CC04 — Rancho Mirage City Council, October 3, 2024 (part 1 of 3)

STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: October 3, 2024
FROM: Ben Torres, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Case No. EA23-0010, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23-0004, and Tentative Tract Map Case No.

TTM23-0003 (TTM 38041)

SPECIFIC REQUEST OR RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:

A. Adopt Resolution No. 2024 -(Next -in -Order), Approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2024050169) for the Proposed Project Based on Environmental Assessment Case No. EA23-0010; and B. Adopt Resolution No. 2024 -(Next -in -Order), Approving General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23-0004; and, Approving Tentative Tract Map Case No. TTM23-0003.

JUSTIFICATION OR INFORMATION

PROJECT SUMMARY
The subject 8.42 -acre project site is located on the east side of Via Josefina at the terminus of Victory Drive. The project site is currently zoned a combination of R -L-2 for one parcel (4.91 acres) and R -M for two parcels (3.51 acres). A General Plan Zoning Map Amendment is proposed to modify the land use designation of 1.5 acres of the project site from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). In addition, Tentative Tract Map No. 38041 proposes a seventeen -lot single-family residential subdivision, with associated street improvements and common area landscaping. No single-family residence architectural plans are proposed as part of this project.

PLANNING COMMISSION
On September 12, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project. As summarized in the minutes attached to this report no public comments were made other than the applicants representative describing the project. The Commissioners also asked questions to which staff answered.

AGENDA ITEM #
4-1

DATE: October 3, 2024 Page 2 of 3
EA23-0010, GPZMA23-0004, & TTM23-0003

JUSTIFICATION OR INFORMATION CONTINUED
After due consideration of the staff report, presentation, and public testimony, the Planning Commission made the following motion:

MOVED/SECONDED BY CHANTER/CURRAN TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -PC -06, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS:

A. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -(NEXT -IN -ORDER), APPROVING THE MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH# 2024050169) FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CASE NO. EA23-0010; AND,
B. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -(NEXT -IN -ORDER), APPROVING GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP AMENDMENT CASE NO. GPZMA23-0004; AND, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. TTM23-0003.

MOTION CARRIED 4/0.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An environmental assessment application was submitted for the proposed project and the determination was made that the project required an Initial Study. An Initial Study has been prepared resulting in the recommendation to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).

Mitigation measures were recommended for Biological & Tribal Cultural Resources. A Notice of Determination will be filed with the Riverside County Clerk once a final determination has been made by the City Council. The complete Initial Study, along with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, is included in Attachment 6 — Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration.

A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the Desert Sun on May 5, 2024, and distributed to interested parties on May 3, 2024. The Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day public review period starting on May 6, 2024 to June 4, 2024, and the City received one comment letter from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The City included a response to comments which was included as in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
On September 18, 2024, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 - foot radius of the parcel boundary and posted at the City's designated community posting sites pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 17.74 of the Municipal Code. Notification of the public hearing was published in The Desert Sun on September 22, 2024. Any information addressed to the City Council, but received after completion of this final report, will be distributed at the public hearing.

AGENDA ITEM #

DATE: October 3, 2024 Page 3 of 3
EA23-0010, GPZMA23-0004, & TTM23-0003

JUSTIFICATION OR INFORMATION CONTINUED

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Aerial Photo

2. Public Hearing Notice

3. Planning Commission Resolution

4. Resolution approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2024050169)

5. Resolution approving the proposed GPZMA and TTM

6. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

7. Draft Notice of Determination

8. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 12, 2024 (Without Attachments)

9. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 12, 2024

10. Tentative Tract Map No. 38041

11. Landscape Plans

12. GPZMA Exhibit
AGENDA ITEM #

ATTACHMENT 1
TTM23-0003 & GPZMA 23-0004 —17 Lot Subdivision

ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
Planning Division
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
[email protected]
(760) 328-2266

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Thursday, October 3, 2024 — 1:00 p.m.

Environmental Assessment Case No. EA23-0010, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23-0004, and Tentative Tract
Map Case No. TTM23-0003 (TTM38041)
Applicant: Mark Howard, La Paloma Homes, Inc.

Request: Consideration to subdivide the 8.42 -acre project site into a 17 residential lots gated community with lots ranging in size from approximately 12,511 square feet to 22,323 square feet. Private streets are proposed in addition to a retention basin and perimeter landscaping within the common areas of the development. Access to the site will be via a gated entry along Via Josefina, with an emergency access gate along Key Largo Avenue. A General Plan Zoning Map Amendment is also proposed to modify the land use designation of APN: 685-080-031 for a 1.5 acres portion of this parcel from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). No single-family residence architectural plans are proposed as part of this project. The Planning Commission recommended approval on September 12, 2024.

Location: The approximately 8.42 -acre project site is located on the east side of Via Josefina at the terminus of Victory Drive (APNs: 685-080-031, 685-080-010, & 685-030-006).

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the City of Rancho Mirage City Council regarding consideration of the above referenced application pursuant to Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Title 16 & 17. An environmental assessment application was submitted for the subject project and the determination was made that the project required an initial study. An Initial Study has been prepared to result in the recommendation to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the Desert Sun on May 5, 2024, and distributed to interested parties. The 30 -day public review period for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was from May 6, 2024, to June 4, 2024.

The Public Hearing will be held on Thursday, October 3, 2024, at 1:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California, at which time and place 4-5

EA23-0010, GPZMA23-0004, & TTM23-0003 October 3, 2024
pertinent testimony will be heard. The file, including all environmental information, is available for public inspection at City Hall, Monday through Friday, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., and will be posted on the City's website with the publication of the City Council Agenda, to be posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Written testimony may be submitted to the City Clerk via email to CityClerk(a�RanchoMirageCA.gov, or mailed to City of Rancho Mirage, ATTN: City Clerk, 69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. Written testimony must be received no later than 10:00 a.m. on the day of the hearing to be considered by the City Council.

