the site. Based on the meeting he had with the applicant prior to the Planning Commission meeting, it is his understanding that the developer intends to sell the parcels. The impact of the project on the nearby residential development will be positive. What he thinks is necessary is the disclosure of the project site’s surroundings to the future buyers of the parcels to protect the City because the project site is surrounded by active industrial use that generates noise.

Additionally, t he developer should have some sort of disclosure as well to indemnify the City. Applicant responded that he is able to accommodate the request.

Chair Waremiuk questioned the City Attorney as to whether the disclosure can be done via a deed restriction as it runs with the land.

DRAFT
Item 2A - 152
Planning Commission Minutes - Excerpt
City of Palm Springs
February 23, 2022
3 City Attorney responded that there are numerous ways to approach it. One method is to write a generic condition of approval requiring seller disclosure of the surrounding land uses to be approved by the City Attorney at City Attorney’s reasonable discreti on. If the applicant decide s to go with common interest development, in can be addressed in the CC&Rs. If the applicant decides not to do common interest development with the CC&Rs, the City can come up with a different appropriate recorded notice or deed restriction. It is not so much of a deed restriction because the City is not restricting what can or cannot be done with the properties, it is more of a notice.

Vice Chair Roberts stated that a notice would be appropriate.

City Attorney stated that if the City writes a condition that is crafted as a disclosure to be approved by the City Attorney at City Attorney’s reasonable discretion, the City can come up with something that does not hinder the sale a vailability of the property.

Motion was moved by Vice Chair Roberts and seconded by Commissioner Aylaian to approve the project as presented with the addition of a condition that requires the applicant to require written notice to all buyers of adjacent land uses and noise impacts in a recordable form to be approved by the City Attorney at the City Attorney’s reasonable discretion . Before the voting, Commissioner Miller stated that his questions regarding possible existing commercial improvement on Lots 1 and 5 have not been answered.

Vice Chair Roberts asked the applicant if there is anything built on the project site.

The applicant responded that there is a former concrete pad on site, which will be demolished and removed.

Assistant Director Newell requested confirmation to Commissioner Miller that the Commissioner’s earlier question is regarding the wall that extends over the property line as shown as note #1. Allen Sanborn, architect, was requested to respond.

Mr. Sanborn responded that there is a reciprocal easement for access between the 2 properties, and that the easement can be a part of the driveway.

Commissioner Miller stated that the encroachment of the driveway upon Lot 1 and Lot 5 is not necessarily a problem. However, he would like to know if there will be a wall constructed or a different privacy measure will be implemented for the benefit of the future homeowners. Mr. Sanborn responded that he thinks a wall will be constructed at the south edge of the easement. Chair Walemiuk stated that privacy walls would be subject to later review.

DRAFT
Item 2A - 153
Planning Commission Minutes - Excerpt
City of Palm Springs
February 23, 2022
4 Commissioner Miller stated that he raised the question to make sure that the plan is read correctly and that he wanted to be clear on whether there is an encroachment issue that the Commissioners need ed to be aware of. He added that it is a challenging site, and the proposed use is appropriate.

Assistant Director Newell stated that based on what the applicant has stated, the draft conditions may include stipulations that may be contrary. In the event that CC&Rs are not required or proposed, such conditions should be removed or not be required.

MOTION: To approve as presented with the addition of a condition that requires the applicant to require written notice to all buyers of adjacent land uses and noise impacts in a recordable form to be approved by the City Attorney at the City Attorney’s r easonable discretion . In the event th e CC&Rs are not required or proposed for the project, the requirement of the CC&Rs shall be removed from the required conditions or not be required.

ACTION: Roberts, seconded by Aylaian to recommend approval to City Council with added conditions.

I, TERRI HINTZ, Planning Administrative Coordinator for the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that the above action was taken by Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs on the 23rd day of February, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: AYLAIAN, HIRSCHBEIN, MILLER, ROBERTS, WEREMIUK
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: ERVIN, MORUZZI
__________________________________________
Terri Hintz
Planning Administrative Coordinator
DRAFT
Item 2A - 154

Attachment I

Item 2A - 155

Project Site
E. Alejo Road
N. Commercial Road
N. Juanita Drive
Item 2A - 156

Attachment J

Item 2A - 157
Item 2A - 158
LOT 53
LOT 54
F.F. = 450.10
LOT 55
F.F. = 449. 60
LOT 56
F.F. = 448. 40
LOT 51
F.F. = 447.50
l!
Iii :i;
\
-4+9,43
= 450.00
EASBvENT NOTES:
fil AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 2L 1979 AS/IN INSTRUMENT NO. 205799, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
& AN EASEMENT FOR RIGJ-/T TO MAINTAIN, REPAIR, OPERA TE, USE AND CONSTRUCT A SHJEWALK AND BICYCLE PA TH, UNDERGROUND SEWERS, AND PUBLIC UTR.JTY INST ALLA T/ONS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1980 AS/IN INSTRUMENT NO. 170398, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

IN FAVOR OF: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS.

