Agenda packet — Palm Springs City Council, October 17, 2022 (part 3 of 4)

September 14, 2022
ENG 25.

ENG 26.

ENG 27.

ENG 28.

ENG 29.

ENG 30.

ENG 31.
construction, and to arrange payment of any required fees associated with Tribal monitoring.

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 screening wiH not be allowed. Temporary dust control perimeter fencing shall be installed after issuance of Grading Permit, and immediately prior to commencement of grading operations.

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 shall be adequately anchored into the ground to resist wind loading.

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 stabilized, in accordance with Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 8.50.022. Following stabilization of all disturbed areas, perimeter fencing shall be removed, as required by the City Engineer.

Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall provide verification 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.

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

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 development via the California Regional Water Quality Control Board online SMARTS system.

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

This project requires preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). As of September 4, 2012, all SWPPPs shall include 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 reference or attached to the SWPPP as the Post-Construction Management Plan. A 16 Item 2B - Page 72
r
Conditions
of
Approval
TPM
38042
&

5.1527-CZ
Page
17 of22
September
14,
2022
ENG

32. ENG

33. ENG

34. ENG

35. ENG

36. copy
of
the
up-to-date
SWPPP
shall
be
kept
at
the
project
site
and
be
available
for
review
upon
request.

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
at
the
time
of
issuance
of
grading
permit
for
mitigation
measures
for
erosion/blowsand
relating
to
this
property
and
development.

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.

The
applicant
shall
provide
all
necessary
geotechnical/soils
inspections
and
testing
in
accordance
with
the
Geotechnical/Soils
Report
prepared
for
the
project.

All
backfill,
compaction,
and
other
earthwork
shown
on
the
approved
grading
plan
shall
be
certified
by
a
California
registered
geotechnical
or
civil
engineer,
certifying
that
all
grading
was
performed
in
accordance
with
the
Geotechnical/Soils
Report
prepared
for
the
project.

Documentation
of
all
compaction
and
other
soils
testing
are
to
be
provided
even
though
there
may
not
be
a
grading
plan
for
the
project.

Prior
to
issuance
of
Building
Permits.

The
applicant
shall
provide
Grading
Certification
for
all
building
(or
structure)
pads
in
conformance
with
the
approved
grading
plan
to
the
Engineering
Services
Department
for
review
and
approval
prior
to
issuance
of
Building
Permits.

In
cooperation
with
the
California
Agricultural
Commissioner
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
Agriculture
representative
in
the
form
of
an
approved
"Notification
of
Intent
To
Move
Soil
From
or
Within
Quarantined
Areas
of
Orange,
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].

WATER

QUALITY

MANAGEMENT
PLAN
ENG

37. This
project
shall
be
required
to
install
measures
in
accordance
with
applicable
National
Pollution
Discharge
Elimination
System
(NPDES)
Best
17 Item 2B - Page 73
Conditions of Approval
TPM 38042 & 5.1527-CZ

Page 18 of 22 ends

September 14, 2022
ENG 38.

ENG 39.

DRAINAGE
ENG 40.

ENG 41.

ENG 42.

Management Practices (BMP's) included as part of the NPDES Permit issued for the Whitewater River Reg ion from the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The applicant is advised that installation of BM P's, including mechanical or other means for pre-treating contaminated stormwater and non-stormwater runoff, shall be required.

A Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. The WQMP shall address the implementation of operational Best Management Practices (BMP's) necessary to accommodate nuisance water and storm water runoff from the site. Direct release of nuisance water to the adjacent property (or public streets) is prohibited. Construction of operational BMP's shall be incorporated into the Precise Grading and Paving Plan.

Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the property owner shall record a "Covenant and Agreement" with the County-Clerk Recorder or other instrument on a standardized form to inform future property owners of the requirement to implement and maintain the approved Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Other alternative instruments for requiring implementation of the approved Final Project-Specific WQMP include: requiring the implementation of the Final Project-Specific WQMP in Home Owners Association or Property Owner Association Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs); formation of Landscape, Lighting and Maintenance Districts, Assessment Districts or Community Service Areas responsible for implementing the Final Project Specific WQMP; or equivalent. Alternative instruments must be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.

All stormwater runoff across the property shall be accepted and conveyed in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer and released to an approved drainage system. Stormwater runoff may not be released directly to the adjacent streets without first intercepting and treating with approved Best Management Practices (BMPs).

All stormwater runoff passing through and falling onto the site shall be accepted and conveyed to a new drainage system to be constructed as part of the development. An on-site retention basin and other storm drainage facilities approved by the City Engineer shall be required.

All stormwater runoff passing through the site shall be accepted and conveyed across the property in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. For all stormwater runoff falling on the site, on-site retention or 18 Item 2B - Page 74
Conditions
of
Approval
TPM
38042
&

5.1527-CZ
Page
19 of
22 September
14,
2022
ENG

43. ENG

44. GENERAL ENG

45. ENG

46. other
facilities
approved
by
the
City
Engineer
shall
be
required
to
contain
the
increased
stormwater
runoff
generated
by
the
development
of
the
property.

Provide
a
hydrology
study
to
determine
the
volume
of
increased
stormwater
runoff
due
to
development
of
the
site,
and
to
determine
required
stormwater
runoff
mitigation
measures
for
the
proposed
development.

Final
retention
basin
sizing
and
other
stormwater
runoff
mitigation
measures
shall
be
determined
upon
review
and
approval
of
the
hydrology
study
by
the
City
Engineer
and
may
require
redesign
or
changes
to
site
configuration
or
layout
consistent
with
the
findings
of
the
final
hydrology
study.

No
more
than
40-50%
of
the
street
frontage
parkway/setback
areas
should
be
designed
as
retention
basins.

On-site
open
space,
in
conjunction
with
dry
wells
and
other
subsurface
solutions
should
be
considered
as
alternatives
to
using
landscaped
parkways
for
on-site
retention.

The
project
is
subject
to
flood
control
and
drainage
implementation
fees.

The
acreage
drainage
fee
at
the
present
time
is
$7287.
76 per
acre
in
accordance
with
Resolution
No.
15189.

Fees
shall
be
paid
prior
to
issuance
of
a
building
permit.

Submit
storm
drain
improvement
plans
for
all
on-site
storm
drainage
system
facilities
for
review
and
approval by
the
City
Engineer.

Any
utility
trenches
or
other
excavations
within
existing
asphalt
concrete
pavement
of
off-site
streets
required
by
the
proposed
development
shall
be
backfilled
and
repaired
in
accordance
with
City
of
Palm
Springs
Standard
Drawing
No.
115.

The
developer
shall
be
responsible
for
removing,
grinding,
paving
and/or
overlaying
existing
asphalt
concrete
pavement
of
off-site
streets
as
required
by
and
at
the
discretion
of
the
City
Engineer,
including
additional
pavement
repairs
to
pavement
repairs
made
by
utility
companies
for
utilities
installed
for
the
benefit
of
the
proposed
development
(i.e.

Desert
Water
Agency,
Southern
California
Edison,
Southern
California
Gas
Company,
Time
Warner,
Verizon,
Mission
Springs
Water
District,
etc.).

Multiple
excavations,
trenches,
and
other
street
cuts
within
existing
asphalt
concrete
pavement
of
off-site
streets
required
by
the
proposed
development
may
require
complete
grinding
and
asphalt
concrete
overlay
of
the
affected
off-site
streets,
at
the
discretion
of
the
City
Engineer.

The
pavement
condition
of
the
existing
off-site
streets
shall
be
returned
to
a
condition
equal
to
or
better
than
existed
prior
to
construction
of
the
proposed
development.

All
proposed
utility
lines
shall
be
installed
underground.
19 Item 2B - Page 75
•· Conditions of Approval
TPM 38042 & 5.1527-CZ

Page 20 of 22 ends

September 14, 2022
ENG 47.

ENG 48.

ENG 49.

ENG 50.

ENG 51.

ENG 52.

In accordance with Chapter 8.04.401 of the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, all existing and proposed electrical lines of thirty-five thousand volts or less and overhead service drop conductors, and all gas, telephone, television cable service, and similar service wires or lines, which are on site, abutting, and/or transecting, shall be installed underground unless specific restrictions are shown in General Orders 95 and 128 of the California Public Utilities Commission, and service requirements published by the utilities. The existing overhead utilities across the southerly property line, meet the requirement to be installed underground. Utility undergrounding shall extend to the nearest off-site power pole; no new power poles shall be installed unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. A letter from the owners of the affected utilities shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department prior to approval of a grading plan, informing the City that they have been notified of the City's utility undergrounding requirement and their intent to commence design of utility undergrounding plans. When available, the utility undergrounding plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department identifying all above ground facilities in the area of the project to be undergrounded. Undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

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

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 drawing filetype), DXF (AutoCAD ASCII drawing exchange filetype), and PDF (Adobe Acrobat document filetype) 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.

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.

Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any intersection or drive'!'ay which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight distance per City of Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 93.02.00, D.

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 20 Item 2B - Page 76
,,
Conditions
of
Approval
TPM
38042
&

5.1527-CZ
Page
21 of
22 September
14,
2022

MAP ENG

53. ENG

54. ENG

55. ENG

56. TRAFFIC ENG

57. installed
in
accordance
with
City
of
Palm
Springs
Standard
Drawing
No.
904. The
developer
shall
apply
for
an
annexation
to
the
City
of
Palm
Springs
Community
Facilities
District
established
for
public
safety
services
and
submit
required
applications,
waivers,
and
consent
forms
to
the
annexation
prior
to
t;3pproval
of
a
final
map.

Payment
of
an
annexation
fee
($7,500)
and
shall
be
made
at
the
time
of
the
application.

The
annexation
shall
be
completed
by
action
of
the
city
council
in
a
public
hearing,
prior
to
processing
a
final
map
for
approval.

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
traverse
closures
for
the
existing
parcel
and
all
lots
created
therefrom,
and
copies
of
record
documents
shall
be
submitted
with
the
Final
Map
to
the
Engineering
Services
Department as
part
of
the
review
of
the
Map.

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

In
accordance
with
Government
Code
Section
66411.1
(b),
the
Tentative
Parcel
Map
is
a
subdivision
of
five
or
more
lots
(parcels),
and
is
subject
to
construction
of
all
required
public
improvements.

Prior
to
approval
of
a
Parcel
Map,
all
required
public
improvements
shall
be
completed
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
City
Engineer,
or
shall
be
secured
by
a
construction
agreement
in
accordance
with
Government
Code
Section
66462.

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.

A
minimum
of
48 inches
of
clearance
for
accessibility
shall
be
provided
on
public
sidewalks.

Minimum
clearance
on
public
sidewalks
shall
be
provided
by
either
an
additional
dedication
of
a
sidewalk
easement
if
necessary
and
widening
of
the
sidewalk,
or
by
the
relocation
of
any
obstructions
within
the
public
sidewalk
along
the
frontage
of
the
subject
property.
21 Item 2B - Page 77
•
. ·
Conditions
of
Approval
Page
22 of
22 September
14,
2022
· · .. ~.

TPM
38042
&

5.1527-CZ
ENG

58. ENG

59. ENG

60. ENG

61. All
damaged, destroyed,
or
modified
pavement
legends,
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.

Install
street
name
signs,
stop
signs,
stop
bars,
and
"STOP"
legends
as
necessary
at
all
intersections
in
accordance
with
City
of
Palm
Springs
Standard
Drawing
Nos.
620-625
and
the
California
Manual
on
Uniform
Traffic
Control
Devices
for
Streets
and
Highways,
dated
January
13,
2012,
or
subsequent
editions
in
force
at
the
time
of
construction,
as
required
by
the
City
Engineer.

Construction
signing,
lighting
and
barricading
shall
be
provided
during
all
phases
of
construction
as
required
by
City
Standards
or
as
directed
by
the
City
Engineer.

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

END
OF
CONDITIONS 22
Item 2B - Page 78

ATTACHMENT E
Item 2B - Page 79

EXCERPT OF ACTION MINUTES

At the Planning Commission meeting of the City of Palm Springs , held September 14, 2022, the Planning Commission made the following decision:

2B. MARK TEMPLE, OWNER, FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE OF AN UNDEVELOPED

6.44-ACRE PARCEL FROM SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R -1-D (7,500 - SQUARE FOOT LOT) TO R -1-E (5,000 -SQUARE FOOT LOT); A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PER CEQA; AND A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) 38042 TO SUBDIVIDE THE PARCEL INTO THIRTY -ONE (31) SINGLE-FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED AT THE EAST ERLY TERMINUS OF VERONA ROAD, ZONE R-1-D (CASE NOS. 5.1527-CZ & TTM 38042) (GM)

Weremiuk, seconded Miller to approve Change of Zone, TTM and amend MND to include a clearer analysis and disclosure of park space.

AYES: ERVIN, HIRSCHBEIN, MILLER, MORUZZI, ROBERTS, WEREMIUK ABSENT: AYLAIAN

(Forward to City Council)

Item 2B - Page 80

ATTACHMENT F
Item 2B - Page 81
Casa Verona, LLC
699 S Indian Trail
Palm Springs, CA 92264
760/323-5310
Cell 760-774-3294
Fax 760/323-4303

March 4, 2021

Edward Robertson
City of Palm Springs Planning Department
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262

Re: Justification letter

Dear Edward:

Background:

Casa Verona, LLC, (Mark Temple, Manager/Member) was formed in 2005 and purchase the

6.44-acre parcel, converted from Bureau of Indian Affairs (allotted land) to fee simple and shortly thereafter submitted and received approval for Tentative Tract Map 38042 to build 25 single homes. In 2007 the Palm Springs Golf Course/Whitewater Golf Course was permanently closed, abandoned and foreclosed by its lender. As the parking lot, clubhouse and tennis courts were adjacent to our property and is at our entry area this had a negative effect on the marketability to build and sell homes. The golf course property was eventually repurchased and reprocessed through the City to build all single-family homes but to date no new construction has occurred. In addition, Contempo Homes purchase the 11 acres to the South and as the recession hit and the real estate market bottomed out, Contempo Homes was foreclosed by their bank and their project never came to fruition.

Project Description:

To build 31 new single-family homes within the 6.44 acre project, with common owned land along Verona Rd, interior street “A” and the retention basin and will be maintained by an HOA. The 31 lots are on 4.33 acres and average 6,085 square feet per lot. Once the tentative map is approved, we will process the architectural plans for the single-family homes with a single story modern contemporary style with pools and desert landscape.

Information:

The area is within single family homes (R-1-D) except for the vacant land to the South and the future park (part of Serena Park Project) to the West. We are requesting single family homes and change of zone to R-1-E.

Finding:

The project supports the type of use and zoning for the location and surrounding areas including the vacant land. The requested zone change helps with having 31 homes within the community because of the triangle size of the vacant land and the three cul-de-sacs.

Over all density is 4.81 per acre.

Item 2B - Page 82

We are the only vacant land property owners in this area that have stayed with the project and weathered the storm and are committed to complete this project. I have lived permanently in the Palm Springs since 1977 and Temple Development has developed over 1,800 resort homes and condominiums in Palm Springs and can visit our web site at http://www.templeconstructioninc.com/

In consideration of the above information and project history, we respectfully request the Planning and City Council to approve the new tentative map and proposed zone change.

Thank you,

Mark Temple
Manager

Item 2B - Page 83

ATTACHMENT G
Item 2B - Page 84
Casa Verona, LLC
699 S Indian Trail
Palm Springs, CA 92264
760/323-5310
Cell 760-774-3294
Fax 760/323-4303

March 20, 2021

Re: Neighbor outreach

Dear Mary Petrilli and Ross Bodel:

My name is Mark Temple, owner of the 6.44-acre property at the east end of Verona Rd and manager/member of Casa Verona, LLC. Attached is our proposed tentative map and landscape plan for your review. We are reaching out to brief you on our project believing it will positively impact the surrounding neighborhood and let you know we are happy to make ourselves available to address any questions/concerns you may have.

Background:

Casa Verona, LLC, (Mark Temple, Manager/Member) was formed in 2005 with the purchase of the 6.44-acre parcel. This parcel was converted from Bureau of Indian Affairs (allotted land) to fee simple land and shortly thereafter submitted and received approval for Tentative Tract Map 38042 to build 25 single homes. In 2007 the Palm Springs Golf Course/Whitewater Golf Course was permanently closed, abandoned and foreclosed by its lender. As the parking lot, clubhouse and tennis courts were adjacent to our property and is at our entry area this had a negative effect on the marketability to build and sell homes. The golf course property was eventually repurchased and reprocessed through the City to build all single-family homes but to date no new construction has occurred. In addition, Contempo Homes purchase the 11 acres to the South and as the recession hit and the real estate market bottomed out, Contempo Homes was foreclosed by their bank and their project never came to fruition.

Project Description:

To build 31 new single-family homes within the 6.44 acre project, with common owned land along Verona Rd, interior street “A” and the retention basin to be maintained by an HOA. The 31 lots are on 4.33 acres and average 6,085 square feet per lot. Once the tentative map is approved, we will process the architectural plans for the single-family homes containing a modern contemporary style with pools and desert landscape.