GOVERNMENT CODE § 65009 NOTICE: If you challenge this proposed activity in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council sufficiently prior to the Public Hearing to enable its consideration by them.

Vicinity Map — Not to Scale

DINAH SHORE DR

VIA VAIL
o VICTORY LN o
a C)
m W 4
a GINGER ROGERS RD o J
J S
5 VICINITY MAP

PROJECT
SITE
N.T.S.

MONTEREY AVE

ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -PC -06

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL: 1) ADOPT RESOLUTION [NEXT IN LINE] APPROVING THE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; AND 2) ADOPT RESOLUTION [NEXT IN LINE] APPROVING GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT CASE NO. GPZMA 23-0004 AND TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP CASE NO. TTM23-0003, REGARDING CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP DESIGNATION ON APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES
FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -L-2) TO MEDIUM

DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -M) AND THE SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 8.42 ACRES INTO SEVENTEEN PARCELS
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of the State of California for certain purpose; and
WHEREAS, La Paloma Homes, Inc. ("Developer"), owns approximately 8.42 acres of vacant undeveloped real property located at east of Via Josefina and Victory Lane intersection, in Rancho Mirage, County of Riverside, State of California, having Assessor's Parcel Numbers 685-080-031, 685-080-010, and 685-030-006 (the "Subject Property"), as more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the "Proposed Project" will generally change the General Plan Zoning Map designation on approximately 1.5 acres from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M) (attached hereto and incorporated herein in the proposed City Council Resolution as set forth in Exhibit "0") (the remaining Subject Property is currently zoned a combination of R -L-2 and R -M) and subdivide the Subject Property into seventeen (17) parcels via Tentative Tract Map Case Number TTM23-0003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and mitigation monitoring and reporting program ("MMRP"), attached hereto and incorporated herein in the proposed City Council Resolution as set forth in Exhibit "B", based upon its determination that there is no substantial evidence in the whole record before it that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment that has not been mitigated to a level of less than significant, and that the MND reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the Proposed Project and its potential impacts on the environment consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1 4-7

SECTION 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS.

That the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 2. EVIDENCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.

That the Planning Commission conducted a noticed Public Hearing on September 12, 2024, and considered all of the evidence submitted into the administrative record for the Proposed Project, including, but not limited to, the following, which are all hereby incorporated herein by reference:
(a) Rancho Mirage Municipal Code;
(b) Rancho Mirage General Plan and Titles 16 (Subdivisions) & 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and all relevant provisions contained therein;
(c) Tentative Tract Map Case No. TTM23-0003;
(d) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23-0004 (the "GPZMA");
(e) Initial Study;
(f) Notice of Intent to adopt MND;
(g) MND and MMRP;
(h) Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for September 12, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69- 825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(i) Planning Commission Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the September 12, 2024, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(j) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the September 12, 2024, Planning Commission Public Hearing; and
(k) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the September 12, 2024, Planning Commission Public Hearing.

SECTION 3. FINDINGS.

That the Planning Commission finds as follows:
a) That the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, are consistent with all applicable provisions of the municipal code; b) That the proposed Tentative Tract Map (TTM23-0003) is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in California Government Code Section 65451;
2 4-8

c) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans;
d) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development; e) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; f) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
g) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems;
h) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision;
i) That the Proposed Project, and GPZMA specifically, is consistent with the General Plan, upon consideration of all of its aspects, including without limitation that the proposed amendment further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and do not obstruct their attainment.

SECTION 4. RECOMMENDATIONS.

That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project, the Planning Commission Findings, as set forth and described herein, and the findings and determinations set forth in the September 12, 2024, Planning Commission Staff Report and the attached resolutions, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
a) Approve and Adopt the attached Resolution set forth in Exhibit "B", adopting the MND and MMRP; and
b) Adopt the attached Resolution set forth in Exhibit "C" approving Tentative Tract Map Case No. TTM23-0003 and General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No.

GPZMA23-0004.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY.

That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of Resolution or any portion of the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 7. CERTIFICATION.
3 4-9

That the Secretary to the Planning Commission shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law.

SECTION 8. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.

That all provisions of any resolution in effect prior to the effective date of this Resolution as adopted by the Planning Commission that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution, are hereby repealed.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 12th day of September, 2024.

Jassen Agostini , Chair
ATTEST:

Kristie Ramos, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Colin D. Kirkpatrick, City Attorney
4 4-10

EXHIBIT "A"

SUBJECT PROPERTY
[TO BE ATTACHED]
5 EXHIBIT "B"

RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(EA23-001 0)
[TO BE ATTACHED]
6 EXHIBIT "C"

RESOLUTION APPROVING

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (TTM23-0003 and GPZMA 23-0004)
[TO BE ATTACHED]
7 4-13

ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO

MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AND APPROVING A MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM REGARDING GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT CASE NO. GPZMA23-0004 AND TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP CASE NO.TTM23-0003
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of the State of California for certain purpose; and
WHEREAS, the "Proposed Project" proposed to change the General Plan zoning designation on approximately 1.5 acres of that certain real property having APN 685- 080-031 from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M) (the remaining Subject Property is currently zoned a combination of R -L-2 and R -M) and subdivide the 8.42 "Subject Property" comprised of unimproved vacant real property having APNs 685-080-031, 685-080-010, and 685-030-006, into seventeen (17) parcels via Tentative Tract Map Case Number TTM23-0003; and WHEREAS, on September 12, 2024, the Rancho Mirage Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2024 -PC -06, incorporated herein by this reference, recommending, in part, the City Council approve and adopt this Resolution, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") based upon its determination that there is no substantial evidence in the whole record before it that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment that has not been mitigated to a level of less than significant, and that the MND reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the Proposed Project and its potential impacts on the environment consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding the Proposed Project, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit "A".