AFFECTS: AS DESCRIBED THEREIN.
& AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED DECEMBER 3, 1980 AS/IN INSTRUMENT NO. 226225, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

INFAVOROF:

AFFECTS:

GENERAL TELEPHONE AND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
AS DESCRIBED THEREIN.

PARCEL I
PM 13336
PMB 64139
0 ~~~ 01
II 49. f ,,__.

WV il ~ ~ F c."'" j,
11 ~!·
7 • -''·····"······,, / N89"/1'V9''E 26 ✓.3'2' --A ! j
• 1, 1 1 -""' i .,. .,. / rl..!....:J. ! !
:1
80'
"' -!, I/ 4~ .BJ _ _.r.-~===!"!'"' ,! ==========t=~;;;;;:==£" Lk -~- !1 J 111/' ~ iii/32.18' R/11' _/' .I l!,132·18'· # ~
/ ,- . -:- . I -- - = --- --- --- -- ,-------------" -,· -·;77k.; ·-·-~~ ~-·· ·--~-----,- "--------- ,---
Iii / . 1- I I 1-U I I ,, ~
.,#; ,4, · I I ~ S'l I I
" c:i ~ I I I I S2
1 LOT I I g I LOT 5 1
I Area=13,246 S.F. I < I Area=13,246 S.F. I
I PAD = 449.50 I I PAD = 449.50 I
15' 15' 25'
I ~- __ _!!89'41'24'£ _ -~ ~' ,rp,'bc,•' ___ N89'41'24"E _ _ ~"

I I I I

I I I I
I I i-u I I
I I ~ I 6 I
1 LOT 2 1 ~ ~ 1 00 LOT 6 1
I Area=13,246 S.F. I S2 8 J 0 Area=13,246 S.F. I
I PAD = 449.00 I < -~ PAO = 449.00 I
..

I I :,.Q·1 I
I I ' I I ~
L - - - -/32./8' - - - - ~ 1 L - _()i- - - -;32./8-:- - - ~ ~ -------------~:l-'-----t-----f k-'----:-:-=-:::-::--:-=-:-:::=---------1 N89'41'24'E \ rl\. j ':J __ N89"41'24'E __ ~ 1-U
,--------i\r-, Vif- ' ~
: 00 : (QI I ~
I 1\>' 1/1 <
1 LOT 3 ~ I I Area=13,246 S.F.

I PAD = 448.00 I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
t I
I
I I
I I
I LOT 7 I
I Area=13,246 S.F. I
I PAO= 448.00 I
I I
I
"'
"'
..
..
..
..
..
4 t
~
1l! !ll t,, ~ fg
~
"' "' l1l l1l
~ ~
g g
~ .. ~
-~
..
..
50'
!!
40'
,, .. , .. I I

I I I I
I I
{ 'f5' 25'
0: ...... +--~.., '"r----t~
,_ 28' '' 12' I L----------~ L----------~
12' !i 40' 11
I s·
____ _El3~'2YJ..18r' ___ --'l<---+-_cn-1i--,.------El3~'2.J!}_l8C,' ____ __:~ i ..... , . , ,.,,., .. ~
f
00 ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N 89'41'24"£ o
,--------- .....

I
I
I
I
LOT 4
Area=15,381 S.F.

PAD= 447.00
sv "'~,.. __ _ N89_'41_'24"E __ 1
iJ ,.o·
~f ~: :

I I I
I 1-U I I
I ~ I I
1 8 ~ 1 LOT B 1
I , _ ~ I Area=15,381 S.F. I
" ~ PAO = 447.00
I""'< I I
I
I
I
I ~ ._ 2~' ,. I 15' 15' ' I 25'
~ J I L __________ J .----------- ~il