Information:

The area is currently zoned R-1-D single family homes (5 homes per acre) except for the vacant land to the South and the future park (part of Serena Park Project) to the West. We are requesting single family homes and change of zone to R-1-E (Also 5 homes per acre just slightly smaller lot sizes). The requested zone change helps with having 31 homes within the community because of the triangle size of the vacant land and the three cul-de-sacs resulting in an overall density of 4.81 units per acre.

Item 2B - Page 85

We are the only vacant land property owners in this area that have stayed with the project, weathered the 2009 financial recession and are committed to completing this project. I have lived permanently in the Palm Springs since 1977 and Temple Development has completed over 1,800 resort homes and condominiums in Palm Springs along with several high-end custom homes. We invite you to visit our web site at TempleConstructionInc.com

In consideration of the above information and project history, we respectfully request your support to approve the new tentative map and proposed zone change.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Mark Temple
Manager

Item 2B - Page 86

ATTACHMENT H
Item 2B - Page 87
Dear Glenn Mlaker,
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Casa Verona project. A records check of the ACBCI cultural registry revealed that the project area is within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. In consultation the ACBCI THPO requests the following:
[VIA EMAIL TO:[email protected]]
City of Palm Springs
Glenn Mlaker
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
April 18, 2022
Re: Case No. 5.1527, TTM 38042, Casa Verona
Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (760)699-6956. You may also email me at [email protected].

Cordially,
03-004-2021-020
*Formal government to government consultion under California Assembly Bill No. 52 (AB-52).
*A cultural resources inventory of the project area by a qualified archaeologist prior to any development activities in this area.
*A copy of the records search with associated survey reports and site records from the information center.
*Copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated in connection with this project.
*The presence of an approved Agua Caliente Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office.

AGUA CAL IENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS"
TKIE!AL lf lSTORIC PR EhVATIQN
-£./--
5 ' 0 I O I ~ A I 5 0 R O fl I V , P l I F' il I N G , C A 7 0 / 6 / 800 f" r.> 9 / 2 1 WW A • J/\ V
Item 2B - Page 88
Lacy Padilla
Archaeologist
Tribal Historic Preservation Office

AGUA CALIENTE BAND

OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
AGUA CAL €NT€ BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS"
THH!AL H ISTORIC PRf.SFffVATJON
5401 DINAH s~ (.)RC rnv • PAI r SFiilNGS, CA 9226
T 7fi0/699J680U F 760/(1'19/ !121 www . AGlJA~ALIC TC.-NSt, . G V Item 2B - Page 89

ATTACHMENT I
Item 2B - Page 90

CHAIR
Steve Manos
Lake Elsinore

VICE CHAIR
Russell Betts
Desert Hot Springs

COMMISSIONERS

Vacant

John Lyon
Riverside

Steven Stewart
Palm Springs

Richard Stewart
Moreno Valley

Michael Geller
Riverside

STAFF

Director
Paul Rull

Simon A. Housman
Jackie Vega
Barbara Santos

County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon St.,14th Floor.

Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 955-5132

www.rcaluc.org

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION

July 15, 2022

Glen Mlaker, Project Planner
City of Palm Springs Planning Department
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Drive
Palm Springs CA 92262

RE: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

F ile No.: ZAP1101PS22
Related File Nos.: 5.1527 (Change of Zone), TTM38042 (Tentative Tract Map) Compatibility Zones: Zone D
APNs: 677-020-032

Dear Mr. Mlaker:

On July 14
, 2022, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commi ssion (ALUC) found City of Palm Sp rings Case Nos. 5.1527 (Change of Zone) , TTM38042 ( Tentative Tract Map) , a proposal to divide 6.44 gross acres into 31 single-family residential lots and one retention basin lot located northerly of Verona Road, easterly of Whitewater Club Drive, and westerly of the Whitewater Channel , and a proposal changing t he site’s zoning from R-1-D (Single Family Residential minimum 7,500 square foot lot size zone) to R -1-E (Small-lot single -family residential zone), CONSISTENT with the 2005 Palm Springs Interna tional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, subject to the conditions listed below.

CONDI
TIONS:

1. Any new outdoor lighting that is installed shall be hooded or shielded so as to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky. Outdoor lighting shall be downward facing.

2. The following uses shall be prohibited:

(a) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber 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 th an an FAA -approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator.

(b) Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff o r 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 concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area. Such uses include landscaping utilizing water features, aquaculture, outdoor production of cereal grains, sunflower, and row crops, composting operati ons, wastewater management facilities , artificial ma rshes, trash transfer stations that are op en on one or more sides, recycling centers

Item 2B - Page 91
containing putrescible wastes, construction and demolition debris facilities, fly ash disposal, and incinerators.

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

(e) Highly noise-sensitive outdoor nonresidential uses.

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

3. The attached “Notice of Airport in Vicinity” shall be provided to all prospective purchasers and occupants of the property and be recorded as a deed notice.

4. Any propos ed stormwater basins or facilities shall be designed and maintained to provide for a maximum 48-hour detention period following the design storm, and remain totally dry between rainfalls. Vegetation in and around the 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 basin(s) shall not include trees or shrubs that produce seeds, fruits, or berries.

Landscaping in the stormwater basin, if not rip -rap, should be in accordance with the guidance provided in ALUC “LANDSCAPING NEAR AI RPORTS” brochure, and the “AIRPORTS, WILDLIFE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT” brochure available at RCALUC.ORG whic
h list acce ptable plants from Riverside County Landscaping Guide or other alternative landscaping as may be recommended by a qualified wildlife hazard biologist.

A not
ice sign, in a form similar to that attached hereto, shall be permanently affixed to the stormwater basin 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.

5. Buildings shall be limited to a maximum top point elevation of 521 feet above mean sea level unless a “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” letter authorizing a higher top point elevation has been issued by the Federal Aviation Administration Obstruction Evaluation Service.

6. During initial sales of properties within newly created subdivision, 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 proximit y of the property to the airport and aircraft traffic pattern. The ALU C overflight informational brochure 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 expected from individual aircraft overflights, as well as Compatibility Factors exhibit from the Palm Springs I nternational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Supporting documentation was provided to the Airport Land Use Commission and is available online at www.rcaluc.org, click Agendas 7-14- 22 Agenda, Bookmark Agenda Item No. 3.2.

Item 2B - Page 92
If you have any questions, please contact me at (951) 955-6893.

Sincerely,

RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION

______________________________________
Paul Rull, ALUC Director

Attachments: Notice of Airport in Vicinity

cc: Casa Verona, LLC (applicant/property owner)
Temple Construction, Inc. (representative)
Harry Barrett, Airport Manager, Palm Springs International Airport ALUC Case File

X:\AIRPORT CASE FILES\Palm Springs\ZAP1101PS22\ZAP1101PS22.LTR.doc Item 2B - Page 93

ATTACHMENT J
Item 2B - Page 94

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Casa Verona Residential Project

Lead Agency:

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

Prepared by:

The Altum Group
44-60 Village Court, Suite 100
Palm Desert, CA 92260

June 2022

i:11:i
Item 2B - Page 95
All le
tters commenting on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) have been reproduced and are included in this section. All agencies from whom an individual letter was received during the public review period are listed below. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND have been made in strike - out/underline format in response to the comments received during public review.

Comment Letter No. Draft IS/MND Comment Letters Date
A Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians April 18, 2022

The City of Palm Springs prepared a Draft IS/MND for the Casa Verona Residential Project and circulated the Draft IS/MND for a 20-day public review period pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 3, Section 15105, of the California Environmental Quality Act (C EQA) Guidelines. The review period gives agencies, organizations, and members of the public the opportunity to review the Draft IS/MND and provide comments on the document and the environmental analysis presented therein. The 20 -day review period commenced on April 1, 2022, and ended on April 20, 2022. The Notice of Intent to Adopt for the proposed project was posted at 1695 North Sunrise Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262 and the City Library for the duration of the public review period. During the review period, the District received one letter from reviewing agencies commenting on the Draft IS/MND.

The comment letter was submitted by Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians on April 18, 2022, which included a total of three comments. None of the comments identified errors or insufficient analysis associated with the CEQA document. Below are the responses to comments for each of the three comments in the first comment letter.

Comment No. Response to Comments
1 Comment noted.
2 Comment noted. Text revised under sections 3.18.3 through 3.18.5. 3 Comment noted.

Item 2B - Page 96
Dear Glenn Mlaker,
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Casa Verona project. A records check of the ACBCI cultural registry revealed that the project area is within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. In consultation the ACBCI THPO requests the following:
[VIA EMAIL TO:[email protected]]
City of Palm Springs
Glenn Mlaker
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
April 18, 2022
Re: Case No. 5.1527, TTM 38042, Casa Verona
Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (760)699-6956. You may also email me at [email protected].

AGUA CALIENTE BAND

OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
AGUA CALIENTE DANO 0 ,F CAHUILLA INDIAN~
5401 DINAH s~ (.)RC rnv • PAI r SFiilNGS , CA 9226
T 7fi0 / 699 J 680U F 7 60 /(1' 19 / !121 www . A G lJA ~ A LI C T C. - NSt, . G V Item 2B - Page 98
This page intentionally left blank.

Item 2B - Page 99
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Authority .................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Scope of Environmental Review .............................................................................................. 2

1.3 Impact Assessment Terminology ............................................................................................. 2

1.4 Organization of the Initial Study .............................................................................................. 3

1.5 Documents Incorporated by Reference .................................................................................. 3 Chapter 2 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Project Location and Setting .................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 3 Environmental Evaluation .............................................................................................. 10

3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ....................................................................................... 13

3.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................. 15

3.4 Biological Resources .............................................................................................................. 27

3.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 34

3.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................... 37

3.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................... 38

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................... 41

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................... 48

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 51

3.11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................... 54

3.12 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................. 55

3.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 56

3.14 Population and Housing ..................................................................................................... 59

3.15 Public Services .................................................................................................................... 60

3.16 Recreation .......................................................................................................................... 63

3.17 Transportation.................................................................................................................... 64

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 68

3.19 Utilities and Services .......................................................................................................... 70 Item 2B - Page 100

3.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................... 74

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................... 76 Chapter 4 Report Preparers ............................................................................................................ 80

Item 2B - Page 101
List of Tables
Table 1 Salton Sea Air Basin Attainment Status ............................................................................. 15 Table 2 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds for Coachella Valley1,2 ................................ 16 Table 3 Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions .......................................................... 22 Table 4 Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions ......................................................................... 24 Table 5 Maximum Number of Acres Disturbed Per Day ................................................................. 25 Table 6 Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors ................................................... 25 Table 7 Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................... 45 Table 8 City of Palm Springs CAP Applicable Measures Project Comparison ................................. 46 Table 9 Project-Generated VMT ..................................................................................................... 66 Table 10 Project Effect on VMT ........................................................................................................ 67

List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Regional Location Map ......................................................................................................... 5 Exhibit 2 Project Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................. 6 Exhibit 3 Site Photos ........................................................................................................................... 7 Exhibit 4 Tentative Tract Map No. 38042 ........................................................................................... 9 Appendix
Appendix A Casa Verona (TTM 38042) Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum, Ganddini Group, February 25, 2022
Appendix B Tentative Tract Map No. 38042 Casa Verona Habitat Assessment and Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, ELMT Consulting, January 2022
Appendix C Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Casa Verona Project, CRM TECH, September 20, 2021
Appendix D Casa Verona (TTM 38042) Focused Noise Analysis, Ganddini Group, March 4, 2022 Appendix E Casa Verona (TTM 38042) TIA Screening Assessment, Ganddini Group, January 24, 2022 Appendix F Casa Verona (TTM 38042) Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis, Ganddini Group, March 3, 2022

Item 2B - Page 102
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 2B - Page 103
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 2B - Page 104
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
THCP Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan
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 2B - Page 105
Chapter 1 Introduction
Project Title: Casa Verona Residential Project
Case No. 5.1527 – Change of Zone
Tentative Tract Map No. 38042

Assessor’s Parcel No. Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 677-020-032

Lead Agency Name and
Address:

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

Project Location: East end of Verona Road

Project Sponsor’s Name and
Address:

Casa Verona, LLC
699 Indian Trail
Palm Springs, CA 92264

General Plan Designation(s): Existing: Low Density Residential Proposed: Low Density Residential

Zoning: Existing: Single-family residential zone seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet (R-1-D)
Proposed: Single-family residential zone five thousand (5,000) square feet (R-1-E)

Contact Person: Glenn Mlaker, AICP, Associate Planner
City of Palm Springs
3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262

Phone Number: 760-323-8245 ext. 8778

Date Prepared: June 2022

Item 2B - Page 106

1.1 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 Project 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 CE QA (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 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, serves as the environmental document for the proposed P roject pursuant to the provisions of CEQA (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.).

1.2 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

1.3 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 fro m 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 fro m the analysis that a proposed Project would cause no substantial adverse change in the environment when mitigation measures are s uccessfully 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 2B - Page 107

1.4 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 Pr oject, 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 overview including a description of the regional location and Project vicinity, including ex hibits; 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.

1.5 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 2B - Page 108
Chapter 2 Project Description

2.1 Project Location and Setting
Project Location
The Casa Verona, LLC (Applicant) is proposing Change of Zone No. 5.1527 and Tentative Tract Map No. 38042 for the development of 31 single-family lots. The P roject site is located at the east end of Verona Road in the City of Palm Springs, Riverside County, California ( Exhibit 1, Regional Location Map, Exhibit 2, Project Vicinity Map, and Exhibit 3, Site Photos). The Casa Verona Project (hereafter, “Project”) occurs within an approximately

6.44 acre vacant property. The Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) of the Project site is 677-020-032.

The Project site is located in the north-central portion of the City. Land to the immediate north, south, and east are undeveloped; and land immediately to the west is developed with former country club facilities.

Project Description
The Applicant is proposing Change of Zone No. 5.1527 of the Project site from s ingle-family residential zone seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet (R-1-D) to single-family residential zone five thousand (5,000) square feet (R-1-E). The Applicant is also proposing Tentative Tract Map No. 38042, which would subdivide the Project site (APN No. 677-020-032) into 31 single-family residential lots (see Exhibit 4, Tentative Tract Map No. 38042).

Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
The Project site is currently undeveloped and does not consist of any on-site improvements such as curb, gutter and sidewalk. Electric and natural gas se rvice would be provided to the P roject 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 Burrtec Waste & Recycling Services.

Surrounding General Plan land use designations include:
• North: Open Space – Water
• South: Low Density Residential
• East: Open Space – Water
• West: Very Low Density Residential, Open Space – Parks/Recreation, Medium Density Residential Project Related Approvals
The discretionary approvals required by the City include:
• Change of Zone No. 5.1527
• Tentative Tract Map No. 38042
• Adoption of Casa Verona Residential 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 systems, 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 2B - Page 109
Exhibit
N Indian
Canyon Dr
S Pal
m Ca
nyon
Dr
N Palm Ca
nyon Dr
10 Varner R
d
Salvia
111
111
10 N Sunrise Way
Date Palm Dr
D
ate
Palm Dr
Var
ner Rd
Dinah Sh ore Dr
Dinah Shore DrE P alm Canyon Dr
E Ramon Rd
Vista C hin o
S Sunrise Way
N
Gen
e
Autry
Trl
E Vista Chino
Mesquite Golf
and Country
Club
Cimarron Golf
Resort
Desert Princess
Country Club
Demuth Park
P alm S prings
Ramon Rd
Va
rner Rd
Westin Mission
Hills Golf Resort
& Spa
Rimlon
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, EPA, NPS, USDA
Regional Location Map
Casa Verona Residential Project 1
1 IN= 1 MI
Project Site
The
~ ~ Altum
i;I L;IGroup
Item 2B - Page 110
Exhibit
Wh
ite
wate
r Cl
b
N Wh itew ater Club D
r
N Whitew ater Clu
b Dr
E Ve rona Rd
E Vincentia Rd
N Voltu rno Rd
E Ve nt ura Rd
E Venetia R d
E Valencia Rd
Whitewat
er Rive
r
N Gene Au
try Trl
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 Riverside, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USD
A
Project Vicinity Map
Casa Verona Residential Project 2
1 IN = 0.1 MI
Legend
Project Site
The
~ ~ Altum
i;I L;IGroup
Item 2B - Page 111
Exhibit
3 Site Photos
Casa Verona Residential Project
--•The
~ ~ Altum
~ L;IGroup
Item 2B - Page 112
Exhibit
3 Site Photos
Casa Verona Residential Project
1 2
3 The
~ ~ Altum
~ L;IGroup
Item 2B - Page 113
Exhibit
4 Tenta�ve Tract Map No. 38042
Casa Verona Residential Project
5865 SF
5400 SF
5400 SF
5400 SF
5400 SF
5400 SF
5400 SF
5400 SF
5400 SF
5405 SF
5940 SF
6490 SF
10523 SF
8733 SF
10673 SF
6076 SF5795 SF6290 SF
6030 SF 5146 SF 5146 SF 5315 SF
7147 SF
6472 SF
5444 SF5340 SF5325 SF5311 SF5296 SF5281 SF6014 SF
PAD=481.2
PAD=481.3
PAD=481.1
PAD=481.2
PAD=481.5
PAD=481.8
PAD=482.0
PAD=482.3
PAD=482.6
PAD=483.0
PAD=483.3
PAD=483.6
PAD=483.8
PAD=482.9
PAD=483.7
PAD=483.5PAD=483.2PAD=482.9
PAD=481.3 PAD=481.5 PAD=481.8 PAD=482.1
PAD=482.6
PAD=483.0
PAD=483.4PAD=483.2PAD=482.4PAD=482.1PAD=481.8PAD=481.5PAD=481.31 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 262728293031
LOT A 0.18 AC.