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS
That the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 2. EVIDENCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
1 4-14

That the City Council has considered all of the evidence ("Evidence") submitted into the administrative record ("Administrative Record") for the Proposed Project, including, but not limited to, the following, which are all hereby incorporated herein by reference:
(a) Rancho Mirage Municipal Code;
(b) Rancho Mirage General Plan and Titles 16 (Subdivisions) & 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and all relevant provisions contained therein;
(c) Tentative Tract Map (TTM23-0003);
(d) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment GPZMA23-0004 (the "GPZMA"); (e) Initial Study,
(f) Notice of Intent to adopt MND;
(g) MND and MMRP (SCH#2024050169);
(h) Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for September 12, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69- 825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(1) Planning Commission Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the September 12, 2024, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(j) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the September 12, 2024, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(k) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the September 12, 2024, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(I) Notice of City Council Public Hearing scheduled for October 3, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(m) Planning Commission Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the October 3, 2024, City Council Public Hearing;
(n) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the October 3, 2024, City Council Public Hearing; and
(o) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the October 3, 2024, City Council Public Hearing.

SECTION 3. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project, as set forth and described herein, the 2 4-15

City Council acknowledges, accepts, and approves, and makes the following Findings and Determinations:
(a) That the City has independently reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, and the whole record before it (including, the Initial Study and comments received) and, based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds that all environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, with mitigation measures, are below a level of significance and there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment.
(b) That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan have been completed in compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. (c) That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan represent the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission and City Council as lead agency for the Proposed Project. (d) That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan are adequate to serve as the required CEQA environmental documentation for the Proposed Project.

SECTION 4. ADOPT THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVAL OF MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
That based on the Findings and Determinations set forth herein and the substantial evidence included in the Recitals, Exhibits and Evidence contained in Administrative Record, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the findings set forth therein which support a determination that all potentially significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Proposed Project have been identified and, with the implementation of the mitigation measures defined and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.

SECTION 5. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
That the City Council authorizes and directs the Planning Division to prepare, execute, and file a Notice of Determination in accordance with Public Resource Code Section 21152.

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 3 4-16

SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY
That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of Resolution or any portion of the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 8. CERTIFICATION.

That the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law.

SECTION 9. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.

That all provisions of any resolution in effect prior to the effective date of this Resolution as adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution, are hereby repealed.
4 4-17

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this day of , 2024.

Steve Downs, Mayor
ATTEST:

Kristie Ramos, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Colin Kirkpatrick, City Attorney

EXHIBIT "A"

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION &

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(EA23-001 0)
[TO BE ATTACHED]
6 ATTACHMENT 5
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO MIRAGE,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT CASE NO. GPZMA 23-0004, CHANGING GENERAL
PLAN ZONING DESIGNATION ON APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES OF
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 685-080-031 FROM VERY LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -L-2) TO MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (R -M); AND APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
CASE NO. TTM23-0003, SUBDIVIDING APPROXIMATELY 8.42

ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY HAVING ASSESSOR PARCEL
NUMBERS 685-080-031, 685-080-010, and 685-030-006
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of State of California for certain purpose; and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program regarding the Proposed Project, and approve the "Proposed Project", which is defined herein as: (1) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA 23-0004 (the "GPZMA"), attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit "A", amending the General Plan zoning designation on approximately 1.5 acres of that certain real property having APN 685-080-031 from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M), as depicted in Exhibit "A"; and (2) Tentative Tract Map Case No. TTM 23-0003 subdividing approximately 8.42 acres of unimproved vacant real property having APNs 685-080-031, 685-080-010, and 685-030-006 (the "Subject Property) into 17 parcels, as set forth in more detail on Exhibit "B"; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA23-0004) (the "GPZMA") and Tentative Tract Map TTM 23-0003; and
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. [TO BE INSERTED] approving and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Proposed Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS
That the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 2. EVIDENCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.
1 4-20

That the City Council conducted a noticed Public Hearing on [INSERT], 2024, and considered all of the evidence submitted into the administrative record for the Proposed Project, including, but not limited to, the following, which are all hereby incorporated herein by reference:
(a) Rancho Mirage Municipal Code;
(b) Rancho Mirage General Plan and Titles 16 (Subdivisions) & 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and all relevant provisions contained therein;
(c) Tentative Tract Map Case No. TTM23-0003;
(d) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23-0004 (the "GPZMA");
(e) Initial Study,
(f) Notice of Intent to adopt MND;
(g) MND and MMRP;
(h) Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for September 12, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69- 825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(i) Planning Commission Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the September 12, 2024, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(j) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the September 12, 2024, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(k) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the September 12, 2024, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(I) Notice of City Council Public Hearing scheduled for October 3, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(m) Planning Commission Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the October 3, 2024, City Council Public Hearing;
(n) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the October 3, 2024, City Council Public Hearing; and
(o) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the October 3, 2024, City Council Public Hearing.

SECTION 3. GPZMA CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN
2 4-21

That the City Council finds the GPZMA is consistent with the General Plan, upon consideration of all of its aspects, including without limitation that the proposed amendment further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and do not obstruct their attainment.