4. - 1 I - ii
'- I N N , 1,
20' 20·
..
..
..
..
b:y i _<,:) • I //
00 ,, : 1· ~ ~ ,--Ji I
- E -4'-- --E --E ~_,,H} _, ~ ¥~:..+/--"~ ;:--,1..,_ 11-:,---,---, --"-✓.-R.:.:/W_N.,..,..,~'"'9"'·4~•'2~; -::.E:-1r---~,2'"''2~{~ .. ~9,.,:,----,~ ~ ~~b,"'l~r'"--___ -_-___ -__ -___ - ___ _,-_-__ - .. -. -... +_i"'.7:"7'~""~,~-f ,~--_+ -- ::.,---- ....
"' ~
"' "' l1l
~
8 ~

IN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38049
PARCEL 2 & 3 OF PARCEL MAP 13336, P.MB. 64/39
OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST, S.B.M
SANBORN ARCHITECTURE GROUP, Inc. DECEMBER 2021
~ ~
I 60' .!
40'
·I·
20'
• 'I I ,,,. 28' 12' R'
I 5• <I;; 5'
I '-> 2%MAX I 's)w'
cc ;: --cc r,.;7.._ "II~ '
_... ,l.J . .., ,,-EXISTING 0.1.P.
, 1~--1-- F WATER MAIN
EXIST. V.C.P.

PARCEL 2
SEllf'R MAIN --~~)

JUANITA DRIVE

NO SCALE
~ ~
I 88' !
I 49' 44' I
1· 12' 37' ·I· 12' ·1 32'

ALEJO ROAD

NO SCALE

PARCEL I
FEET
- 30 15 0 30 60
.
1 0 1 2
INCHES
90 . 3
T.S. -
/ 7-~- . -- ---
~-Jfc· ='"=-'',,':-=·/=' = ~=-=-=-=--wi,_-::_-~-, ~•~~-~~··-,,,a':;;i·, •. -::Ww==#~-~----z,=-ww=;,.¥2=-~ ww=;~-r•==-w.=.jP'~r=:,w.:,=:~=j;p~<==w7•~ : ;·_,..."""''.~H---w----w----w -++-;--w ~ ·'----w----w----w- rN- 89'47'24'£ 334.4/' R&MJ I
APPLICANT:

ADDRESS:

TENTATIVE MAP

PROJECT DATA
EXHIBIT DA TE: OCTOBER 26, 2020
PROJECT DA TA·
AG LAND INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.
2496 E. SANTA YNEZ WAY
PALM SPRINGS, CA. 92264
CONTACT: ADAM GILBERT I PHONE: (760) 408-8874
LAND OWNER:

ADDRESS:

CONTACT: I PHONE:

EXHIBIT PREPARER: SANBORN ARCHITECTURE GROUP, INC.

ADDRESS: 71-780 SAN JACINTO OR. SUITE E-1
RANCHO MIRAGE. CA. 92270
CONTACT: ALLEN SANBORN I PHONE: (760) 423-0600
SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY: VAN SURVEYING
ADDRESS: 870 E. RESEARCH DR. STE. 12
PALM SPRINGS, CA. 92262
DA TE OF TOPOGRAPHY: FEBRUARY, 2020 I PHONE: (760) 250-4465 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 2&3, PM 13336, PMB 64/39;
PUBLIC UTILITY PURVEYORS:

ELECTRIC: SO. CALIFORNIA EDISON 760-202-4291
GAS: SO. CALIFORNIA GAS CO. 760-324-4691
TELEPHONE.· FRONTIER 760-778-3601
TELEVISION: SPECTRUM 760-674-5452
SEWER: DESERT WATER AGENCY 760-323-4971
WATER: DESERT WATER AGENCY 760-323-4971
WASTE MANAGEMENT: DESERT VALLEY DISPOSAL 760-329-5030
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.:
507-380-019, 020
I,,_, _.,,,, r ,-II H
ADDRESS: CORNER OF ALEJO ROAD & COMMERCIAL ROAD
PALM SPRINGS, CA. 92262
AREA INFORMATION:

TOTAL NO. OF NUMBERED LOTS - 8
TOTAL NO. OF LETTERED COMMON LOTS - 0
TOTAL NO. OF LETTERED STREET LOTS - 0
THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREIN CONTAINS, THE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP:

TOTAL GROSS AREA = 2.53 ACRES 110,207 S.F.
8 NUMBER LOTS AREA = 2.53 ACRES 110,207 S.F.

MINIMUM LOT SIZE = 13,246 S.F.

MAXIMUM LOT SIZE = 15,381 S.F.

A VERA GE LOT SIZE = 13. 775 S.F.