LOT B 0.76AC.

LOT C

0.26 AC.

LOT D

0.52 AC.

LOT D

0.39 AC.

RETENTION BASIN

25.53 42.4750.00

9.97 81.98

54.0054.00
100.00

54.00 54.00
100.00

54.0054.00
100.00

54.00 54.00
100.00

41.83 R=50'
L=12'

53.99 100.00
R=50'
L=37'

54.00 101.50

33.13 R=50'
L=25'

54.00 100.00

92.29 R=50'
L=47'

5.00 291.46
135.72

85.89 25.53

25.38 5.31
152.76
R=50'
L=100'

34.31 25.46

18.94 R=50'
L=101'
118.13
209.49
R=50'
L=78'

36.93 98.57
R=50'
L=31'

54.00 108.28
R=50'
L=10'

43.86 54.00

25.46 18.94 R=20'
L=26'
R=50'
L=221'

86.02 25.46

86.00 25.53

25.38 107.24

42.16 25.46

89.24 60.16
102.92

84.92 25.46

41.00 102.92

50.00 50.00
102.92

50.00 50.00

40.54 R=50'
L=5'
118.59
116.92
R=50'
L=102'

5.00 141.16

44.72 10.00
244.52
R=50'
L=83'
108.63

10.00 244.52
R=50'
L=83'
108.63

13.03 618.88

13.03 116.82
R=50'
L=31'20.54

50.00 106.94

50.00 50.00
106.65

50.00 50.00
106.36

50.00 50.00
106.07

50.00 50.00
105.78

50.00 50.00

25.46 25.46

86.0025.53
516.30
R=50'
L=221'
R=20'
L=26'
449.72

25.38 25.46

25.46 25.46
245.62
R=20'
L=26'
R=50'
L=221'
312.70

25.46 86.00
105.49

42.16 25.46

69.25 25.38

42.26 N0° 41' 14"E 23.00
N0° 13' 38"E 779.74
N40° 50' 18"W 1039.39
N89° 26' 29"W 63.95
N0° 33' 30"E 23.03
N89° 26' 30"W 618.91

25.46 25.46

25.46 86.00

25.46 56.90

32.87 47.69
50'
25' 25'
25' 25'
50'
25' 25'
50'
25'
18' 18'
7' 7'
18' 18'
7' 7'
25'
18'
7'

C/L VERONA ROAD
C/L
C/L
C/L
TP 478.81TP 479.52
TP 478.81

0.52% 0.81%
TP 479.70
TP 479.26

0.52%
TP 479.26
HP

1.50%
LP

0.52%
TP 482.00
TP 480.21

0.52%
TP 481.24

0.52%
3' RETAINING WALL 6' RETAINING WALL
TP 480.96
PROP. 18" SD PIPE
CB CB
10'
VERONA ST. ENERGY DISAPPATOR
25240
K.A.C.

APPROVED DATE
REVISIONNO.

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF: DESIGN BY:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

APPROVED BY:

DATER.C.E. NO.

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
FILE NO.

DWG. NO.

Of SHEETS
SHEET
62624
KEITH A. CHRISTIANSEN
DATE
R.C.E. 50083
DATER.C.E. NO.

REVIEWED BY:

JOEL MONTALVO

CORRECTED APPROVED
"AS BUILT"NO. BY BY

DATEDATE
1 1
JOHN M. BRUDIN
41836
BENCH MARK ELEV.
(750)
22790
0 22000

FILL (CY)CUT (CY)
IMPORT
SHRINKAGE (10%)
OVEREXCAVATION (2.0')

EARTHWORK ESTIMATE
SUBSIDENCE (0.10')
ITEM
2450
22000
7500 CY
3200
10400

LOCATION
APN 677-020-032

CASA VERONA
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38042
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507
PH: 951-323-4713 FAX: 951-405-8410
5225 CANYON CREST DRIVE, STE. 251
EMAIL: [email protected]
A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 6, T.4S.,R.5E., S.B.B. & M.

K.A.C.

TYPICAL SECTION FOR INTERIOR STREETS

IN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CHRISTIANSEN & COMPANY OCTOBER 2020
GOVERNMENT LOT 6 AND A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 8 IN THE N.W 1/4 OF SECTION 6, T.4S., R.5E. S.B.M.

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38042

TYPICAL SECTION FOR VERONA ROAD
DATE PREPARED: 10/23/20
OWNER/APPLICANT:

CASA VERONA, LLC
699 INDIAN TRAIL
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92264
PH: 760-774-3294
FAX: 858-857-1840
CONTACT: MARK TEMPLE
EMAIL: [email protected]:

CHRISTIANSEN & COMPANY
5225 CANYON CREST DRIVE, STE. 251
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507
FAX: 951-405-8410
CONTACT: KEITH CHRISTIANSEN
EMAIL: [email protected]
PH: 951-323-4713
MAP SCALE:

ADDRESS:

XX-XXX VERONA ROAD - PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92264
ACREAGE:

GROSS:6.44
ZONING:

EXISTING: R-1-D
PROPOSED: R-1-E
SURROUNDING: RGA8, R-1-D, R-1-C, W
LAND USE/GP:

EXISTING: VACANT
PROPOSED: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SURROUNDING: RESIDENTIAL, FLOOD CONTROL
UTILITY PURVEYORS:

WATER: DESERT WATER AGENCY
SEWER: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO.

ELECTRIC: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
PHONE: FONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
CABLE: TIME WARNER CABLE
WQMP NOTE:

AN EARTHEN RETENTION BASIN IS UTILIZED FOR 100% STORMWATER CONTAINMENT OF THE 100YR-24HR STORM EVENT. THEREFORE, WQMP WORKSHEET VOLUMES ARE ACHIEVED. (760)-323-4971
(760)-323-8299
(760)-341-4523
(760)-202-4290
(855)-284-2105
(760)-340-1312

LOT ACREAGE
A
B
C
D
E
1-31

0.18 0.76

0.26 0.52

0.39 4.33
WASTE: BURRTEC WASTE & RECYCLING SERVICES (760)-292-2495

INTERIOR STREET LOT

DEDICATION VERONA ROAD

INTERIOR STREET LOT

RETENTION BASIN

RESIDENTIAL LOTS
1"=50'
NOTE:

PROPERTY NOT IN A COUNTY SERVICE AREA OR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT.

ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS:
677-020-032

FEMA FLOOD ZONE
FLOOD ZONE:X PANEL:06065C1557G EFFECTIVE DATE:8/28/2008 ELEVATION DATUM:
+500 FEET HAS BEEN ADDED TO ALL ELEVATION TO ELIMINATE NEGATIVE (-) ELEVATIONS.

ELEVATION DATUM:
+500 FEET HAS BEEN ADDED TO ALL ELEVATION TO ELIMINATE NEGATIVE (-) ELEVATIONS.

VICINITY MAP
Christiansen & Company
Land Development - Design - Engineering
Est. 2007

PROPOSED CONTOUR

EXISTING CONTOUR

PROPOSED ELEVATION

EXISTING ELEVATION

EXISTING TREE/BUSH

CROSS - GUTTER

PROPOSED CURB
& GUTTER

EXISTING CURB
& GUTTER

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

POWER POLE
EXISTING P.C. CONCRETE

DIRECTION OF FLOW
TC
TP

FL FLOWLINE

TOP OF PAVEMENT

TOP OF CURB

GB GRADE BREAK

HP HIGH POINT

FS FINISHED SURFACE

FG FINISHED GRADE

NG EXISTING GRADE
STA. STATIONING
INV. INVERT

EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT

PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT

EXISTING WATER SERVICE

EXISTING SEWER LAERAL

PROPOSED RIP RAP
~ ..
~
I
,,-----,,____,,,
;--,o---
~
~
0 1frr-
r
LEGEND
The
~ ~ Altum
~ L;IGroup
Item 2B - Page 114
Chapter 3 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 p roject MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed 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 2B - Page 115

3.1 Aesthetics

3.1.1 Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Circulation Element, 2007 • City of Palm Springs, Municipal Code. Accessed March 2, 2022 https://library.qcode.us/lib/palm_springs_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/zoning_code- chapter_93_00-93_21_00

3.1.2 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located in the northern region of the Coachella Valley within the City of Palm Springs, at the east end of Verona Road. Palm Springs is surrounded by the San Bernardino (north -northwest), Little San Bernardino (northeast)), San Jacinto (south 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 (m)), 8,716 feet (2,657 m), 10,834 feet (3,3302 m), respectively. Additionally, the foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains extend along the westerly and sout herly portion of the City, approximately two miles west of the Project site. From the P roject site, the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains provide a picturesque visual backdrop primarily to the southwest and south.

3.1.3 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 night time 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 3.7 miles from the Project site) that occur to the west, south, and southwest; views of the San Bernardino Mountains (located approximately 8.9 miles) that occur to the north and northwest; and, views of the Little San Bernardino Mountains (located approximately 3.5 miles) that occur at great distance to the northeast. Surrounding the Project site, views of the lower elevations of ~
~
~
~
Item 2B - Page 116
the aforementioned are partially blocked due to existing dev elopment and distance from the 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 Pla n Figure 9 -4. The Applicant is proposing a Change of Zone from R -1-D to R -1-E and a subdivision of the parcel into 31 single-family residential lots. Build out of the proposed Project would primarily affect scenic views of the surrounding mountain views as seen from the properties located to the southwest. Approval of the Change of Zone would subject the site to adhere to the development standards of the R-1-E zone. Per the Palms Springs Municipal Code (PSMC) buildings constructed under this zone would be limited to a height of 12 feet, similar to the surrounding neighborhoods . 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 R-1-E 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 General Plan, the majority of the City’s roadways provide views to the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains; however, no roadways are designated by the state as scenic highways. Furthermore, according to the California Scenic Highway Program, SR-111, which is located approximately 0.5 miles south of the Project site, is classified as Eligible Scenic Highway – Not Officially Designated. Because of the distance between SR-111 and the Project site, the Project site is not visible to vehicles driving along SR-111. 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, the proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not 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 P roject site is located at the edge of an urbanized area. Implementation of the P roject would result in the visual conversion of the site from vacant, undeveloped land to 31 single-family homes. The Project would be compatible with the size, scale, and aesthetic features of other existing single -family homes located 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 q uality of new development and ensures that new development does not detract from any scenic attributes/qualities in the surrounding area. Because the P roject 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 P roject would introduce new sources of lighting, including streetlights and security lighting. Subject to City review and approval, all P roject lighting would be required to conform to regulations, guidelines, and standards established under the City’s Zoning Code Sec tion 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 P roject would not intr oduce any permanent design features that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Item 2B - Page 117

3.1.4 Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

3.1.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

3.2.1 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

3.2.2 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 dated May 2016, though the City of Palm Springs neither grows, processes, nor distributes food, the City’s policies can foster an environment that supports these activities. Moreover, ac cording 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, there are no properties that have 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.

3.2.3 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 compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Fo
rest 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 (Farml and), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
[g]
Item 2B - Page 118

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 122 20(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 Other 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 designations are not zoned for agricultural use. As shown on Map My County, the P roject site is not a part of an agricultural preserve and is therefore not located within a Williamson Act contract area. The P roject 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 p roject would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use.

As discussed under Section 3.2.3(c) and (d), the P roject would not convert forest land to non -forest use. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. [g]
[g]
[g]
[g]
Item 2B - Page 119

3.2.4 Mitigation
No mitigation measure is required.

3.2.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable

3.3 Air Quality

3.3.1 Sources
• The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook
• Ganddini Group, Casa Verona (TTM 38042) Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum , February 25, 2022 (Appendix A)
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Land Use Element, 2007

3.3.2 Environmental Setting
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources 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 docu mented 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 the 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 na tional ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 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.

Table 1 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
Item 2B - Page 120
Pollutant State Status National Status
PM2.5 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
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.

Table 2 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds for Coachella Valley 1,2
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
Item 2B - Page 121
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant SCAQMD Standards
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:
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 d aily 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 pow er 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 review 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.

Item 2B - Page 122
AQ 1.7 Participate in meetings between the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and SCAQMD to discuss and implement regional actions to reduce local air emissions. A comprehensive range of options should be considered including, but not limited to, th e 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.

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 blow sand 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.

Item 2B - Page 123
GOAL AQ 3 Protect people and land u ses 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.

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 traffic (and subsequently vehicular emissions) generated by circling the airport loop until passengers are available for pickup.

3.3.3 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 d istrict 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?

~
~
Item 2B - Page 124

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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. 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 th at "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 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 es tablished 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).

The ongoing operation of the Project would generate air polluta nt emissions that are less than significant. As such, Project 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 4 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. ~
~
Item 2B - Page 125
Therefore, the Project would 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 Pro ject 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 re gional plans under CEQA. For this Project, 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 dete rmine priority transportation projects and determine vehicle miles traveled within the SCAG region.

The Project is currently designated Low Density Residential according to the City’s General Plan land use map. The Project would develop the site with 31 single-family homes. Therefore, the Project would not result in an inconsistency with the land use designation in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the proposed 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 would 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 31 single-family homes .

Construction of the 31 single-family homes is anticipated to begin no sooner than mid -August 2022 and to be completed by mid-December 2023.

The nearest sensitive receptors are the existing single -family residential property lines located approximately 50 feet (~15 meters) to the southwest (across Verona Road), 330 feet (~100 meters) west (along Verona Road), and 700 feet (~213 meters) to the west (along N Whitewater Club Drive) of the Project site. CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) 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 o r chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, managing haul road Item 2B - Page 126
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 activi ty 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 building permit for an activity with a disturbed surface area of more than 5,000 square f eet, 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.

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 constru ction-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 fr om construction of the Project. No mitigation is required.

Table 3 Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions Activity
Pollutant Emissions
(pounds/day)

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Grading
On-Site1 1.95 20.86 15.27 0.03 3.75 2.21
Off-Site2 0.43 16.02 3.85 0.07 2.38 0.77
Subtotal 2.37 36.88 19.12 0.10 6.13 2.98
Building Construction
On-Site1 1.71 15.62 16.36 0.03 0.81 0.76
Off-Site2 0.20 0.79 1.80 0.01 0.52 0.15
Subtotal 1.90 16.40 18.16 0.03 1.33 0.91
Paving
On-Site1 1.11 10.19 14.58 0.02 0.51 0.47
Off-Site2 0.05 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.13 0.03
Subtotal 1.16 10.22 15.01 0.02 0.64 0.50
Architectural Coating
On-Site1 45.43 1.30 1.81 0.00 0.07 0.07
Off-Site2 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.08 0.02
Subtotal 45.47 1.32 2.10 0.00 0.15 0.09
Total for overlapping phases3 48.53 27.94 35.27 0.06 2.12 1.51 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
Notes:

Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0
Item 2B - Page 127
(1) On-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.

Regional Impacts
The potential operations -related air emissions have been analyzed below for t he criteria 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 31 single-family residential homes. The CalEEMod model analyzes 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 additional vehicle miles generated from the proposed Project. The vehicle trips associated with the proposed project have been analyzed by inputting the Project-generated vehicular trips (trip generation rate) from the Casa Verona (TTM 38042) TIA Screening Assess ment (TIA Screening Assessment) prepared for the proposed project by Ganddini Group (January 24, 2022) into the CalEEMod Model. The TIA Screening Assessment found that the proposed Project would create approximately 292 vehicle trips per day with a trip ge neration rate of

9.43 trips per dwelling unit per weekday. In addition, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition rates of 9.48 trips per dwelling unit per day for Saturdays and

8.48 trips per dwelling unit per day for Sundays were also utilized in the CalEEMod modeling. The program then applies the emission factors for each trip which is provided by the EMFAC2017 model to determine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions. The CalEEMod default trip lengths were us ed 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 P roject-generated vehicle trips and on going operation of the Project. The worst -case summer or winter VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 daily emissions created from the Project’s long -term operations have been calculated and are summarized below in Table 4, Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions.