SECTION 3. ADOPT GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
That the City Council hereby amends the General Plan Zoning Map, changing the existing designation from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M) on approximately 1.5 acres of that certain real property having APN APN 685-080-031, as identified in more detail in Exhibit "A".

SECTION 4. FINDINGS
That the City Council finds as follows:
a) That the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, are consistent with all applicable provisions of the municipal code; b) That the proposed Tentative Tract Map (TTM23-0003) is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in California Government Code Section 65451;
c) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans;
d) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development; e) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; f) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
g) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and
h) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

SECTION 5. PROJECT APPROVAL
That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project, the City Council Findings, as set forth and described herein, and the findings and determinations set forth in the September 5, 2024, Planning Commission Staff Report and the resolutions, the City Council hereby approves the Proposed Project (TTM23-0003 and GPZMA 23-0004).

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY
3 4-22

That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 6. CERTIFICATION.

That the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law.

SECTION 7. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.

That all provisions of any resolution and/or General Plan Zoning Map, in effect prior to the effective date of this Resolution as adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution, are hereby repealed. 4 4-23

The foregoing Resolution was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE:

Steve Downs, Mayor
ATTEST:

Kristie Ramos, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Colin D. Kirkpatrick, City Attorney
5 4-24

EXHIBIT "A"

GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
CASE NO. GPZMA23-0004
[TO BE ATTACHED]
6 EXHIBIT "B"

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
TTM23-0003
[TO BE ATTACHED]

ATTACHMENT 6
17 Lot Subdivision
TTM 38041
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lead Agency:

City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, California 92270
Prepared by:

BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
2211 S. HACIENDA BOULEVARD, SUITE 107
HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA 91745
April 17, 2024
City of Rancho Mirage 1
4-27

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
17 Lot Subdivision
Project Title:

City Project No:

Lead Agency Name and
Address:

Applicant:

Contact Person:

Phone Number:

Project Location:

Accessor Parcel
Number(s):

Project Area:

General Plan & Zoning
Designation:
17 Lot Subdivision
Environmental Assessment Case No. EA23-0010,
General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No.

GPZMA23-0004 and Tentative Tract Map Case No.

TTM23-003 for Tentative Tract Map 38041
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, California 92270
Phone: (760) 328-2266
Dan Arthofer
La Poloma Homes, Inc.

P.O. Box 10179
Palm Springs, California 92255
Ben Torres — Planning Manager
(760) 328-2266
East of the intersection of Via Josefina and Victory
Lane in the City of Rancho Mirage, California
(Township 4 South, Range 6 East, Section 30,
USGS Cathedral City, California Quadrangle,
1956).
685-080-031, 685-080-010, 685-030-006
±8.42 Acres
The General Plan/Zoning designation for the
westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential
(R -L-2). The remaining two parcels are designated
as Medium Density Residential (R -M).

City of Rancho Mirage 2
4-28

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6
PROJECT OVERVIEW 6
PROJECT LOCATION 6
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6
ACCESS AND PARKING 7
ENERGY UTILITIES 7
WATER UTILITIES 7
WASTEWATER UTILITIES 7
SOLID WASTE 7
Table 1 Project Summary (Building & Lot Characteristics) 8 CONSTRUCTION CHARACTERISTICS 8
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES 9
DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS & OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED 10 Exhibit 1 Regional Map 11
Exhibit 2 Citywide Map 12
Exhibit 3 Local Map 13
Exhibit 4 Aerial Photograph 14
Exhibit 5 Site Plan 15
Exhibit 6 Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations 16 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 17
DETERMINATION: 19
1 - AESTHETICS 20

1.1 Setting 20

1.2 Discussion of Impacts: 21

1.3 Mitigation Measures: 22
2 - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 23

2.1 Setting 23

2.2 Discussion of Impacts: 24

2.3 Mitigation Measures: 25
3 - AIR QUALITY 26

3.1 Setting 26

3.2 Discussion of Impacts: 27
Table 2 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions (Ibs./day) 29 Table 3 Estimated Operational Emissions in Ibs./day 29
Table 4 Local Significance Thresholds Exceedance SRA 30 for 5 Acres of Disturbance (site is 8.42 acres) .30

3.3 Mitigation Measures: 31
4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 32

4.1 Setting 33

4.2 Discussion of Impacts: 33

4.3 Mitigation Measures: 38
5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES 42

5.1 Setting 42

5.2 Discussion of Impacts: 43

5.3 Mitigation Measures: 46
6 - ENERGY 47

6.1 Setting 47
Table 5 Proposed Project's Energy Consumption 49

6.3 Mitigation Measures: 49
7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS 50

7.1 Setting 51

7.2 Discussion of Impacts: 51

7.3 Mitigation Measures: 53
8— GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 54

8.1 Setting 54
City of Rancho Mirage 3
4-29

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

8.2 Discussion of Impacts: 56
Table 6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MT/yr) 56
58 9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 59

9.1 Setting 60

9.2 Discussion of Impacts: 60

9.3 Mitigation Measures: 61
10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 62

10.1 Setting 63

10.2 Discussion of Impacts: 63

10.3 Mitigation Measures: 65
11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING 66

11.1 Setting 66

11.2 Discussion of Impacts: 66

11.3 Mitigation Measures: 67
12 - MINERAL RESOURCES 68

12.1 Setting 68

12.2 Discussion of Impacts: 68

12.3 Mitigation Measures: 69
13 - NOISE 70

13.1 Setting 70

13.2 Discussion of Impacts: 71
Table 8 Common Effects of Construction Vibration 72
Table 9 Vibration Source Levels for Typical Construction Equipment 73