ZO/IHNG DESIGNATION:

EXISTING ZONING: M-1-P
PROPOSED ZONING: R-1-C
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:

EXISTING: INDUSTRIAL
PROPOSED: VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
~, __ v~.Wifg LAf\O USc'S:

NORTH COMMERCIAL

SOUTH PUBLIC

EAST COMMERCIAL

WEST RESIDENTIAL
FLOOD ZONE:

CURRENT ZONING:

THE PROPERTY JS SHOWN AS BEING IN FLOOD ZONE "X"
ON FEMA MAP PANEL 060265C 1559 G, REVISED JANUARY 19, 1982 .

BASIS OF BEARING:

THE BASIS OF BEARING IS THE CENTERLINE OF ALEJO ROAD,
PMB 14/64, RECORDS AS N 89°47'24"E.
&
• -w--s-
MH
ASPH.

CONG.
(£
a.c.

P.M.B.

G.N. V.

P/L
BU/LO.

FD.

I.P.

C.P.S.

L.S.

Jr
-¢­
CMU

LEGE/ID
/NO/CA TES EASEMENT MAPPED PER n7LE REPORT

IND/CA TES FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED
/NO/CA TES WATER LINE
/NO/CA TES SEWER LINE

IND/CA TES MANHOLE

IND/CA TES ASPHALT
/NO/CA TES CONCRETE

IND/CA TES CENTERLINE
/NO/CA TES ACRES
/NO/CA TES PARCEL MAP BOOK

IND/CA TES GROUND NOT VISIBLE
/NO/CA TES PROPERTY LINE

IND/CA TES BU/LO/NG

IND/CA TES FOUND
/NO/CA TES IRON PIPE
/NO/CA TES CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

IND/CA TES LANO SURVEYOR

IND/CA TES PALM TREE

IND/CA TES STREET LIGHT
/NO/CA TES CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT (BLOCKWALL)
--·

1. LOT DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREIN ARE APPROX/MA TE

2. THIS MAP IS COMPILED FROM RECORD INFORMATION ONLY
AND JS NDT TO BE USED AS A BOUNDARY SURVEY.
.J. NO SEPTIC SEWEAGE IS INTENTEO FOR THIS SITE

4. SITE NOT SUBJECT TO OVERFLOW, /NUNDA TION, FLODO HAZARDS

SANBORN ARCHITECTURE
GROUP. INC.
la a!! ,:,
~
"' .. !:!
I
~- Ii STEVEN J. VAN, ,;:, '.l
P.L.S. .,; .:: • • ,. - NB9"47'24'E 309.41' • ~ .• ----------------------~------ --j--'= ----- - ----- - --'-'..:.:..-'-'--':._:: _ ___ _.__ -._,:---- -----~- - ---- ------w ~r------'--------------------------- --s •~"1: .: ....... ___ s ---- s ---- s ---- s ---- s ---- --..__ s _ fl_ A_L_E._~O_ R_O_:A_D_ s ---- s ---- s _ __,~....,,......,~ ---- s ---- s ---- s _ <f_N 89'41'24"£ 359.4/' R&M I>

SANBORN

ARCHITECTURE
GROUP, Inc.
71-780 SAN JACINTO DR.

SUITE 'E-1' 11
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA. ,2210 ~
TEL f11.0J -123-01.00
FAX 111.0) 423 01.03 (l
7 ~ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38049 1 .::
© 1..,opyr1gh t _ PLOT DA TE: W O . 20_125 for AG LAND INVESTMENTS, L. L. C. ] Sanborn · · · PARCB. 2 &3, P.M IJJJ6, P.MB. 64/39 • Architecture Group, Inc. 12/l5/ 2021 SCALE : r=30' SECTION 12 T. 4 S., R. 4 E, S.B.8M 9.:

L...------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.;;;;;;A~ll~R;;;1;:iu;;_h;;t;;s~R;;;e;;;s;;;e;;;r~ve;;;d~======;;;;;=====~========================;!.IN

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
03/24/2022   2. B.

City Clerk -

SUBJECT

REQUEST BY THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE ANNUAL

UPDATE OF THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE AND MUNICIPAL CODE (CASE

5.1466 ZTA)
RECOMMENDATION:

Open the public hearing and receive public testimony.1.

Introduce by title only and waive further reading of an Ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN ANNUAL UPDATE TO THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE (CASE 5.1466 ZTA).”