Item 2B - Page 128
Table 4 Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions
Activity
Pollutant Emissions
(pounds/day)

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources1 1.85 0.49 2.76 0.00 0.05 0.05
Energy Usage2 0.03 0.22 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02
Mobile Sources3 0.82 0.98 6.67 0.01 1.40 0.38
Total Emissions 2.70 1.69 9.52 0.02 1.47 0.45
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0; 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.

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 pro jects 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 simultaneously. 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 criteria 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
Item 2B - Page 129
Construction-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the state and f ederal 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 property lines located approximately 50 feet (~15 meters) to the southwest (across Verona Road), 330 feet (~100 meters) west (along Verona Road), and 700 feet (~213 meters) to the west (along N Whitewater Club 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 would exceed the calculated local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Table 5 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 3 0.5 1.5
Total for phase - - 2.5
Notes:

Source: South Coast AQMD, Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds, 2011b.

Table 6 Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors Activity
On-Site Pollutant Emissions
(pounds/day)

NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Grading 20.86 15.27 3.75 2.21
Building Construction 15.62 16.36 0.81 0.76
Paving 10.19 14.58 0.51 0.47
Architectural Coating 1.30 1.81 0.07 0.07
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.

Item 2B - Page 130
(1) The nearest sensitive receptors to the project include the existing single-family residential dwelling units located approximately 50 feet (~15 meters) to the southwest (across Verona Road), 330 feet (~100 meters) west (along Verona Road), and 700 feet (~213 meters) to the west (along N Whitewater Club Drive) of the project site; therefore, the 25 meter threshold was used.

Note: The project will disturb up to a maximum of 2.5 acres a day during grading (see Table 5).

Operations-Related Local Impacts
Project-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 SSAB. The Project has been analyzed for the potential local CO emissions impacts from project-generated vehicular trips and from the potential 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 notable 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.

CalEEMod output showed that the Project would generate 292 average daily trips. The 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan) showed that an intersection which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day would not violate the CO standard. The volume of traffic at Project buildout would be well below 100,000 vehicles and below the necessary volume to even get close to causing a violation of the CO standard. Therefore, no CO “hot spot” modeling was performed and no significant long-term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality with the on-going use of the proposed 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 f ederal 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 nearest sensitive receptors are the existing single- family residential property lines located approximately 50 feet (~15 meters) to the southwest (across Verona Road), 330 feet (~100 meters) west (along Verona Road), and 700 feet (~213 meters) to the west (along N Whitewater Club 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.

In conclusion, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required Item 2B - Page 131
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 emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials such as asphalt pavement. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process are 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 no t 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.

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 would 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.

3.3.4 Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

3.3.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

3.4 Biological Resources

3.4.1 Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Recreation, Open Space & Conservation Element, 2007. • The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. http://www.cvmshcp.org/
Item 2B - Page 132
• City of Palm Springs Municipal Code.
http://www.qcode.us/codes/palmsprings/
• ELMT Consulting, Tentative Tract Map No. 390942 Casa Verona Habitat Assessment and Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis, January 2022 (Appendix B)

3.4.2 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 bio logical resources. The City is located within the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan (THCP). This is a regional plan that is implemented within the geographical boundaries of three cities (Palm Springs, Cathedral City, and Rancho Mirage) and the County of Riverside in an effort comply with federal and State endangered species laws. The Project site also 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.

A literature review and records search for the site was conducted by ELMT Consulting. The literature search identified 32 special-status plant species, 54 special-status wildlife speci es, and two special-status plant communities as having potential to occur within the Palm Springs USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle.

ELMT also conducted a field survey of the site on June 23, 2021. The Project site is located at an approximate elevation of 477 to 484 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and slopes generally from north to south. The Project site supports one plant community, creosote bush scrub, and one land cover type that would be classified as disturbed.

No special-status plants were observed on the Project site during the field investigation. No fish, amphibians, or hydrogeomorphic features that would provide suitable habitat for fish or amphibians would be observed on or within the vicinity of the Project site. The Project site provides suitable foraging and cover habitat for reptilian species adapted to routine human disturbance and desert environments. The only reptilian species observed during the field investigation were western zebra-tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides rhodostictus) and northern desert iguana ( Dipsosaurus dorsalis ). The Project site provides suitable foraging and nesting habitat for avian species adapted to routine human disturbance and desert environments. Bird species detected during the field investigation include Costa’s hummingbird ( Calype costae), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), verdin ( Auriparus flaviceps ), American kestrel ( Falco sparverius ), house sparrow ( Passer domesticus), and greater roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus). The Project site provides suitable foraging and denning habitat for mammalian species adapted to routine human disturbance and desert environments.

However, most mammal species are nocturnal and are difficult to observe during a diurnal field visit. Mammals detected and/or sign observed during the field investigation include desert cottontail ( Sylvilagus audubonii), kangaroo rat (Dipodomys sp), and coyote (Canis latrans). No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey, which was conducted outside of the breeding season. The creosote bush scrub plant community provides suitable foraging and nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that have adapted to conditions in desert environments. Lastly, the Project site is not located within a federally designated Critical Habitat.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
Endangered Species Act
Item 2B - Page 133
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 provides 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, or 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.

3.4.3 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 Departm
ent 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 2B - Page 134

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 with Mitigation Incorporated. According the City’s General Plan, the Project site is located within the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians THCP, which provides the means to protect and contribute to the conservation of federally listed species or those deemed by the Tribe and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to be sensitive and potentially in need of listing in the future.

The Project site also 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.

Special-Status Vegetation Communities & Critical Habitat Analysis According to the field survey conducted by ELMT Consulting on June 23, 2021, the Project site supports one plant community: creosote bush scrub, which is dominated by creosote (Larrea tridentata ) and is indicative of native bush scrub communities that have been devegetated and allowed to revegetate naturally. Common plant species observed in this plant community include burrobrush ( Ambrosia salsola), common phacelia ( Phacelia distans ), brittlebush ( Encelia farinosa), blue palo verde (Parkinsonia florida), oleander ( Nerium oleander), hoary saltbush ( Atriplex canescens), cattle spinach (Atriplex polycarpa), Mediterranean gra ss ( Schismus barbatus ), fanleaf crinklemat ( Tiquilia plicata), annual bluegrass (Poa annua), and mustard (Brassica tournefortii). The disturbed areas on the Project site no longer comprise a native plant community. Disturbed areas observed on -site during the field investigation include areas adjacent to E ast Verona Road and areas that have been subject to recreational off-highway vehicle activity and illegal dumping activities. These areas primarily support weedy non-native species such as Mediterranean grass, annual bluegrass, and Saharan mustard, and occasionally native perennials. Based on observations made during the field survey, the Project would not impact any special-status vegetation community.

According to literature review, two special -status vegetation communities were identified within the Palm Springs USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangle: Desert Fan Palm Oasis Woodland and Southern Riparian Forest. Neither of these special-status veg etation communities occurs within the boundaries of the Project site. In addition, based on the results of the field survey above, no special-status plant community was observed on-site; therefore, no special-status plant community would be impacted by Project implementation.

The Project site is also not located within a federally designated Critical Habitat. The nearest designated Critical Habitat to the site is located approximately 1.33 miles to the northeast for Coachella [g]
[g]
Item 2B - Page 135
Valley milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae). Therefore, the Project would not cause loss or adverse modification of a Critical Habitat and impacts would be less than significant.

Special-Status Plant Species Analysis
According to literature review, 32 special-status plant species were identified as having potential to occur within the Palm Springs quadrangle. Species determined to have a potential to occur within the general vicinity of the site are presented in Table B-1 of Appendix B . No special -status plants were observed on the Project site during the field survey conducted on June 23, 2021. Based on habitat requirements for the identified special-status plant species, known species distributions, and existing site conditions, it was determined that the Project site does not have potential to support any of the special-status plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the site and all are presumed to be absent.

Therefore, Project impacts to special-status plant species would be less than significant.

Special-Status Wildlife Species Analysis
According to literature review, 54 special-status wildlife species were identified as having potential to occur within the Palm Springs quadrangle. Species determined to have a potential to occur within the general vicinity of the site are presented in Table B- 1 of Appendix B . The only special -status wildlife species observed on-site during the field investigation was Costa’s hummingbird. Based on habitat requirements for the identified special-status wildlife species, known distributions, and routine disturbance, it was determined that the Project site has a high potential to support loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and black-tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura); and low potential to support Cooper’s hawk ( Accipiter cooperii), sharp -shinned hawk ( Accipiter striatus ), burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia), prairie falcon ( Falco mexicanus ), and Palm Springs round -tailed ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus tereticaudus chlorus ). With implementation of a pre- construction nesting bird clearance survey as described in M itigation Measures BIO-1 and MM BIO-2 , impacts to Costa’s hummingbird, loggerhead shrike, Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, burrowing owl, prairie falcon, or black-tailed gnatcatcher would be less than significant.

The CVSMSHCP identifies modeled habitat for flat -tailed horned lizard ( Phrynosoma mccallii) as occurring within the Project site. However, based on the results of the field investigation, the Project site consists of disturbed creosote scrub and disturbed land that has been subjected to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances. These disturbances have reduced, if not eliminated, the ability of the Project site to provide suitable habitat for CVMSHCP Covered Species, including the flat-tailed horned lizard. Due to the limited Project footprint, no impacts to CVMSHCP Covered Species are expected to occur from Project implementation. It was further determined that no other special-status wildlife species have the potential to on-site and are presumed to be absent.

No fish, amphibians, or hydrogeomorphic features that would provide suitable habitat for fish or amphibians would be observed on or within the vicinity of the Project site. The Project site provides suitable foraging and cover habitat for reptilian species adapted to routine human disturbance and desert environments. The only reptilian species observed during the field investigation were western zebra-tailed lizard ( Callisaurus draconoides rhodostictus ) and northern desert iguana ( Dipsosaurus dorsalis). The Project site provides suitable foraging and nesting habitat for avian species adapted to routine human disturbance and desert environments. Bird species detected during the field investigation include Costa’s hummingbird (Calype costae), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), verdin (Auriparus flaviceps ), American kestrel ( Falco sparverius ), house sparrow ( Passer domesticus ), and greater roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus). The Project site provides suitable foraging and denning habitat for mammalian s pecies adapted to routine human disturbance and desert environments.

Item 2B - Page 136
However, most mammal species are nocturnal and are difficult to observe during a diurnal field visit.

Mammals detected and/or sign observed during the field investigation include desert c ottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), kangaroo rat (Dipodomys sp), and coyote (Canis latrans). In conclusion, impacts to reptiles, birds, or mammals would be less than significant.

No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey, which was conducted outside of the breeding season. The creosote bush scrub plant community provides suitable foraging and nesting habitat for year -round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that have adapted to conditions in desert environments. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, impacts to avian residents and migrating songbirds would be less than significant.
b/c. No Impact. No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were o bserved on the Project site during the field survey. It should be noted that the Whitewater River wash occurs outside of the proposed limits of disturbances, east of the Project site. Project activities are not expected to encroach into the Whitewater River. However, if Project activities impact the river, further review will be required to determine the jurisdictional limits of the Corps, Regional Board, or CDFW jurisdiction, and if regulatory approvals are required. Furthermore, no blueline streams have been recorded on the Project site and there is no evidence that the Project contained any streams, riparian habitat, marshes, protected wetlands, vernal pools or sensitive natural communities that would be protected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Therefore, no impact would occur.
d. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site occurs adjacent to a levee that abuts the southern periphery of the ephemeral Whi tewater River wash, which supports the movement of wildlife species throughout the Coachella Valley, particularly during and shortly after the rainy season. While vacant land is present adjacent to the site to the south, the remainder of the land west of the levee is almost entirely developed, and the Project site and adjacent vacant parcel are not expected to support significant wildlife movement. As a result, implementation of the proposed Project would not disrupt or have any adverse effects on migratory corridors or linkages in the surrounding area.

However, nesting birds have the potential to occur given the creosote bush scrub plant community found on-site, which provides suitable foraging and nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that have adapted to conditions in desert environments. The Project’s future construction could adversely affect nesting birds if construction was 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 M itigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would require a preconstruction nesting bir d survey to mitigate any potential impacts to protect migratory nesting birds. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a biologist prior to any ground disturbing activities and/or removal of any vegetation. In the event that a raptor nest is obser ved 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 Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 , impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Item 2B - Page 137
e. No Impact. The City has not adopted any ordinances regarding tree preservation. As shown in Exhibit 3, Site Photos, the Project site mainly consists of small and medium size shrubs. No trees are located on the Project site under existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance and no impact would occur.
f. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site is located within the boundaries of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians THCP; however, the Project site does not accommodate significant fluvial and transport and therefore is not expected to impact fluvial sand transport within Section 6 Target Acquisition Area. The Project also would be subject to payment of the THCP Mitigation Fee, as described in Mitigation Measure BIO -3. The fee would mitigate potential impacts to covered species within the THCP. Although the site is located within the THCP boundary, 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 conservation areas. Because the Project is not located within a conservation area and would implement Mitigation Measure BIO-3, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of the THCP.

The Project site also is located within the boundaries of CVMSHCP, but is not located within any conservation areas. The Project would be subject to payment of the Development Mitigation fee per Chapter 3.34, Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan Mitigation Fee , as described as M itigation Measure BIO-4. The fee would mitigate potential impacts to covered species within the CVMSHCP. Although the site is located within the CVMSHCP boundary, the Project site is not located within a biological sensitive or any conservation areas. Because the Project is not located within a conservation a rea and would implement Mitigation Measure BIO-4, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of the CVMSHCP.

In conclusion, the Project would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan .

In conclusion, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

3.4.4 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 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 th is 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 discretion of the qualified biologist
Item 2B - Page 138

BIO-2 Prior to any ground or habitat disturbance associated with any Covered Activity on a site that provides potential burrowing owl habitat, the Covered Activity Proponent shall cause a pre-disturbance survey of the site to be conducted for presence of the species.

1. Surveys and relocation, if applic able, shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31.

The Tribe and USFWS currently are working together to develop appropriate relocation protocols.

It is anticipated that these protocols will, at a minimum, reflect the standards of the CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (1995, as summarized below).

2. Owls shall be excluded from burrows within the approved limit of disturbance and an appropriate buffer zone as determined by a Qualified Biologist by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances or other technique as deemed appropriate by the Tribe. The biological monitor must ensure through appropriate means (e.g., monitoring for owl use, excavating burrows) that the burrows to be impacted are not being used. If active relocation methods are employed, the destination will be selected by the Tribe on a case -by-case basis to provide the greatest long -term conservation potential for the species (regardless of whether it is within the Action Area). Factors to be considered include habitat characteristics, long-term viability, and the presence/status of existing populations of this species on the available sites based on available information or a site reconnaissance by a Qualified Biologist. Artificial burrows will be constructed at the receptor s ite under supervision of the Qualified Biologist. Artificial burrows shall not be required for passive relocation unless there is already conserved land immediately adjacent to the parcel from which the owls will be passively relocated.

Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season unless a Qualified Biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation or juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and capable of independent survival.

BIO-3 The Applicant shall pay the THCP Mitigation Fee prior to building permit issuance.

BIO-4 The Applicant shall pay the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee prior to building permit issuance.

3.4.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure s BIO-1 through BIO-4, impacts on biological r esources would be less than significant.

3.5 Cultural Resources

3.5.1 Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan General Plan, Recreation, Open Space & Conservation Element, 2007. • CRM TECH, Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Casa Verona Project, September 20, 2021 (Appendix C)
Item 2B - Page 139

3.5.2 Environmental Setting
The Project’s cultural resources assessment (Appendix C) is provided by CRM TECH, which consists of a records search, literature review, examination of historical maps, and a field survey. The records search was provided by the Eastern Information Center (EIC) on August 13, 2021.

According to EIC records, one cultural resource (CA -RIV-118) was identified within a one-mile radius of the Project site. CA-RIV-118 was prehistoric in origin, representing a large scatter of ceramic, faunal, and ground- stone artifacts that had evidently been removed prior to 2004. Historical maps and aerial photographs show no evidence of any settlement or development activities within the P roject boundaries throughout the 1855 - 1972 era. Development in the surrounding area escalated between 1972 and 1996. Meanwhile, land within the Project site exhibited evidence of some disturbance, especially on the western edge near the golf course and to the northeast along the Whitewater River/Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel.

CRM TECH also conducted a field survey of the site on August 30, 2021. The survey was completed by walking a series of parallel north-south transects spaced 15 meters apart. Ground visibility was generally fair to good (70-80%) over the entire P roject site due to the relatively light and scattered vegetation growth. Evidence of previous ground disturbance was noted. Much modern refuse has been dumped on the property, which included construction debris, piles of rock and soil, and domestic waste.