13.3 Mitigation Measures: 74
14 - POPULATION AND HOUSING 75

14.1 Setting 75

14.2 Discussion of Impacts: 75

14.3 Mitigation Measures: 76
15 - PUBLIC SERVICES 77

15.1 Setting 77

15.2 Discussion of Impacts: 78

15.3 Mitigation Measures: 79
16 - RECREATION 80

16.1 Setting 80

16.2 Discussion of Impacts: 80

16.3 Mitigation Measures: 81
17 - TRANSPORTATION 82

17.1 Setting 82

17.2 Discussion of Impacts: 82
Table 10 Project Trip Generation 83

17.3 Mitigation Measures: 85
18 - TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 86

18.1 Setting 86

18.2 Discussion of Impacts: 87

18.3 Mitigation Measures: 88
19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 89

19.1 Setting 89

19.2 Discussion of Impacts: 90
Table 11 Water Consumption (gals/day) 90
Table 12 Wastewater (Effluent) Generation (gals/day) 91 Table 13 Solid Waste Generation (Ibs/day) 92

19.3 Mitigation Measures: 92
20 - WILDFIRE 93

20.1 Setting 93

8.3 Mitigation Measures:

City of Rancho Mirage 4
4-30

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

20.2 Discussion of Impacts: 94

20.3 Mitigation Measures: 94
21 - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 95

21.1 Setting 95

21.2 Discussion of Impacts: 95
Table 13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 100 CHAPTER 3: REFERENCES 105
CHAPTER 4: APPENDICES (UNDER A SEPARATE COVER) 105
CHAPTER 5: REPORT PREPARERS 105
City of Rancho Mirage 5
4-31

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of Rancho Mirage is reviewing an application that would involve the subdivision of a seventeen lot residential development within the 8.42 acre project site. The proposed development would connect to a new 8 inch sewer line on the internal roadways and a new 12 inch sewer line on Via Josefina. The relatively level site is approximately 272 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and contains no slope. The vegetation community present on site supports a sparse desert dune habitat encompassing mainly smaller native plants and some non-native grasses. The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M).

PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project site is located in the northeastern portion of the City of Rancho Mirage. The City is located in the eastern portion of Riverside County within the Coachella Valley area. Rancho Mirage is generally bounded on the north by Thousand Palms and Cathedral City; on the east by Palm Desert; on the south by Palm Desert and unincorporated Riverside County; and on the west by Cathedral City. Regional access to the City of Rancho Mirage is provided by the Interstate 10 (1-10) Freeway which extends across the northernmost portion of the City. The 1-10 Freeway is located approximately 1.2 miles northeast of the project site. The location of Rancho Mirage, in a regional context, is shown in Exhibit 1. A citywide map is provided in Exhibit 2.

The proposed project site is located to the east of the intersection of Via Josefina and Victory Lane in the City of Rancho Mirage. The project site is currently vacant and undisturbed. The proposed project's latitude and longitude is 33.79816, -116.39753. A local vicinity map is provided in Exhibit 3.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed project would involve the development of 17, single-family units within the 8.42 - acre site. The individual lot sizes would range from 12,510 square feet to 22,323 square feet.

Each unit would consist of a single level and would contain between 4 -bedrooms and 5 - bedrooms. Units would be arranged around the proposed cul-de-sac roadway. Each unit would be provided with an enclosed garage that would accommodate two to three vehicles. The new units would consist of a single level within a maximum height of 20 -feet. Three floor plans are proposed and would include Plan 1, Plan 2, and Plan 3. Plan 1 would have a total size of 3,588 square feet and would contain four bedrooms, Plan 2 would have a total size of 4,192 square feet and would contain four bedrooms, and Plan 3 would have a total size of 4,200 square feet and City of Rancho Mirage 6
4-32

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
would contain four bedrooms. A retention basin consisting of 18,711 square feet would be located in the site's northeast corner.

ACCESS AND PARKING
The individual units would be arranged around the proposed cul-de-sac roadway. Each unit would be provided with an enclosed garage that would accommodate two to three vehicles. The driveway apron would accommodate an additional two vehicles. The entry way would be gated and would have a curb -to -curb width of 60 feet (30 -feet for the ingress travel land and 30 -feet for the egress travel lane). The internal roadway would have a curb -to -curb width of approximately 37 -feet.

ENERGY UTILITIES
The Imperial Irrigation District (IID) would provide electricity to the project site. Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company.

WATER UTILITIES
There are no existing water infrastructure located on -site. The proposed development would connect to a new 8 inch sewer line on the internal roadways and a new 12 inch sewer line on Via Josefina. Groundwater is the primary source of domestic water supply in the Coachella Valley.

The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) is the largest provider of potable water in the valley and currently provides potable water in the project vicinity.

WASTEWATER UTILITIES
There are no existing wastewater infrastructure located on -site. CVWD operates 6 water reclamation plants and maintains more than 1,000 miles of sewer pipelines and more than 30 lift stations that transport wastewater to the nearest treatment facility and nearly 6.3 billion gallons of wastewater is treated yearly. In addition, wastewater generated by the project will be conveyed to CVWD Wastewater Reclamation Plant Number 10 in Palm Desert (WRP-10). Per the 2015 CVWD Urban Water Management Plan, WRP-10 has a capacity to treat 18 million gallons per day (MGD).

SOLID WASTE
Solid waste disposal and recycling services for the City of Rancho Mirage is provided by Burrtec.

The proposed site plan is illustrated in Exhibit 5. The project is summarized in Table 1 provided on the following page.

City of Rancho Mirage 7
4-33

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Table 1 Project Summary (Building & Lot Characteristics) Lot
Description
Lot Area
Lot 1
Single -Family Residential Unit
20,625 sq. ft.