2. Attachments
Item 2B

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: MARCH 24, 2022 PUBLIC HEARING

SUBJECT: REQUEST BY THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE

ANNUAL UPDATE OF THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE AND
MUNICIPAL CODE (CASE 5.1466 ZTA)

FROM: Justin Clifton, City Manager

BY: Development Services Department

SUMMARY:

This is a request for approval of an annual update to the Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) and Municipal Code (PSMC). The proposed update will make minor corrections to the text of the zoning ordinance, clarify zoning regulations, add or correct definitions, make corrections and additions to the list of permitted uses, and correct discrepancies in regulations. No major policy changes are proposed as part of this annual update. It is intended that Staff will conduct an annual update of the zoning code in the first quarter of each calendar year.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony.

2. Introduce by title only and waive further reading of Ordinance No. ____, “AN

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN ANNUAL UPDATE TO THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE (CASE 5.1466 ZTA).”

STAFF ANALYSIS:

The Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) is one of the City’s key tools for implementing development standards , and keeping the code current is critical in regulating development. The Development Services Department has instituted an annual update process as a means to provide a regular basis for making corrections to the text of the zoning code. The corrections that are proposed for this cycle have been identified by staff members in working with the code, modifications identified by the City Attorney relative to compliance with State or Federal law or requested by City Council members.

Item 2B - 1
City Council Staff Report
March 24, 2022 -- Page 2
Case 5.1466 ZTA

The proposed corrections, additions and updates include the following:

• Add a definition for “youth center” and specify that private facilities are included, in relation to minimum separation requirements for cannabis facilities. • Remove Land Use Permit requirement for large child day care facilities in residential zoning districts, as required by changes in state law. • Revise permitted use lists that permit time-share projects to identify condominium hotels as permitted by CUP and modify the condominium hotel ordinance to remove PDD application as the required process (similar to current process requirements for time-share projects).
• Add minimum landscape requirement for front yards in R -1 zoning development standards, to prohibit paving of the entire front yard area. • Correct error in Ordinance #2007 by allowing cannabis cultivation in M -1-P zone, only if within cannabis overlay, upon the approval of a CUP. • Add a provision to wall/fence ordinance to eliminate nuisance space between interior rear and side perimeter walls.
• Add standards to trash enclosure ordinance for organic waste recycling bins/enclosures due to changes in state law.
• Allow existing non-conforming covered parking to remain when additions/remodels are proposed to an existing residence and identify that no additional parking shall be required when converting covered parking into a Type 1 A ccessory Dwelling Unit.
• Codify current practice for permits and actions that do not require street improvements and add urban lot split approvals to list of items not requiring street dedications and improvements.
• Update hillside ordinance to reflect Architectural Review Committee as a body having authority to make decisions on hillside review applications, as modified in the Architectural Review ordinance last year.
• Expand the list of prohibited signs to include signs on vehicles parked on or adjacent to a property and used solely for advertisement purposes to attract attention to a product or business on said property.
• Amend automobile service station standards by removing minimum requirements for site area, building area and number of pumps, adding a minimum standard for electric vehicle charging spaces and revising other criteria within this section. • Amend the Historic Preservation Ordinance appeal process and language to be consistent with the appeal procedures and timeframes listed in Chapter 2.05 of the Municipal Code.
• Corrections have been made to various sections of the zoning code to eliminate code citations that are out-of-date or have been modified, to correct references to terms or the names of districts, and to correct errors in the text.

A table showing all proposed changes in strikeout/underline format, including the justification for the changes, is included as Attachment A to this staff report.

Item 2B - 2
City Council Staff Report
March 24, 2022 -- Page 3
Case 5.1466 ZTA

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS:

The Planning Commission considered the revisions to automobile service station standards at their regular meeting of November 11, 2021, and voted unanimously to recommend the proposed changes to this section of the Palm Springs Zoning Code (Case #5.1546). The proposed revisions have been incorporated into this code update.

All other amendments were considered by the Planning Commission at th eir regular meeting of February 23 , 2022. At this hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed changes.

Meeting minutes excerpts for both Planning Commission meetings are included as attachments to this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

The project is categorically exempt from further review per the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regulations § 15000 et seq.). The whole of the Ordinance is exempt because the code amendment is an administrative activity which will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment [§ 15060(c)(2)].

Furthermore, the whole of the Ordinance is exempt because the code amendment is not a “project” as defined by Section 15378 since it has no potential for resulting in a direct or indirect physical change to the environment [§ 15060(c)(3)].

REVIEWED BY:

Department Assistant Director: David A. Newell
Deputy City Manager: Flinn Fagg
City Manager: Justin Clifton

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Table – Summary of Corrections/Additions
B. Draft Ordinance
C. Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt – 11/17/21 Meeting D. Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt – 02/23/22 Meeting Item 2B - 3
Attachment A
Item 2B - 4

03/24/22