3.5.3 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/b. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to a records search provided by CRM TECH, one cultural resource was identified within a one-mile radius in 2004. The cultural resource (CA- RIV-118) was prehistoric in origin, representing a large scatter of ceramic, faunal, and groundstone artifacts that had evidently been removed prior to 2004. Because CA-RIV -118 was not located in the immediate vicinity of the P roject site, no further consideration is required. Based on historical ma ps and aerial photographs, the Project has been vacant and undeveloped since 1855. No historical or archaeological resources were encountered during the field survey in August 30, 2021. The Project site consists of vacant, undeveloped land with some refuse and ruderal vegetation scattered across the site. The refuse included construction debris, piles of rock and soil, and domestic waste, none of which is of any historical or archaeological interest.
~
~
~
Item 2B - Page 140
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 appropriate Native American tribes. Therefore, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1, impacts relating to significant historical and archaeological resource s would be reduced to less than significant.
c. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site is mainly undeveloped with some refuse and ruderal vegetation scattered across the site . There is no evidence that the P roject 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 construction 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 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 acces s the P roject 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.

3.5.4 Mitigation
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 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.

3.5.5 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.

Item 2B - Page 141

3.6 Energy

3.6.1 Sources
• Ganddini Group, Casa Verona (TTM 38042) Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum , February 25, 2022 (Appendix A)
• 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.

3.6.2 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.

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).

3.6.3 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
consum
ption 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 “s ingle-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 ~
~
Item 2B - Page 142
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 eff iciencies. 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 31 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 in efficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Impacts during Project operation would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

b. No Impact. The Project’s proposed 31 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 plan s for energy efficienc y and no mitigation is required.

3.6.4 Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

3.6.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

3.7 Geology and Soils

3.7.1 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

3.7.2 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located at the e ast end of Verona Road in the City of Palm Spring s. The elevation of the Project site is approximately 480 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 valley floor at the northwest extreme of the Salton Trough physiographic province of the Coachella Valley. The Salton Trough is a geologic structural depression resulting Item 2B - Page 143
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 Penins ular 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 10, 2021, which determined that the Project site consisted of soils solely containing Carsitas gravelly sand. Furthermore, the near surface soils are non- expansive in nature. Like the rest of the desert floor, the soils on the Pr oject site are well-drained with a high permeability and are considered to be suitable for construction purposes.

3.7.3 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?
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?

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Item 2B - Page 144

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Directly or in directly 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 loca ted within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest fault zone to the Project site is the Riverside County fault, which is located approximately 2.26 miles southwest 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 facilities 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 wou ld 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 subjected 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 Section 2.6 .3(a-i) above, the Project site is located approximately 2.26 miles southwest of the Riverside County fault. Impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be minimized due to compliance with existing building regulations. Design and construction of the new facilities 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 impact associated with strong seismic ground shaking and no mitigation is required. a-iii. Less than Significant Impact. According to Map My County, liquefaction is unlikely to be a potential hazard at the Project site. The Project site is located in a moderate susceptibility zone for liquefaction.

However, according to the City’s General Plan Figure 6-1, Seismic Hazards, the Project site is located in a low liquefaction zone. This hazard is considered low in Palm Springs because the approximate depth to groundwater is greater than 50 feet. Therefore, Project impacts relating to seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. a-iv. No Impact. The Project is located in an area of the City that has been developed with single-family residences 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 proposed 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 submitte d 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 ). [g]
Item 2B - Page 145
Therefore, impacts related to substantial soil erosio n 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 not at risk of landslide o r liquefaction; therefore, the P roject site has unlikely potential for liquefaction or landslides.

Additionally, the near surface soils at the Project site consist of gravelly sands. Furthermore, design and construc tion of the P roject would comply with all seismic safety development requirements, including the Title 24 standards of the current California Building Code. Therefore, the Project 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 Carsitas gravelly 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 soil (as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994)), and the potential for the P roject 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 Proj ect would be served through the Desert Water Agency (DWA). Therefore, there would be no impacts associated with septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems, and no mitigation is required.
f. No Impact. According to Map My County, the P roject site is located in a low potential zone regarding paleontological sensitivity. Per the City’s Recreation, Open Space, and Conservation Element of the General Plan , the P roject site is not located in area likely of containing prehistoric resources.

Accordingly, the P roject’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 in directly. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

3.7.4 Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

3.7.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.8.1 Sources
• Ganddini Group, Casa Verona (TTM 38042) Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum , February 25, 2022 (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.

Item 2B - Page 146

3.8.2 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 Solutions 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 cons ist 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 project 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.
• 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 agency), 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; Item 2B - Page 147
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 assertion is based on the fact that staff estimates that the se 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 th resholds 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 threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land uses.

Regulatory Setting
Climate Action Plan
The City adopted the 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 targets 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 red uction 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 emissio ns 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.

Item 2B - Page 148
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 P roject- related GHG emissions and the Project impacts.

CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 was used to calculate the GHG emissions from the Project . Each source of GHG emissions is described in greater detail below.

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 the proposed Project. The vehicle trips associated with the Project have been analyzed by inputting the Project-generated vehicular trips from the TIA Screening Assessment into the CalEEMod Model. The program then applies the emission factors for each trip which is provided by the EMFAC2017 model to determine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions.

The CalEEMod default trip lengths were used in this analysis.

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 interred into a landfill. No changes were made to the default waste parameters.

Water
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 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 as detailed above.

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.

3.8.3 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Would the project:

Item 2B - Page 149

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 31 single-family residential dwelling units. The Project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste, water, and construction equipmen t. The CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 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 388.42 MTCO2e per year and would not exceed the SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, Project GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Table 7 Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)
Bio-CO2 NonBio-
CO2
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area Sources1 0.00 22.35 22.35 0.00 0.00 22.49
Energy Usage2 0.00 90.58 90.58 0.00 0.00 91.09
Mobile Sources3 0.00 224.18 224.18 0.01 0.01 228.12
Waste4 7.41 0.00 7.41 0.44 0.00 18.35
Water5 0.64 7.17 7.81 0.07 0.00 9.96
Construction6 0.00 18.14 18.14 0.00 0.00 18.41
Total Emissions 8.05 362.43 370.48 0.53 0.02 388.42
SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold

3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Notes:

Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 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. Construction GHG emissions CO2e based on a 30 year amortization rate.

~
~
Item 2B - Page 150
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 City of Palm Springs CAP was set in place to guide the City in decisions that lead to the largest and most cost-effective emissions reductions. This plan sets forth goals to reduce emissions to achieve the targets of AB 32. In order to achieve these targets, the CAP presents a number of GHG emissions - reducing programs and policies that are to be implemented by the City. As specified in the CAP, these measures are to be implemented over a course of eight years beginning in 2013. The proposed Project would be expected to comply with all app licable emissions-reducing measures identified within the CAP. The Project's compliance with the CAP measures is detailed in Table 8, below.

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.

No Conflict. 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.

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.

No Conflict. 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.

No Conflict. 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.

No Conflict. The California Green Building Standards
Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code in the CCR. Part 11 establishes voluntary standards, that became
mandatory in the 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.

No Conflict. The Project involves the construction of 31 single-family residential lots. 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. In addition, the proposed Project's
landscape plans include approximately 70 new trees to
be planted on the site.

Item 2B - Page 151
Water
Storm water Capture: Promote storm water capture
and retention for exterior landscape use (cisterns,
rain barrels) to demonstrate 10 new systems by
2020.

No Conflict. 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. In addition, the Project site plan includes an approximately 0.39 acre retention basin at the southeast corner of the site.

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, GHG Emission, in June 2005, which established the following reduction targets:
• 2010: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels
• 2020: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels
• 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 ach ieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap 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 388.42 MTCO2e per year, the Project's GHG emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year, and is in compliance with the reduction goals of the City of Palm Springs CAP, AB -32 and SB -32. Furthermore, the Project will comply with applicable Green Building Standards and City of Palm Spring’s policies regarding sustainability (as dictated by the City's General Plan and CAP). Impacts are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

3.8.4 Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

3.8.5 Level of Significance
Not applicable.

Item 2B - Page 152

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

3.9.1 Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Safety Element, 2007 • Department of Toxic Control Substances. Accessed June 10, 2021, <https://dtsc.ca.gov/> • State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker. Accessed June 10, 2021, <https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/>
• Center for Disease Control. Accessed June 10, 2021,
< https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/environmental/background/medical-waste.html> • Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Accessed June 10, 2021 <https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthcarefacilities/index.html> • California Department of Public Health. Accessed June 10, 2021 <https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CEH/DRSEM/Pages/EMB/MedicalWaste/MedicalWaste.aspx#>

3.9.2 Environmental Setting
The Project site is on undeveloped land, located in an urban setting in Palm Springs. During the site visit on June 25, 2021, there were no observations made of any signs of hazardous materials on -site or signs of any underground storage tanks. Surrounding uses include vacant, undeveloped land to the north, south, and east, and a former country club west of the Project site.

Local Schools
The nearest school to the Project site is First School of the Desert, which is approximately 0.7 miles to the west of the Project site at 2300 E Racquet Club Road.

3.9.3 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 involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?

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

~
~
~
~
Item 2B - Page 153

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 implementatio n of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?

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

a. 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 construction 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 applicable 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, transport, 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. [8]
[8]
[8]
Item 2B - Page 154
b. Less than Significant Impact . Accidents involving hazardous materials that could pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment would be highly unlikely during the construction and long- term operation of the Project 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 risk 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 substances; however, as discussed above under Section 3.9.3(a), the Pr oject Applicant would be required to comply with all applicable local, s tate, and federal regulations related to the transport, handling, and usage of hazardous material. Accordingly, impacts associated with the 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 to the Project site is First School of the Desert, which is approximately

0.7 miles to the west of the P roject site. 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 Control Substances (DTCS), 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 w ithin any cleanup sites. The nearest cleanup site is located approximately

1.60 miles to the southwest, 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 3.1 miles 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 D and the Primary Traffic Patterns Zone. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan provides Basic Compatibility Criteria, which includes such considerations such as the prohibition of tall structures, hazardous materials storage, siting of high - occupancy buildings and facilities, and criteria infrastructure within compatibility zones, as well as limits on dwelling units per acre. The residential use proposed by the Project is permitted in Zone D 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. In conclusion, 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. T he City has developed the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), a multi -hazard document that addresses the City’s planned response and short -term recovery 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 Item 2B - Page 155
to assure that the Project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 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 is located in an urban area of the City, which is developed by residential uses. The nearest wildland to the P roject site is the San Jacinto Mountains, which are approximately three miles southwest of the P roject site. Based on the urban location of the Project site and lack of wildland in the Project vicinity, the development of the Project would not expose people or structures to wildland fires. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

3.9.4 Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

3.9.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

3.10.1 Sources
The following sources were utilized to support the conclusions made in this section:
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, City of Palm Springs, 2007 • 2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater Resource Pl an, Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group, 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

3.10.2 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located 1,000 feet east of the intersection of Verona Road and Farrell Drive within the north- central portion of the City of Palm Springs. The Project site consists of approximately 6.44 acres, and the area is relatively flat and entirely undeveloped. The Project proposed a Change of Zone and a Tentative Tract Map that will subdivide the parcel into 31 single-family residential lots. The existing and surrounding land uses at the Project site are provided in Section 1.2.

3.10.3 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 substantial ly
degrade surface or ground water quality?
~
Item 2B - Page 156

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede su stainable
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 strea m or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:

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

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

c.iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct i mplementation 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 P ollutant 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 comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the NPDE S 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 age ncies 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 ~
~
~
~
~ ~
~
Item 2B - Page 157
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 growth. The 2020 UWMP determined that adequate water supplies w ould 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.

b. 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 regional 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 t he needs of the proposed development of 31 single-family homes. The Project will connect to existing water lines on Verona 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 applicab le. 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 implementation of BMPs consistent with the Project 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. According to the U.S Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone map, the Project site is not located within the 100 -year nor 500-year 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 Item 2B - Page 158
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.

e. Less than Significant . As described in Section 2.10.3 (b ), Project water demand has already been accounted for in the 2018 Integrated Regional WMP and sufficient wate r 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 Regional Water Quality Control Board for both construction and operational acti vities. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

3.10.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

3.10.5 Level of Significance
Not applicable.

3.11 Land Use and Planning

3.11.1 Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Land Use Element, 2007

3.11.2 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located at east end of Ve rona Road within the City boundaries . As shown in Exhibit 2, the Project site is surrounded by residential and open space uses to the west , open space uses to the north and east, and residential uses to the south . The Project site is currently designated as “Low Density Residential” under the City’s 2014 General Plan map and zoned as R-1-D, per the City’s Official Zoning Map. The Applicant is proposing to rezone the Project site to R-1-E.

3.11.3 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 one vacant parcel at the edge of an urbanized area of the City. The Project site is surrounded by former country club facilities and then residential use to the ~
~
Item 2B - Page 159
west and vacant, undeveloped land to the north, south, and east. The Project would not physically divide any of the established surrounding communities. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.
b. Less than Significant Impact. As previously mentioned, the Applicant is proposing a Change of Zone of the Project site from R-1-D to R-1-E, which would allow for minimum lot size to consists of 5,000 sq. ft. instead of the required 7,500 sq. ft. The Project would continue to remain consistent with the General Plan land use designation ( Low Density Residential) and would comply with all applicable policie s contained in the General Plan . 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 R-1-E zone. Therefore, the Project would be developed in accordance with the proposed R-1-E and would comply with all applicable development regulations/development standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, approval of the Change of Zone would inherently create consistenc y with the City’s 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.

3.11.4 Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

3.11.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

3.12 Mineral Resources

3.12.1 Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Recreation, Open Space and Conservation Element, 2007

3.12.2 Environmental Setting
The City’s primary mineral resource is 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.

3.12.3 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

Item 2B - Page 160

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability o f 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 recov ery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan?

a-b. Less Than Significant Impact. Per the City’s General Plan (Figure 5-3, page 39) the Project site is located in Mineral Zone 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 currently designated as “Low Density Residential” under the City’s 2014 General Plan map and is proposed to be re -zoned within the R-1-E Zone, per the City’s Official Zoning Map. Neither the existing nor proposed land use designations allow 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 P roject 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.

3.12.4 Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

3.12.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

3.13 Noise

3.13.1 Sources
• Ganddini Group, Casa Verona (TTM 38042) Focused Noise Analysis, March 4, 2022 (Appendix D)

3.13.2 Environmental Setting
Noise
According to Appendix D, 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 as 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. As shown in Table 2-A of Appendix D, the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects is summarized below. ~
~
Item 2B - Page 161
Vibration
According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment (10) , 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 distance from the source of the v ibration. More detailed information regarding vibration can be found in Appendix D of this document.

3.13.3 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 loc ated 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 ex cessive noise
levels?

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.

~
~
~
Item 2B - Page 162
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 Appendix D , have been adjusted to describe a uniform reference distance of 50 feet.

Construction Noise Analysis
Construction noise is considered a short -term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities are taken outside the allowable times as described in the City’s Municipal Code (Section 8.04.220). Construction is anticipated to occur during the permissible hours (7 AM to 7 PM on weekdays and 8 AM to 5 PM on Saturdays. Construction noise will have a te mporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing within the P roject vicinity. Furthermore, noise reduction measures are provided to further reduce construction noise. The impact is considered less than significant however construction noise level projections are provided.

Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels will be loudest during the paving phase. Levels are projected from the center of the site.

Unmitigated noise levels at the nearest existing sensitive receptor, which is the existing residential property approximately 50 feet to the southwest of the Project site, has the potential to reach up t o

68.6 dBA Leq during the grading phase. Noise levels for the other construction phases would be lower and range between 55.8 and 57.2 dBA Leq. Therefore, Project construction noise levels would be less than significant.

Off-Site Traffic Noise Analysis
Traffic generated by the operation of the Project will influence traffic noise levels in surrounding off - site areas. As previously mentioned, the Project is anticipated to generate approximately 292 average daily trips. 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. There is no available existing traffic volume data for Verona Road in the vicinity of the Project site; however, the City of Palm Springs General Plan Updat e Traffic Analysis Table 4.2 shows that the portion of Verona Road from Volturno Road to Whitewater Club Drive is anticipated to have approximately 3,300 average daily vehicle trips in 2025. Therefore, at 292 daily vehicle trips, the proposed Project would not result in a doubling of existing traffic volumes along any affected road segment. Therefore, noise impacts to off -site receptors due to Project-generated trips would be less than significant.

b. Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not propose or require uses or activities that would be considered substantive sources of on-going vibration.

Per the FTA, daytime construction noise levels should not exceed 80 dBA Leq for an 8 -hour period at residential uses and 85 dBA Leq for an 8 -hour period at commercial uses. Therefore, P roject construction would not be anticipated to exceed the FTA thresholds for residential or commercial uses.

Further, with compliance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.04.220 , it is assumed that construction would not occur during the noise-sensitive nighttime hours. Therefore, the Project would not result in or cause exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Impacts would be less than significant.