Lot 2
Single -Family Residential Unit
18,334 sq. ft.

Lot 3
Single -Family Residential Unit
18,232 sq. ft.

Lot 4
Single -Family Residential Unit
18,892 sq. ft.

Lot 5
Single -Family Residential Unit
18,418 sq. ft.

Lot 6
Single -Family Residential Unit
22,323 sq. ft.

Lot 7
Single -Family Residential Unit
12,785 sq. ft.

Lot 8
Single -Family Residential Unit
12,782 sq. ft.

Lot 9
Single -Family Residential Unit
12,778 sq. ft,
Lot 10
Single -Family Residential Unit
12,593 sq. ft.

Lot 11
Single -Family Residential Unit
13,019 sq. ft.

Lot 12
Single -Family Residential Unit
12,511 sq. ft.

Lot 13
Single -Family Residential Unit
12,551 sq. ft.

Lot 14
Single -Family Residential Unit
12,587 sq. ft.

Lot 15
Single -Family Residential Unit
18,445 sq. ft.

Lot 16
Single -Family Residential Unit
12,580 sq. ft.

Lot 17
Single -Family Residential Unit
13,164 sq. ft.

Northeast Corner
Retention Basin
19,094 sq. ft.

Source: Fomotor Engineering. Preliminary Grading Plan. Sheet C.01. January 29, 2024.

CONSTRUCTION CHARACTERISTICS
The construction for the proposed project is assumed to commence in January 2025 and would take approximately twelve months to complete. The key construction tasks that would occur are outlined in the paragraphs below.
• Task 1 Demolition and Grading. The existing onsite improvements would be removed, and the site would be graded and ready for construction. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include graders, bulldozers, offroad trucks, back -hoes, and trenching equipment. This task would require one month to complete. • Task 2 Site Preparation. During this phase, the building footings, utility lines, and other underground infrastructure would be installed. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include bulldozers, offroad trucks, back -hoes, and trenching equipment. This task would require one month to complete. • Task 3 Building Construction. The new housing units would be constructed during this phase. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include City of Rancho Mirage 8
4-34

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
offroad trucks, cranes, and fork -lifts. This task will take approximately eight months to complete.
• Task 4 Paving and Finishing. This concluding task would involve the paving and finishing.

The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include trucks, backhoes, rollers, pavers, and trenching equipment. The completion of this phase will take approximately two months to complete.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
The relatively flat site is approximately 272 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and contains no slope. The vegetation community present on site supports a sparse desert dune habitat encompassing mainly smaller native plants and some non-native grasses. The site contains a few species of plant which include the creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), hairy sand verbena (Abronia villosa var. villosa), Desert palafox (Palafoxia arida), whitestem blazingstar (Mentzelia albicaulis), Flatspine burr ragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), Dyebush (Psorothamnus emoryi) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). The site supports a minimal amount of wildlife, with many of them being birds. A single mammalian species was seen on site, the blacktailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus). Species that were not observed, but are expected to occur on site given their abundance in the surrounding areas include California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and antelope ground squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus). The site and the surrounding area are illustrated in Exhibit 4. The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M).

Land uses and development located in the vicinity of the proposed project site are outlined below:
• North of the project site: A vacant land, single family home, and Unitarian Universalist Church abuts the north side of the project site. These parcels are designated as Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) and Medium Density Residential (R -M). • East of the project site: Key Largo Avenue abuts the project's east side. Further east of the road is Rancho Mirage Dog Park as well as vacant, undeveloped lands. These parcels are designated as Open Space /Public Park (OS/PP), Medium Density Residential (R -M), and High Density Residential (R -M).
• South of the project site: A single-family residential development and vacant, undeveloped land abuts the project site's south side. These parcels are designated as Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) and Medium Density Residential (R -M). • West of the project site: Via Josefina abuts the west side of the project. Further west of the road are single family homes. These parcels are designated as Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2).

An aerial photograph of the project site and the surrounding area is provided in Exhibit 4.

City of Rancho Mirage 9
4-35

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS & OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL

IS REQUIRED
A Discretionary Action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the government agency is the City of Rancho Mirage) that calls for an exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. The following discretionary approvals are required:
• Approval of a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment. The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M). • Approval of a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 38041);
• Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND); and, • The adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

All potentially interested tribes identified by the NAHC were also contacted pursuant to AB -52 and SB-18 for information regarding their knowledge of cultural resources that were within or near the project area. These groups includes the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. There are currently no other public agencies whose approval is required at this time.

City of Rancho Mirage 10
4-36

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
\loron000 Valley
Dc•cn I lot �hrio
No
Palm Springs
Exhibit 1 Regional Map
Coachella
Map Features
— Major Highways
n Rancho Mirage
Riverside County
0 2.5 5 ui
I I I
SOURCE: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
City of Rancho Mirage 11
4-37

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
A
Exhibit 2 Citywide Map
Thousand Palms
Map Features
Q Project Site
— Major Highways
Rancho Mirage
0 0.75 1.5 mi
I I I
SOURCE: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
City of Rancho Mirage 12
4-38

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Dinah -Shore -Drive
r --S aint Thoinas-Place
C1earw.ater=W.6
Victory bane
Via=Noela
Via:Montaga
0 0
0 Ginge
Via-Vai
ct
0 J
-Rogers-Road
Exhibit 3 Local Map
Map Features
Q Project Site
0 250 500 ft
I I I
SOURCE: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
City of Rancho Mirage 13
4-39

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
•
wirro x.
1F ' •
. •,
••s
f• • .4Ar
•
•
in
4 1
•
•
a
Exhibit 4 Aerial Photograph
SOURCE: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
City of Rancho Mirage
14 4-40