Item 2B - Page 163
c. Less than Significant Impact. The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan. However, the Project is located within two miles of a public airport, which is the Palm Springs International Airport, located approximately 0.76- mile to the southwest of the Project site. Per the City’s General Plan’s Figure 6-8, Airport Compatibility Plan, the Project site is located within Compatibility Zone D. 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 Palm Springs International Airport. The RCALUCP requires that any new single-family residential developments proposed within an Compatibility Zone other than Zone E 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 br ochure 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.

Therefore, with compliance with the measures specified in the RCALUCP, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels associated with airports.

3.13.4 Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

3.13.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

3.14 Population and Housing

3.14.1 Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Housing Element, Palm Springs, 2007 (update 2014) • Southern California Association of Gov ernments Regional Council, Profile of the City of Palm Springs , 2019. Accessed on June 1, 2021, <https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/PalmSprings.pdf>

3.14.2 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.

Item 2B - Page 164

3.14.3 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 proposed Project consist of a Change of Zone and Tentative Tract Map and is located within an area that has been developed with residential neighborhoods. At this time no roads or infrastructure would need to be extend ed to serve the proposed Project. Due to the Project side being designated as Low Density R esidential, population growth has been accounted for in the General Plan. Therefore, induced population growth is also expected to be negligible, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

b. No Impact. The proposed Project would occur on a vacant lot . At Project build out, no structures or housing will be eliminated as a result of the proposed Project and no persons will be displaced. Instead, the Project will be providing 31 single -family lots, which 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.

3.14.4 Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

3.14.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

3.15 Public Services

3.15.1 Sources
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Safety Element, 2007 • City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Recreation, Open Space and Conservation Element, 2007 • 2019 CBEDS Report, Palm Springs Unified School District, 2019. Accessed on June 11, 2021 https://www.psusd.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=6972&dataid=13860&Fil eName=2019%20CBEDS%20REPORT.pdf
~
~
Item 2B - Page 165

3.15.2 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 on-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 and four hig h schools, and two 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 $2.35 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 City.

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.

3.15.3 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 alte red 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

Item 2B - Page 166

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 (Station 3) is located at 560 E Racquet Club Drive, approximately 1.8 miles west 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 applica ble fire standards and regulations are met. Therefore, impacts 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 three miles south from the Project site. Based on the Project site’s proximity to the existing police station, the Project would be adeq uately served by police protection services, and no new or expanded unplanned facilities would be required. The Palm Springs Police 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 to the Project site is First School of the Desert, which is approximately 0.7 miles to the west of the Project site at 2300 E Raquet Club Drive . Buildout of the proposed Project would not significantly increase the number of students within nearby schools. The Applicant is required to pay the State mandated school impact fees, which woul d assist in mitigating impacts to school. 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 site is provided by an extension of an existing road and will connect to existing utility ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Item 2B - Page 167
infrastructure. New p ublic transportation facilities or other public facilities, are not required.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

3.15.4 Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

3.15.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

3.16 Recreation

3.16.1 Sources
• City of Palm Springs Recreation, Open Space and Conservation Element, Palm Springs General Plan, 2007

3.16.2 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 develo ped greenbelts along major thoroughfares throughout the City. The City is also home to privately 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.

3.16.3 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 g eneration factor of 2.0 persons per household from the 2007 General Plan, the future 31 single-family residences would result in a less - than-significant impact to the City’s existing recreational facilities. There is a low potential for the ~
~
Item 2B - Page 168
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 ma y 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.

3.16.4 Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

3.16.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

3.17 Transportation

3.17.1 Sources
• Ganddini Group, Casa Verona (TTM 38042) TIA Screening Assessment, January 24, 2022 (Appendix F) • Ganddini Group, Casa Verona (TTM 38042) Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis , March 3, 2022 (Appendix G)

3.17.2 Environmental Setting
Project trip generation for ultimate buildout were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11
th Edition, 2021). Based on review of the Project and ITE land use definitions, trip generation rates for ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single Family Detached Housing) were determine to adequately represent the Project and were selected for analysis.

The VMT analysis was prepared in accordance with the procedures and methodologies specified in the City of Palm Springs Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (July 2020), which was established by the City of Palm Springs based on guidance from the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory.

3.17.3 Impacts

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRANSPORTATION – 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
~
~
~
Item 2B - Page 169

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

a. Less than Significant Impact.

According to the City’s Transportation Guidelines, projects that consist of single-family residential tracts of less than 100 lots and/or any use which can demonstrate trip generation of less than 100 vehicle trips in the peak hour would be screened out from requiring a traffic impact analysis and would therefore have less -than-significant impacts to the City’s circulation system. The proposed Project consists of a single-family residential tract of less than 100 lots and is forecast to generate fewer than 100 vehicle trips during the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, the Project does not warrant preparation of LOS analysis based on the City -established screening criteria. Accordingly , the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

b. Less than Significant. 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 criterion 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 need to prepare a VMT analysis for the Project was determined based on an initial screening assessment in accordance with the City’s Traffic Guidelines . A s documented in Appendix F, the proposed Project does not satisfy any of the City -established screening thresholds; therefore, further VMT analysis is required evaluate the Project VMT impact.

Projects that do not satisfy any of the City -established screening steps must complete VMT analysis using the Riverside County Transportation Model (RIVCOM). In accordance with the City TIA Guidelines, the Project-generated VMT and Project effect on VMT were calculated using RIVCO M for the following scenarios:
• Baseline Conditions: This scenario reflects the existing RIVCOM base year model (2018). • Baseline Plus Project: This scenario reflects a new RIVCOM base year model run with the addition of project socio-economic data (SED) to the project traffic analysis zone (TAZ). • Cumulative No Project: This scenario reflects the existing RIVCOM future year model (2045). • Cumulative Plus Project: This scenario reflects a new RIVCOM future year model run with the addition of project SED to TAZ 1733.

The Project site is located in TAZ 1733. In accordance with City TIA Guidelines, Project-generated VMT was calculated from the RIVCOM models using the origin-destination trip matrix multiplied by the final assignment skims. The Project effect on VMT was evaluated by comparing the total link-level VMT per service population within the City boundary between no Project and with Project conditions. VMT for ~
Item 2B - Page 170
the environmental baseline (existing year 2022) was determined based on linear interpolation between the RIVCOM base year and future year model. RIVCOM model runs were performed by EPD Solutions, Inc. and the RIVCOM roadway and TAZ network is provided in Attachment C of Appendix G.

Thresholds of Significance
A project would result in a significant project -generated VMT impact if either of the following conditions are satisfied:

1. The baseline project -generated VMT per service population exceeds the City of Palm Springs General Plan Buildout VMT per service population; or

2. The cumulative project -generated VMT per service population exceeds the City of Palm Springs General Plan Buildout VMT per service population.

The Project’s effect on VMT would be considered significant if it resulted in either of the following conditions to be satisfied:

1. The baseline link-level boundary VMT per service population within the City boundary to increase under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition, or

2. The cumulative link-level boundary VMT per service population within the City boundary to increase under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition.

The cumulative no project reflects the adopted Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Accordingly, cumulative impacts shall be considered less than significant if a project is consistent with the RTP/SCS, absent substantial evidence to the contrary Table 9 summarizes the Project-generated VMT analysis.

Table 9 Project-Generated VMT
Descriptor
Baseline
Conditions
Cumulative
Conditions
Project Zone (TAZ 1733)
Total VMT (with Project)

37,481

40,443
Population 1,318 1,419
Employment 43 43
Service Population 1,361 1,462
Project VMT per Service Population 27.5 27.7
Significant Impact? No No
City of Palm Springs
General Plan Buildout Total VMT (without Project)

3,796,059
Population 61,739
Employment 41,701
Item 2B - Page 171
Service Population 103,440
General Plan VMT Per Service Population (Threshold of Significance) 36.7 Notes:

1. Source: RIVCOM base year 2018 and future year 2045 models. Model runs performed by EPD Solutions, Inc.

2. VMT shown is based on origin-destination methodology.

As shown in Table 9, baseline Project-generated VMT per service population of 27.5 does not exceed the City of Palm Springs General Plan Buildout VMT per service population of 36.7; therefore, the Project is forecast to result in a less -than-significant VMT impact based on the City -established threshold for baseline Project-generated VMT.

As also shown in Table 9 , cumulative Project-generated VMT per service population of 27.7 does not exceed the City of Palm Springs General Plan Buildout VMT per service population of 36.7; therefore, the Project is forecast to r esult in a less -than-significant VMT impact based on the City -established threshold for cumulative Project-generated VMT.

Table 10 summarizes the Project effect on VMT.

Table 10 Project Effect on VMT
Descriptor Without Project With Project
Baseline Conditions
Total Link-Level VMT

871,027

871,346
Service Population 80,196 80,261
VMT per Service Population 10.861 10.856
Project-Related Change - -0.005
Significant Impact? - No
Cumulative Conditions
Total Link-Level VMT

1,162,399

1,162,602
Service Population 103,440 103,505
VMT per Service Population 11.237 11.232
Project-Related Change - -0.005
Significant Impact? - No
Notes:

1. Source: RIVCOM base year 2018 and future year 2045 models. Model runs performed by EPD Solutions, Inc.

2. VMT shown is based on link-level VMT within the City of Palm Springs boundary.

As shown in Table 1 0, baseline link -level boundary VMT per service population within the City boundary is estimated to decrease under the plus P roject condition compared to the no P roject condition; therefore, the proposed P roject is forecast to result in a less -than-significant VMT impact based on the City-established threshold for baseline Project effect on VMT.

As also shown in Table 10, cumulative link-level boundary VMT per service population within the City boundary is estimated to decrease under the plus P roject condition compared to the no P roject condition; therefore, the proposed Project is forecast to result in a less -than-significant VMT impact based on the City-established threshold for cumulative Project effect on VMT.

Item 2B - Page 172
In conclusion, the Project would result in less -than-significant VMT impact based on City -established thresholds for baseline and cumulative Project -generated VMT and Project effect on VMT , respectively.
c-d. 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 Police Department will review the proposed site plan to ensure that all safety design features and meas ures 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 increase safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use or result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

3.17.4 Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

3.17.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

3.18.1 Sources
• AB 52 Tribal Consultation Notification Letters, City of Palm Springs, 2021 • CRM TECH, Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Casa Verona Project, September 20, 2021 (Appendix C)

3.18.2 Environmental Setting
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 commun ities were developed in Palm, Murray, Andreas, Tahquitz, and Chino Canyons where the Cahuilla Indians managed hundreds of plant resources. Today the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) reservation encompasses a checkerboard of land within the City of Palm Springs.

During a field visit conducted on August 30, 2021, it was observed that the P roject site is completely vacant and only consist of sparse vegetation and modern refuse including construction debris, piles of rock and soil, and domestic w aste. The proposed Project lies in an area traditionally occupied by the Cahuilla people.

According to the Tribes land status, the Project site is designated as “Fee” land within the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation. Fee land is defined as parcels that were allotted to a Tribal Member, but have since been sold out of Trust to another entity.

Item 2B - Page 173
On June 3, 2021, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the NAHC for information in the Sacred Lands File (SLF) pertaining to any known Native American cultural resources in the Project vicinity. In response, the NAHC reported in a letter dated June 24, 2 021, that the SLF identified no Native American cultural resources in or near the Project area. Noting that the absence of specific site information would not necessarily indicate the absence of cultural resources, however, the NAHC recommended that local Native American groups be consulted for further information and provided a referral list of 16 individuals representing 11 tribal organizations. The NAHC’s reply is attached to this report in Attachment B of Appendix C, for reference by the City of Palm Springs in future government-to-government consultations with the pertinent tribal groups.

3.18.3 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 e
ither 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 Pu blic Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

a. Less than Significant with Mitigation I ncorporated. As previously discussed in Section 2.5.3(a), the City currently does not have any sites listed within the City’s incorporated boundaries on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the site is not listed in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Mitigation Measure CUL -1 described in 2.5 Cultural Resources , will be applied to

2.18 Tribal Resources, to ensure the protection of historical resources. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts would be less than significant.

b. [TBD]Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. CRM TECH contacted the NAHC, as part of the cultural resource assessment, on June 3, 2021, for a review of SLF. The NAHC responded on June 24, 2021 stating that the SLF identified no Native American cultural resources in the Project vicinity. In ~

Item 2B - Page 174
addition, the NAHC suggested contacting that 16 individuals representing 11 additional Native American tribal groups be contacted to elicit information regarding cultural resource issues related to the proposed Project. To be updated pending conclusion of AB 52 consultation . One Tribe, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, responded in a letter dated April 18, 2022. The Project site is located within the boundaries of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Reservation. Therefore, the Tribe requested for formal government to government consultation, a cultural resources inventory, a copy of the records search and cultural report, and Tribe monitoring during ground disturbing act ivities (described in Mitigation Measure TCR -1, below). With implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR -1, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

3.18.4 Mitigation
See Mitigation Measure CUL-1 in Section 3.5.4.

TCR-1 T he following mitigation measure has been conditioned by the City of Palm S prings regarding Tribal Cultural Resources:
• Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall obtain written approval to proceed with construction from the Agua Ca liente Band of Cahuilla Indians Trib al Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist. The Applicant shall contact the Tribal Historic 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 construction, and to arrange payment of any required fees associated with Tribal monitoring. Should buried cultural depos its be encountered, the Tribal Monitor may request to halt construction and the Tribal Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office.

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

3.19 Utilities and Services

3.19.1 Sources
• County of Riverside, County of R iverside 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, 2022 •
https://www.palmspringsca.gov/government/departments/public-works-engineering/waste-water- treatment-plant. Accessed on June 11, 2021
------------------------------------
Item 2B - Page 175

3.19.2 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 respon sible 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 Ca nyon 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 t o 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.

3.19.3 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 reason ably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?

~
~
Item 2B - Page 176

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 dr ain lines would be connected to lines beneath Verona Road; therefore, the Project would not require or result in the r elocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage systems of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

b. Less than Significant Im pact. 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 31 dwelling units, the Project would require approximately 31.31 acre-feet of water per year. The Project water demands amount to an increase of approximately 0.08 percent of the total water demand within the Desert Water Agency (36,228) in the year 2025. Implementation 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 ov er 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 o n which 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.

c. Less than Si gnificant Impact. Wastewater generated from the Project site would be treated at the Palm Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant. Implementation of the Project would generate wastewater ~
~
~
Item 2B - Page 177
at a rate of 230 gallons per day per dwelling unit. As the Project includes the development of 31 dwelling units, the Project would generate approximately 7,130 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 0.07 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 a sanitary sewer line located on Verona 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. 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. The proposed Project consist of a Change of Zone and Tentative Tract Map for the future development of 31 single-family residences. Per CalRecycle’s Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, implementation of the proposed 31 single-family residential lots would generate solid waste at a rate of 12.23 pounds per dwelling unit per year. As the Project includes the development of 31 residential lots , the Project would generate approximately 0.2 tons of solid waste per year.

Solid waste generated at the P roject 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 Landfill 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). Due to the small scale of the Project, any one of the aforementioned landfills has more than enough capacity to serve the proposed Project. Furthermore, all facility operators are required to meet all local, regional, state, and federal standards for solid waste disposal. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

e. Less than Significant Impact. The California Integrated Waste Management A ct (AB 939), signed into law in 1989, established an integrated 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 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 occupant(s) of the Item 2B - Page 178
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 requ irements 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 waste statutes and regulations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

3.19.4 Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

3.19.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Not applicable.

3.20 Wildfire

3.20.1 Sources
• County of Riverside, Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, 2019. Accessed June 11, 2021 https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/0/genplan/general_plan_2013/3%20Area%20Plan%20Volume%2 02/Western%20Coachella%20Valley%20AP.pdf
• City of Palm Springs, General Plan, Safety Element, 2007

3.20.2 Environmental Setting
The Project site is situated on the cen tral area of Palm Springs. The P roject site is located at the edge of an urbanized area of the City that is mostly developed. According to Figure 12, Wildfire Susceptibility (County of Riverside 2019), in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, the P roject 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 the 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.

3.20.3 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 im pair 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 o ccupants to, pollutant concentrations

~
~
Item 2B - Page 179

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 ro ads, 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 situations 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 residential uses. As previously mentioned, the P roject site is not located within an area of wildfire severity zone as shown on the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, Figure 12, Wildfire Susceptibility.

The site is surrounded by residential uses to the southwest west, and northwest and vacant land immediately to the north and south. Areas within the City that are more susceptible to be exposed to wildfires 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 pre viously 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 residential neighborhoods . Additionally, the P roject is located at the east end of Verona Road. Therefore, 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, po tential 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.

d. Less than Significant Impact. According to the City’s General Plan, the Project site is not located within any identified hazard ous materials zone. The General Plan maps designate areas that are associated ~
~
Item 2B - Page 180
with hazards such as landslide susceptibility, flood hazards, and direct fire protection areas. The site does not have any significant slopes or natural water features on the Project site. Additionally, per the General Plans Figure 6-2, Landslide Susceptibility Map, and Figure 6 -5, Flood Hazard Map, the Project site is not located within an area between limits of the 100 -year flood and 500 -year flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depth less than one (1) foot or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square. 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.

3.20.4 Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

3.20.5 Level of Significance
Not applicable.

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

3.21.1 Sources
All sources previously listed were used to support the conclusions made in this section.

3.21.2 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for the P roject site is summarized with in Sections 2.1 through 2.20 of the Initial Study for each environmental issue.

3.21.3 Impacts

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

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does t he 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

[g]
[g]
Item 2B - Page 181

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?

a. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. All impacts to the environment, including impacts to habitat for fish and wildlife species, fish and wildlife populations, plant and animal communities, rare and endangered plants and animals, and historical and pre-historical resources were evaluated as part of this Initial Study. Throughout this Initial Study, where impacts were determined to be potentially significant, mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce those impacts to less than significant. Accordingly, with incorporation of the mitigation measures imposed throughout this Initial Study, the Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Impacts would be reduced to less -than-significant levels with mitigation incorporated.

b. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The environmental evaluation of this Initial Study concluded that, with adherence to all mitigation measures 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 discussed throughout this Initial Study. A ll 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.

3.21.4 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 fo und, 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 [8J
Item 2B - Page 182
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 discretion of the qualified biologist

1. Surveys and relocation, if applicable, shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31.

The Tribe and USFWS currently are working together to develop appropriate relocation protocols.

It is antici pated that these protocols will, at a minimum, reflect the standards of the CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (1995, as summarized below).

2. Owls shall be excluded from burrows within the approved limit of disturbance and an appropriate buffer zone as determined by a Qualified Biologist by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances or other technique as deemed appropriate by the Tribe. The biological monitor must ensure through appropriate means (e.g., monitoring for owl use, excavating burrows) that the burrows to be impacted are not being used. If active relocation methods are employed, the destination will be selected by the Tribe on a case -by-case basis to provide the greatest long -term conservation potential for the species (regardless of whether it is within the Action Area). Factors to be considered include habitat characteristics, long-term viability, and the presence/status of existing populations of this species on the available sites based on available information or a site reconnaissance by a Qualified Biologist. Artificial burrows will be constructed at the receptor site under supervision of the Qualified Biologist. Artificial burrows shall not be required for passive relocation unless there is already conserved land immediately adja cent to the parcel from which the owls will be passively relocated.

BIO-3 The Applicant shall pay the THCP Mitigation Fee prior to building permit issuance.

BIO-4 The Applicant shall pay the CVMSHCP Local Develo pment 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 sig nificance 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 Item 2B - Page 183
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.

3.21.5 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 2B - Page 184
Chapter 4 Report Preparers
Lead Agency
Glenn Mlaker, Associate Planner
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA. 92262
The Altum Group
Thomas Strand, Environmental Manager
Lauren Reese, Associate Planner
Katie Davis, Production Manager
Subconsultants
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy
Katie Wilson, M.S., Senior Air Quality Analyst – Ganddini Group, Inc.

Biological Resources
Travis J. McGill, Director – ELMT Consulting
Thomas J. McGill, PhD, Managing Director – ELMT Consulting

Cultural Resources
Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A., Principal – CRM TECH

Noise
Catherine Howe, M.S., Noise & Air Quality Analyst – Ganddini Group, Inc.

Transportation
Giancarlo Ganddini, PE, PTP, Principal - Ganddini Group, Inc.

Item 2B - Page 185

ATTACHMENT K
Item 2B - Page 186
Chapter 4 Report Preparers
Lead Agency
Glenn Mlaker, Associate Planner
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA. 92262
The Altum Group
Thomas Strand, Environmental Manager
Lauren Reese, Associate Planner
Katie Davis, Production Manager
Subconsultants
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy
Katie Wilson, M.S., Senior Air Quality Analyst – Ganddini Group, Inc.

Biological Resources
Travis J. McGill, Director – ELMT Consulting
Thomas J. McGill, PhD, Managing Director – ELMT Consulting

Cultural Resources
Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A., Principal – CRM TECH

Noise
Catherine Howe, M.S., Noise & Air Quality Analyst – Ganddini Group, Inc.

Transportation
Giancarlo Ganddini, PE, PTP, Principal - Ganddini Group, Inc.

Item 2B - Page 187
transportation ■ noise ■ air quality | GANDDINI GROUP

555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225, Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 795-3100 | ganddini.com

March 3, 2022

Ms. Lauren Reese, Associate Planner

THE ALTUM GROUP
via electronic delivery

RE: Casa Verona (TTM 38042) Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Project No. 19397

Dear Ms. Reese:

Ganddini Group, Inc. is pleased to provide this vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis for the proposed Casa Verona (TTM 38042) Project in the City of Palm Springs. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the level of significance of the project’s VMT impact in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on the methodology and thresholds established by the City of Palm Springs as the lead agency. We trust the findings of this analysis will aid you and the City of Palm Springs in assessing the project.

Although this is a technical document, effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. A glossary and list of commonly used acronyms is provided in Attachment A.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The 6.44-acre project site is located north of Verona Road and east of Whitewater Club Drive, in the City of Palm Springs, California. The project site is located on Assessor’s Parcel Number 677-020-032 and is currently vacant. The project location map is shown on Figure 1.

The proposed project involves a Zone Change from R -1-D (7,500 square foot lots) to R -1-E (5,000 square foot lots) and a tentative tract map subdividing the parcel into 31 individual lots, including the construction of eight single-family dwelling units [“Project”]. The Project site plan is shown on Figure 2.

BACKGROUND

California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) directs the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines for evalu ating transportation impacts to provide alternatives to Level of Service that “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the updated CEQA Guidelines package. The amended CEQA Guidelines, specifically Section 15064.3, recommend the use of VMT as the primary metric for the evaluation of transportation impacts associated with land use and transportation projects. In general terms, VMT quantifies the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project or region. All agencies and projects State -wide are required to utilize the updated CEQA guidelines recommending use of VMT fo r evaluating transportation impacts as of July 1, 2020.

The updated CEQA Guidelines allow for lead agency discretion in establishing methodologies and thresholds provided there is substantial evidence to demonstrate that the established procedures promote the intended Item 2B - Page 188

Ms. Lauren Reese, Associate Planner

THE ALTUM GROUP
March 3, 2022

Casa Verona (TTM 38042)
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
2 19397
goals of the legislation. Where quantitative models or methods are unavailable, Section 15064.3 allows agencies to assess VMT qualitatively using factors such as availability of transit and proximity to other destinations. The Office of Plann ing and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (State of California, December 2018) [“OPR Technical Advisory”] provides technical considerations regarding methodologies and thresholds with a focus on office, resident ial, and retail developments as these projects tend to have the greatest influence on VMT.

METHODOLOGY

This VMT analysis was prepared in accordance with the procedures and methodologies specified in the City of Palm Springs Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (July 2020) [“City TIA Guidelines”], which was established by the City of Palms Springs based on guidance from the OPR Technical Advisory.

Screening Assessment

The need to prepare a VMT analysis for the project was determined based on an initial screening assessment in accordance with the City of Palm Springs Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (July 2020) [“City TIA Guidelines”].

As documented in the Casa Verona (TTM 38042) TIA Screening Assessment (Ganddini Group, Inc., January 2022), included in Attachment B, the proposed project does not satisfy any of the City-established screening thresholds; therefore, further VMT analysis is required evaluate the project VMT impact.

VMT Forecasting Methodology for Non-Screening Development

▪ Baseline Conditions: This scenario reflects the existing RIVCOM base year model (2018). ▪ Baseline Plus Project: This scenario reflects a new RIVCOM base year model run with the addition of project socio-economic data (SED) to the project traffic analysis zone (TAZ). ▪ Cumulative No Project: This scenario reflects the existing RIVCOM future year model (2045). ▪ Cumulative Plus Project: This scenario reflects a new RIVCOM future year model run with the addition of project SED to TAZ 1733.

The project site is located in TAZ 1733. In accordance with City TIA Guidelines, project-generated VMT was calculated from the RIVCOM models using the origin-destination trip matrix multiplied by the final assignment skims. The project effect on VMT was evaluated by comparing the total link-level VMT per service population within the City boundary between no project and with project conditions. VMT for the environmental baseline (existing year 2022) was determined based on linear interpolation between the RIVCOM base year and future year model. RIVCOM model runs were performed by EPD Solutions, Inc. and the RIVCOM roadway and TAZ network is provided in Attachment C.

Thresholds of Significance

A project would result in a significant project-generated VMT impact if either of the following conditions are satisfied:

g:1,~:iii
Item 2B - Page 189

Ms. Lauren Reese, Associate Planner

THE ALTUM GROUP
March 3, 2022

Casa Verona (TTM 38042)
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
3 19397

1. The baseline project-generated VMT per service population exceeds the City of Palm Springs General Plan Buildout VMT per service population; or

2. The cumulative project -generated VMT per service population exceeds the City of Palm Springs General Plan Buildout VMT per service population.

The project’s effect on VMT would be considered significant if it resulted in either of the following conditions to be satisfied:

1. The baseline link-level boundary VMT per service population within the City boundary to increase under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition, or

2. The cumulative link-level boundary VMT per service population within the City boundary to increase under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition.

The cumulative no project reflets the adopted Regional Transportation P lan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Accordingly, cumulative impacts shall be considered less tha n significant if a project is consistent with the RTP/SCS, absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

PROJECT-GENERATED VMT

Table 1 summarizes the project-generated VMT analysis.

Table 1
Project-Generated VMT

Descriptor
Baseline
Conditions
Cumulative
Conditions
Project Zone (TAZ 1733)
Total VMT (with Project) 37,481 40,443
Population 1,318 1,419
Employment 43 43
Service Population 1,361 1,462
Project VMT per Service Population 27.5 27.7
Significant Impact? No No
City of Palm Springs
General Plan Buildout Total VMT (without Project) 3,796,059 Population 61,739
Employment 41,701
Service Population 103,440
General Plan VMT Per Service Population (Threshold of Significance) 36.7 Notes:

1. Source: RIVCOM base year 2018 and future year 2045 models. M odel runs performed by EPD Solutions, Inc.

2. VMT shown is based on origin-destination methodology.

g:1,~:iii
Item 2B - Page 190

Ms. Lauren Reese, Associate Planner

THE ALTUM GROUP
March 3, 2022

Casa Verona (TTM 38042)
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
4 19397
As shown in Table 1, baseline project-generated VMT per service population of 27.5 does not exceed the City of Palm Springs General Plan Buildout VMT per service population of 36.7; therefore, the proposed project is forecast to result in a less than significant VMT impact based on the City-established threshold for baseline project-generated VMT.

As also shown in Table 1, cumulative project-generated VMT per service population of 27.7 does not exceed the City of Palm Springs General Plan Buildout VMT per service population of 36.7; therefore, the proposed project is forecast to result in a less than significant VMT impact based on the City-established threshold for cumulative project-generated VMT.

PROJECT EFFECT ON VMT

Table 2 summarizes the project effect on VMT.

Table 2
Project Effect on VMT

Descriptor Without Project With Project
Baseline Conditions
Total Link-Level VMT 871,027 871,346
Service Population 80,196 80,261
VMT per Service Population 10.861 10.856
Project-Related Change - -0.005
Significant Impact? - No
Cumulative Conditions
Total Link-Level VMT 1,162,399 1,162,602
Service Population 103,440 103,505
VMT per Service Population 11.237 11.232
Project-Related Change - -0.005
Significant Impact? - No
Notes:

1. Source: RIVCOM base year 2018 and future year 2045 models. M odel runs performed by EPD Solutions, Inc.

2. VMT shown is based on link-level VMT within the City of Palm Springs boundary .

As shown in Table 2, baseline link-level boundary VMT per service population within the City boundary is estimated to decrease under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition; therefore, the proposed project is forecast to result in a less than significant VMT impact based on the City-established threshold for baseline project effect on VMT.

As also shown in Table 2, cumulative link-level boundary VMT per service population within the City boundary is estimated to decrease under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition; therefore, the proposed project is forecast to result in a less than significant VMT impact based on the City-established threshold for cumulative project effect on VMT.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed project is forecast to result in a less than significant VMT impact based on the City-established thresholds for baseline and cumulative project-generated VMT. g:1,~:iii
Item 2B - Page 191

Ms. Lauren Reese, Associate Planner

THE ALTUM GROUP
March 3, 2022

Casa Verona (TTM 38042)
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
5 19397

The proposed project is forecast to result in a less than significant VMT impact based on the City-established threshold for baseline and cumulative project effect on VMT.

It has been a pleasure to assist you with this project. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call at (714) 795-3100.

Sincerely,
GANDDINI GROUP, INC.

Giancarlo Ganddini, PE, PTP
Principal
California Registration TR 2663

g:1,~:iii
Item 2B - Page 192
Figure 1
Project Location Map
Casa Verona (TTM 38042)
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
19397
N
SITE
10 GENE AUTRY TRAIL

VISTA CHINO

SUNRISE WAY

FERRELL DR

VERONA RD

WHITEWATER CLUB DR
•
g:rd:Jii
Item 2B - Page 193
Figure 2
Project Site Plan
Casa Verona (TTM 38042)
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
19397
N
Source: Christiansen & Company

VERONA RD
•
Item 2B - Page 194

ATTACHMENT A

GLOSSARY
Item 2B - Page 195

ACRONYMS

AC Acres
ADT Average Daily Traffic
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
DU Dwelling Unit
GFA Gross Floor Area
GLA Gross Leasable Area
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
OD Origin-Destination
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PA Production-Attraction
PCE Passenger Car Equivalent
RIVCOM Riverside County Transportation Model
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SED Socio-Economic Data
SP Service Population
TIA/TIS Transportation/Traffic Impact Analysis or Study TDM Transportation Demand Management
TSF Thousand Square Feet
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments

TERMS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The average 24-hour volume for a stated period divided by the number of days in that period. For example, Annual Average Daily Traffic is the total volume during a year divided by 365 days.

LEVEL OF SERVICE: A grading scale of quantitative performance measures representing the quality of service of a transportation facility or service from an average traveler’s perspective.

MULTI-MODAL: More than one mode, such as automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian.

PEAK HOUR: The hour within a day in which the maximum traffic volume occurs.

SERVICE POPULATION: The sum of population and employment.

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT: A measure or series of measures intended to manage when and how people travel.

TRIP OR TRIP END: The one-directional movement of a person or vehicle. Every trip has an origin and a destination at its respective ends (i.e., trip ends). In terms of site trip generation, the same vehicle entering and exiting a site generates two trips: one inbound trip and one outbound trip.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED: A measure of the amount and distance of automobile travel generally calculated as the total of each trip multiplied by the trip length.

Item 2B - Page 196

ATTACHMENT B

CASA VERONA (TTM 38042) TIA SCREENING ASSESSMENT
Item 2B - Page 197
transportation ■ noise ■ air quality | GANDDINI GROUP

555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225, Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 795-3100 | ganddini.com

January 24, 2022

Ms. Lauren Reese, Associate Planner

THE ALTUM GROUP
via electronic delivery

RE: Casa Verona (TTM 38042) TIA Screening Assessment
Project No. 19397

Dear Ms. Reese:

Ganddini Group, Inc. is pleased to provide this transportation impact analysis (TIA) screening assessment for the proposed Casa Verona (TTM 38042) Project in the City of Palm Springs. The purpose of this analysis is to document the project trip generation forecast and determine the need for further level of service (LOS) or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis in accordance with the screening criteria established by the City of Palm Springs. We trust the findings of this analysis will aid you and the City of Palm Springs in assessing the project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project involves a Zone Change from R -1-D (7,500 squar e foot lots) to R -1-E (5,000 square foot lots) and a tentative tract map subdividing the parcel into 31 individual lots, including the construction of eight single-family dwelling units [“Project”]. The Project site plan is shown on Figure 2.

PROJECT TRIPS

Table 1 shows the proposed Project trips generation forecast for ultimate buildout of the tentative tract map based on trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). Based on review of the proposed project and ITE land use definitions, t rip generation rates for ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single Family Detached Housing) were determined to adequately represent the proposed project and were selected for this analysis.

As shown in Table 1, the proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately 292 daily trips, including 22 trips during the AM peak hour and 29 trips during the PM peak hour.

NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS

The need to prepare a transportation impact analysis (TIA) with either level of service (LOS) or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis was evaluated in accordance with the screening criteria established by the City of Palm Springs and documented in the City of Palm Springs Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (July 2020) [“City TIA Guidelines”].

Item 2B - Page 198

Ms. Lauren Reese, Associate Planner

THE ALTUM GROUP
January 24, 2022

Casa Verona (TTM 38042)
TIA Screening Assessment
2 19397

SCREENING ASSESSMENT OF NEED TO COMPLETE LOS ANALYSIS

As specified in the City TIA Guidelines , the following activities generally will not require a TIA that in cludes LOS analysis . This presumption is based on the activities associated with the project (e.g. they are local serving) or the limited trip generation of the project (e.g. projects that generate less than 100 peak hour trips as projects that generate 100 or less trips typically do not affect LOS significantly once distributed to the local roadway network).