43 VICTORY DR
nos war 10•
LOT L

2.133 SF

0.046 AC
, Ir0r d 63.1hz Z
4P11
W no' 120. ten'
1OT 1

20.023 5F

0.473 AC
PAO 321.0
106 SF

0.010 AC
13,3'e e2113.
m�rsi� 4Aa
TO Ile IOW=
103
18,.232 SF
041 Ac
PAS 2203
L
ti 31.35.

LOT
154114 5F

0.422 PC
PAO 325.7
maawt tm.sr
LOT 4
10092 AC SF
9433
P90 323.0
F
Ash] 685460.62e
2INIG . c�2ei2.: r.n
14630. g�
LOT 11
13019 SF

0.290 PC
PAO 316.6
LOT 10

12.593 SF

0.299 AC
PAD 313.7
LOT S

12.772 SF

0.293 AC
PAO 3101
LOT 7

12.704 S'
0193 AC
PAD 317.0
LOT A
5502r4 SAT.

2.4 e P SF
592 0.912 7 PC
p'ae'Nt le.4A
6f,8llF7GE .34-PBC:14.1,1
Wt/3411rc sear
LOT 10
12060 SF

0.200 AC
P00 3190
Exhibit 5 Site Plan
LOT 9
125112111001 919N
19034 SF

0.439
LOT 13

12.551 SF

0.296 AC
PAD 319.6
seraroa1 ISMS
oI
LOT 15

16.445 5F

0.42.3 AC
PAD 315.5
SOURCE: Fomotor Engineering. Preliminary Grading Plan. Sheet C.01. January 29, 2024. 9026 20
,S71 SF
A AC

3.260 5F

0.074 AC
City of Rancho Mirage 15
4-41

to
look J •� Zx 9 J
1 i •
►Uicto yy,Lane
•
x!• •
•
4 • • 1.
11P IP go
. J
•
Existing Zoning: R -M
w
•

41. Exhibit 6 Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations SOURCE: CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE AND Fomotor Engineering.

City of Rancho Mirage
16 4-42

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
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" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Aesthetics
® Biological Resources
❑ Geology / Soils
❑ Hydrology / Water
Quality
❑ Noise
❑ Recreation
❑ Utilities / Service
Systems
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Agriculture &
Forestry Resources
Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation
Wildfire
o
o
o
El
EI
Air Quality
Energy
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Tribal Cultural Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
City of Rancho Mirage 17
4-43

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

City of Rancho Mirage 18
4-44

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 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.
❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described 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.
c— 6 ^.2oZ
Ben Torres, Planning Manager Date
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Rancho Mirage 19

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Environmental Checklist and Discussion:

The following checklist evaluates the proposed Project's potential adverse impacts. For those environmental topics for which a potential adverse impact may exist, a discussion of the existing site environment related to the topic is presented followed by an analysis of the Project's potential adverse impacts. When the project does not have any potential for adverse impacts for an environmental topic, the reasons why there are no potential adverse impacts are described. 1 - AESTHETICS
AESTHETICS -- Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Im act
p
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Im act
p
No Impact
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?
1 1
1 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?
❑
1 d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare, which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
❑
❑
❑
a
SOURCES:

Fomotor Engineering. Preliminary Grading Plan TTM 38041. Sheet C.01. January 29, 2024.

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code. As amended 2023.

1.1 SETTING
The evaluation of aesthetics and aesthetic impacts is generally subjective, and it typically requires the identification of key visual features in the area and their importance. The characterization of aesthetic impacts involves establishing the existing visual characteristics including visual resources and scenic vistas that are unique to the area. Visual resources are determined by identifying existing landforms (e.g., topography and grading), views (e.g., scenic resources such as natural features or urban characteristics), and existing light and glare characteristics (e.g., nighttime illumination). Changes to the existing aesthetic environment associated with the proposed project's implementation are identified and qualitatively evaluated based on the proposed modifications to the existing setting and the viewers' sensitivity. The project -related City of Rancho Mirage
20 4-46

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
impacts are then compared to the context of the existing setting, using the threshold criteria discussed above.

The natural setting of the Rancho Mirage area is critical to its overall visual character and provides scenic vistas for the community. The Santa Rosa Mountains and the foothills (including the Indio Hills), provide a natural, scenic backdrop to the Rancho Mirage community. The Santa Rosa Mountains are part of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. The base of the aforementioned mountains is located just over 10 miles to the west of the project site. The San Bernardino Mountains are located to the north and east of the City (approximately 16 miles).

1.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) No Impact.

The natural setting of the Rancho Mirage area is critical to its overall visual character and provides scenic vistas for the community. The Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural, scenic backdrop to the Rancho Mirage community. The Santa Rosa Mountains are part of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. The base of the aforementioned mountains is located just over 10 miles to the west of the project site. The foothills of the Santas Rosa Mountains along with the Indio Hills extend into the southern portion of the City. The San Bernardino Mountains are located to the north and east of the City (approximately 16 miles). The proposed development would not obstruct any significant views of the aforementioned mountains of the existing or future homes located to the east of the development site. Once developed, views of the aforementioned mountains would continue to be visible from the public right-of-way. As a result, no impacts would occur.
b) No Impact.

According to the California Department of Transportation, none of the improved or unimproved roads located adjacent to the project site are designated as scenic highways. Highway 111, located approximately 3.3 miles to the southwest of the site, is considered to be an Eligible State Scenic Highway, though this roadway is not officially designated as such. According to the Rancho Mirage General Plan, Bob Hope Drive (located approximately 2,400 feet to the west of the site), is a City -designated Scenic road. In addition to the foregoing, the project property is currently absent of any historic buildings, structures or other former permanent improvements that would have any aesthetic value. The site's development would also facilitate the site's ongoing City of Rancho Mirage 21
4-47

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
maintenance and rehabilitation. Lastly, the project site does not contain any buildings listed in the State or National registrar. As a result, no impacts would occur. c) No Impact.