▪ All residential parcel maps.
▪ Single family residential tracts of less than 100 lots. ▪ Apartments and multi-family projects of less than 150 units. ▪ Plot plan and uses cases for projects of one acre or less. ▪ Preschools, local serving elementary schools and local serving middle schools. ▪ Local serving churches, lodges, community centers, neighborhood parks and community parks . ▪ Mini storage yards.
▪ Congregate care facilities that contain significant special services, such as medical facilities, dining facilities, recreation facilities and support retail services.
▪ Any use which can demonstrate trip generation of less than 100 vehicle trips in the peak hour.

The proposed Project consists of a single -family residential tract of less than 100 lots and is forecast to generate fewer than 100 vehicle trips during the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant preparation of LOS analysis based on the City-established screening criteria.

SCREENING ASSESSMENT OF NEED TO COMPLETE VMT ANALYSIS

In accordance with Senate Bill 743, the most recent California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, released in December 2018, recommend VMT as the most appropriate measure of a project’s transportation impact on the environment. As specified in the City TIA Guidelines, based on guidance from the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) [“OPR Technical Advisory”], the City has established three types of screening criteria that may be applied to determine if a project should complete a more detailed, project -level VMT analysis. A project generally will not require preparation of a TIA that includes VMT analysis if one or more of the following screening criteria are satisfied, absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The City -established s creening assessment is performed in the following steps: 1) Transit Priority Area (TPA) screening; 2) Low VMT Area screening; and 3) Project Type Screening.

TPA Screening

Projects located within a TPA, defined as a half-mile area around major transit stop 1 or high-quality transit corridor,2 may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption may not apply, however, if the project:

1 A major transit stop is defined as an existing rail transit station, ferry terminal with bus or rail service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with less than 15 minutes headways during the peak commute hours (Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3.). 2 Fixed route bus service with less than 15 minute headways during the peak commute hours (Pub. Resources Code, § 21155). g:1,~:iii
Item 2B - Page 199

Ms. Lauren Reese, Associate Planner

THE ALTUM GROUP
January 24, 2022

Casa Verona (TTM 38042)
TIA Screening Assessment
3 19397

1. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;

2. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking)

3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determine d by the SBCTA with input from the SCAG): or

4. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate or high -income residential units.

Based on review of the transit services in the project vicinity , the proposed Project is not located within a TPA; therefore, the Project does not satisfy the TPA screening criteria.

Low VMT Area Screening

Residential and office projects located within a low VMT generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment -related and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service popu lation that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project land uses would alter the existing built environment in such a way as to increase the rate or length of vehicle trips.

Figure 3 sh ows the City of Palm Springs map of daily VMT per service population compared to the City average. The map shown on Figure 3 was developed by the City of Palm Springs using the RIVTAM travel forecasting model to measure VMT performance for the City and for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs).

TAZs are geographic polygons similar to Census block groups used to represent areas of homogenous travel behavior. Total daily VMT per service population (population plus employment) was estimated for each TAZ .

Based on review of the low VMT area screening map shown on Figure 3, the Project is located in an area with above-average VMT relative to the Citywide average. Therefore, the proposed Project does not satisfy the low VMT area screening criteria.

Project Type Screening

The City TIA Guidelines define the following types of projects as local serving which, by definition, would decrease the number of trips or the distance those trips travel to access the development, thus reducing VMT, or are small enough to have a negligible impact on VMT.

▪ Local-serving K-12 public schools
▪ Local parks
▪ Day care centers
▪ Local-serving retail uses less than 50,000 square feet, including:
□ Gas stations
□ Banks
□ Restaurants
□ Shopping Center
▪ Student housing projects on or adjacent to college campuses ▪ Community institutions (public libraries, fire stations, local government) ▪ Affordable, supportive, or transitional housing
▪ Assisted living facilities
▪ Senior housing (as defined by HUD)
g:1,~:iii
Item 2B - Page 200

Ms. Lauren Reese, Associate Planner

THE ALTUM GROUP
January 24, 2022

Casa Verona (TTM 38042)
TIA Screening Assessment
4 19397
▪ Local serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in the RTP/SCS ▪ Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips.3 This generally corresponds to the following “typical” development potentials:
□ 11 single family housing units
□ 16 multi-family, condominiums, or townhouse housing units □ 10,000 square feet of office4
□ 15,000 square feet of light industrial4
□ 63,000 square feet of warehousing4
□ 79,000 square feet of high cube transload and short-term storage warehouse4

The proposed Project does not include local -serving retail or public/community uses and is forecast to generate more than 110 daily vehicle trips; therefore, the Project does not satisfy the project type screening criteria.

VMT Screening Summary

The proposed Project does not satisfy any of the City -established VMT screening criteria; therefore, the Project is required to prepare a more detailed, project -level VMT analysis to adequately assess the project’s VMT impact.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately 292 daily trips, including 22 trips during the AM peak hour and 29 trips during the PM peak hour.

The proposed Project does not warran t preparation of LOS analysis based on the City -established screening criteria. The proposed Project does not satisfy any of the City -established VMT screening criteria; therefore, the Project is required to prepare a more detailed, project -level VMT analy sis to adequately assess the project’s VMT impact.

It has been a pleasure to assist you with this project. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call at (714) 795-3100.

Sincerely,
GANDDINI GROUP, INC.

Giancarlo Ganddini, PE, PTP
Principal
California Registration TR 2663

3 CEQA provides a categorical exemption for existing facilities and additions to existing structures up to 10,000 square feet so long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planning development and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive area (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301, subd. (e)(2).). Typical project types for which trip generation increases relatively linearly with building footprint (i.e., general office building, single tenant office building, office park, and business park) generate or attract an additional 110-124 trips per 10,000 square feet. Therefore, absent substantial evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to conclude that the addition of 110 or fewer trips could be considered not to lead to a significant impact. 4 These thresholds may be higher depending on the tenant and use of the site. These thresholds were estimated using rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
g:1,~:iii
Item 2B - Page 201
Land Use Source1
% In % Out Rate % In % Out Rate
Single-Family Detached Housing ITE 210 26% 74% 0.70 63% 37% 0.94 9.43 Land Use Source In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached Housing ITE 210 31 DU 6 16 22 18 11 29 292 Notes:

2. DU = Dwelling Units

1. ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021); ### = Land Use Code.

Based on General Urban/Suburban setting.

Project Trip Generation
Table 1
PM Peak Hour
Trip Generation Rates
Land Use
Variable2
AM Peak Hour Daily
Rate
DU
Trips Generated
Quantity
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Casa Verona (TTM 38042)
TIA Screening Assessment
19397

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I
Item 2B - Page 202
Figure 1
Project Location Map
Casa Verona (TTM 38042)
TIA Screening Assessment
19397
N
SITE
10 GENE AUTRY TRAIL

VISTA CHINO

SUNRISE WAY

FERRELL DR

VERONA RD

WHITEWATER CLUB DR
g:rd:Jii
Item 2B - Page 203
Figure 2
Project Site Plan
Casa Verona (TTM 38042)
TIA Screening Assessment
19397
N
Source: Christiansen & Company

VERONA RD
•
Item 2B - Page 204
Figure 3
Daily VMT Per Service Popluation
Compared to City Average
Casa Verona (TTM 38042)
TIA Screening Assessment
19397
Source: City of Palm Springs, Riverside Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) (2012) SITE
0 City Boundary
I 1- ... ____ I
I I
I ',
r - - - Samo Roso- - i '
I San Jacinto I ''
I Mtns NM ~ ___ ~ ~

I ,------
1 I I C
I I I
"--- •---
Mau 'ion
In I a 'iP
OIi
e nar1 no NF
l <- 15% below City Average
- Higher than City Average
No Service Population
0 to -15% below City Average
N
A
Item 2B - Page 205

ATTACHMENT C

RIVCOM ROADWAY & TAZ NETWORK

Item 2B - Page 206
W SAN IU,FAE"L Fl E SAhl RAFA.El DR
"' 0
z
0
~'
Q
~
~
17 11
l7t2 t 2
<
"" "' u .J. .,. "' .., "' J> ii .. z
~ ;::,
r "' m z .,
. RAC:QOET CLUB RD
1110
,n •
~ ,.
~ u
i3
" z

VISTA CHIHO
Jilli
Item 2B - Page 207

ATTACHMENT L
Item 2B - Page 208
I
I
I
I
8 25 50
5C~L[:
_,,.-- 50-...___/
~ 50 .._____/
~
~
0 lcd:ltf
'· ' . ,, .: : ., .... -~··. p·:/'< i._·.·'.:··1
__, ____ ___
50'
100 'ISO
LEGEND

PROPOSED CONTOUR

EXISTING CONTOUR

PROPOSED ELEVATION

EXISTING ELEVATION

EXISTING TREE/BUSH

CROSS - GUTTER

PROPOSED CURB
& GUTTER

EXISTING CURB
& GUTTER

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

POWER POLE

EXISTING PC CONCRETE

DIRECTION OF FLOW

EXISTING WATER SERVICE

EXISTING SEWER LAERAL

EARTHWORK ESTIMATE

ITEM CUT (CY) FILL (CY)
3200 22000
SHRINKAGE (10%) o 2200
SUBSIDENCE (0 1 O') o 1040
OVEREXCAVATION (2.0') (750) o
7500 CY
2450 25240
IMPORT 22790
NO. "AS BUILT"
NO. REVISION
2GO
84 .. 4
TC TOP~ R~

TP TOP OF PAVEM ' NT

FL FLOWLINE
GB 85 .. 2
HP
FS
FG
NG

STA STATIONING

INV INVERT
EP EDG ~ F PAVEME T
™ PROPO S DRIP
•
=
BO .
reen
_lJ
~@"LI=
-@@=
(0)(0)~ 2012
t:;, 485.57
85 .. 3
11 P1 D=4 3.3
0940 F
9 PA =482.
54 0 SF
r---tt10.
~· f7C1=4 1.1
~11 '510F

0. 1
PAD 48 2
58 S
---
78 .. 8

CORRECTED APPROVED
BY BY

DATE DATE
85 .. 7
0 0
al

APPROVED DATE BENCH MARK

LOCATION
84 .. 3
84 .. 6
~

IN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38042
GOVERNMENT LOT 6 AND A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 8 IN THE N.W 1/4 OF SECTION 6, T.4S., R.SE. S.B.M. 83 .. 5
82 .. 4
82 .. 4
CHRISTIANSEN & COMPANY OCTOBER 2020
50'-Q"
25'-Q" 25'-0"
36'-o"
>- 7'-o' 1a'-o" 1a'-o" 7'-o" ~1<------t-1-----------¥---------¥--'-->l.

I 5'
~I SIDEWALK
.!..1
; I<--'- PAVEMENT
r
6"WEDGE CURB &
GUTTER 2%
•
5'

SIDEWALK-

AGGREGATE BASE
6" W[D8fjl/l!f~

TYPICAL SECTION FOR INTERIOR STREETS
2s'-o" 2s'-o" >- 1<---------"'--'"--=-"'-------.- --=--==-= ~ ~~--=c--c=-c= =->li;,c ~ 36 ,_ 0 » FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
7'-o' 1a'-o" 1a'-o" 7'-o"
"-al ------t----------.-----;----..--..:......1';'
5' ,.i_ ,!_ SIDEWALK /O'-Q" FUTURE 5' <l::
~ ~ =E~LK- I
D2 PAVEMENT -.J
es AGGREG TE BASE
Fl.,ITURE 3'-6'
RETAINING-o11
WALL
FINISH
GRADE
fc::
~ (j 2% J cS~~fR

TYPICAL SECTION FOR VERONA ROAD
DATE PREPARED: 10123120
OWNER/APPLICANT:

CASA VERONA, LLC
699 INDIAN TRAIL
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92264
PH: 760-774-3294
FAX: 853-857-1840
CONTACT: MARK TEMPLE
EMAIL: [email protected]
ENGINEER:

CHRISTIANSEN & COMPANY
5225 CANYON CREST DRIVE, STE. 251
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507
PH: 951-323-4713
FAX: 951-405-8410
CONTACT: KEITH CHRISTIANSEN
EMAIL: [email protected]
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS:
677-020-032
MAP SCALE:
1"=50'
ADDRESS:

XX-XXX VERONA ROAD - PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92264
ACREAGE: LOT ACREAGE
GROSS:6.44 A 0.18 DEDICATION VERONA ROAD
ZONING:

EXISTING: R-1-D
PROPOSED: R-1-E
B 0.76 INTERIOR STREET LOT
C 0.26 INTERIOR STREET LOT
D 0.52 INTERIOR STREET LOT
E 0.39 RETENTION BASIN
1-31 4.33 RESIDENTIAL LOTS
SURROUNDING: RGA8, R-1-D, R-1-C, W
LAND USE/GP:

EXISTING: VACANT

PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SURROUNDING: RESIDENTIAL, FLOOD CONTROL
UTILITY PURVEYORS:

WATER: DESERT WATER AGENCY
SEWER: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
~6j0 .. 1
0 GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO.

ELECTRIC: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
PHONE: FONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
CABLE: TIME WARNER CABLE
(760)-323-4971
(760)-323-8299
(760)-341-4523
(760)-202-4290
(855)-284-2105
(760)-340-1312
(760)-292-2495
5146 SF
N8!?tll&'l30"
~~'-"f'"--z,,_;,~ ---,c"- +-----=;==== +~o
ELEV
0 J!M21@:rm~~
5225 C/\\ YCJhl CREST D"I VE, STE. 251
RI\IE°'SIDE, CA_ FCJRhll,'\ 9150:

PH ~5 -023-'1713 FAX 9~1-40~-3410
EIV AIL kei:h@C::o::1v1L.com
Christiansen & Company
Lcr.C :>ovd,amcnt Dcaien Bnginccring
Es,. ~CCYI
0 I
26 i
0=4832
0 SF
80 .. 7
79 .. 5
75 .. B

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF
78 .. 7
.. 3
I
VERONA ST. EN RGYDISAPPATORj Q;l
75 .. 2
DESIGN BY: REVIEWED BY:

KAC
RCE. 50083 DRAWN BY:

KEITH A CHRISTIANSEN KAC JOHN M. BRUDIN
CHECKED BY: RC.E. NO. DATE
DATE KAC 41836
77 .. 3
76 .. 6
75 .. 4
74 .,
APPROVED BY:

JOEL MONTALVO
RC.E. NO. DATE
62624

WASTE BURRTEC WASTE & RECYCLING SERVICES

FEMA FLOOD ZONE
FLOOD ZONE:X PANEL:06065C1557G EFFECTIVE DATE:8/28/2008 ELEVATION DATUM:
+500 FEET HAS BEEN ADDED TO ALL ELEVATION TO ELIMINATE NEGATIVE(-) ELEVATIONS.

WQMP NOTE:

AN EARTHEN RETENTION BASIN IS UTILIZED FOR 100% STORMWATER CONTAINMENT OF THE 1 00YR-24HR STORM EVENT THEREFORE, WQMP WORKSHEET VOLUMES ARE ACHIEVED.

NOTE:

PROPERTY NOT IN A COUNTY SERVICE AREA OR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT ELEVATION DATUM:
+500 FEET HAS BEEN ADDED TO ALL ELEVATION TO ELIMINATE NEGATIVE - ELEVATIONS.

RACQUET CLUB ROAD

PROJECT
LOCAT/0

VERONA ROAD
"" ~
>-.
1----+-~~ .......... E VIA ESCUELA ~
i/1 J

VICI N ITV MAP
·~

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38042
APN 677-020-032

CASA VERONA
A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 6 T.4S. R.SE. S.8.8. & M.

FILE NO
DWG. NO
'C
\a! t;i
SHEET
1 Of 1 SHEETS
Item 2B - Page 209

ATTACHMENT M
Item 2B - Page 210

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM
Name of Entity
c~~CI'\ \)e<Ot...lO\_ t.L '-
Address of Entity (Principle Place of Business)
L,t;tq ,. 1:_'AA.;(M.) \V'A,\\ (o.\~ s~"'~ l u,,...~-z,1-1o~ I
Local or California Address (if different than #2)
State where Entity is Registered with Secretary of State e,,..,, ~ '<~\Co\,
If other than California, is the Entity also registered in California? n Yes n No Type of Entity
D Corporation ~ted Liability Company D Partnership D Trust D 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 ~tl,~\c_ \~~\L D Officer D Director D Member ~nager
[name)
'34.\A..-~ ......
-,™-\>\C..
0 General Partner D Limited Partner
Other
~W\.e\L 0 Officer D Director ~mber D Manager
[name]
D General Partner D Limited Partner
Other
LLl- D Officer D Director ~mber D Manager
[name]
D General Partner D Limited Partner
Other

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLI CANT D ISCLOSURE FORM

Page 1 ends

Palm Springs City CouncilOctober 17, 2022

Palm Springs City Council
October 17, 2022