There are no protected views in the vicinity of the project site (refer to Subsection A). In addition, the City does not have any zoning regulations or other regulations governing scenic quality other that the development standards for which the new residential units would conform to. As a result, no impacts would occur.
d) Less Than Significant Impact.

The nearest light sensitive receptors are the existing residential units located to the west of the project site. In addition, the properties located to the north, west, and east are zoned for residential development. The project's lighting would be required to comply with Chapter 17.18.050 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code. The proposed project's lighting must be designed so as to prevent emissions of glare or light beyond the property line. All exterior lighting at the project site would be conditioned to be Dark -Sky compliant, in order to reduce the amount of light emitted at the project site at night. This would keep the night skies in the City of Rancho Mirage visible to residents and visitors. Riverside County Ordinance Number 655 regulates light pollution in the County. Ordinance No. 655 restricts the use of certain light fixtures emitting into the night sky undesirable light rays which have a detrimental effect on astronomical observation and research.

The project would be required to comply to these County's standards. Since the proposed project would be required to adhere to both the City's and County's light and glare requirements, the impacts would be less than significant.

1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 22
4-48

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
2 - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

AGRICULTURE 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. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
❑
❑
❑
r
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
❑
❑
❑
��
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of forest land, timberland,
or timberland zoned Timberland
Production?
❑
❑
❑
A�
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non forest use?
❑
❑
❑
A
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?
❑
❑
❑
L
SOURCES:

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping, and Monitoring Program.

California Important Farmland Finder.

California Department of Conservation. State of California Williamson Act Contract Land.

2.1 SETTING
The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established in 1982 to track changes in agricultural land use and to help preserve areas of Important Farmland. It divides the state's land into eight categories of land use designation based on soil quality and existing agriculture uses to produce maps and statistical data. These maps and data are used to help preserve productive farmland and to analyze impacts on farmland.

Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance are all Important Farmland and are collectively referred to as Important Farmland in this analysis. The highest rated Important Farmland is Prime Farmland. The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the Williamson Act, allows a city or county government to preserve agricultural land or open space through contracts with landowners. Contracts last 10 years and City of Rancho Mirage
23 4-49

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
are automatically renewed unless a notice of nonrenewal is issued.

The developed single family homes located to the west of the project site are indicated as Urban and Built -Up Land.

2.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) No Impact:

According to the California Department of Conservation, the project site and the adjacent properties do not contain any areas of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and no agricultural uses are located onsite or adjacent to the property. According to the California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program the proposed project is located in a portion of Rancho Mirage designated as Other Land. Other Land is land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. The project site, east of the site, and parts of the north and south side of the site are classified as Other Land. The west side and parts of north and south side of the site are classified as Urban and Built -Up Land. Urban and Built -Up Land is land that is occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10 -acre parcel. Common examples include residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures. The project site is not located in an area where the existing zoning promote agricultural uses or is otherwise classified as farmland. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not involve the conversion of any prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance to urban uses. As a result, no impacts would occur.
b) No Impact:

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M). There are no agricultural uses located within the site that would be affected by the project's implementation. According to the California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection, the project site is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. As a result, no impacts on existing Williamson Act Contracts would result from the proposed project's implementation. c) No Impact:

There are no forest lands or timber lands located within or adjacent to the site. Furthermore, the site's existing zoning designation does not contemplate forest land or timber land uses. As a result, no impacts will occur.
d) No Impact:

No forest lands are located within the project site. The proposed use would be restricted to the site and would not affect any land under the jurisdiction of the BLM. As a result, no loss or conversion of forest lands to urban uses would result from the proposed project's implementation. e) No Impact:

The project would not involve the disruption or damage of the existing environment that would result in a loss of farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use because the project site does not contain any significant vegetation. As a result, no farmland conversion impacts would occur.

2.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 25
4-51

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
3 - AIR QUALITY
AIR QUALITY — Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to
make the following determinations. Would the
project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
❑
[ I
I
,
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?
❑
X
❑
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
❑
M
❑
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
1 1
I
SOURCES:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. California Emissions Estimator Model. Version 2022. (Used in Appendix A) Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code. As amended 2023.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. Adopted December 2, 2022.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Analysis Handbook. 1993.

Southern California Association of Governments. The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. Adopted September 3, 2020.

State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State — January 1, 2021-2023. Sacramento, California, May 2023.

3.1 SETTING
The proposed project would involve the subdivision of a seventeen lot residential development within the 8.42 acre project site. The proposed development would connect to a new 8 inch sewer line on the internal roadways and a new 12 inch sewer line on Via Josefina. The relatively level site is approximately 272 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and contains no slope. The vegetation community present on site supports a sparse desert dune habitat encompassing mainly smaller native plants and some non-native grasses. The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M). The following criteria pollutants are evaluated in this ISMND:
• Ozone (03) is a nearly colorless gas that irritates the lungs, and damages vegetation.

Ozone is formed a by photochemical reaction (when nitrogen dioxide is broken down by City of Rancho Mirage 26
4-52

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
sunlight).
• Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless toxic gas that interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the brain and is produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon -containing fuels emitted as vehicle exhaust.
• Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) is a yellowish -brown gas, which at high levels can cause breathing difficulties. NOX is formed when nitric oxide (a pollutant from burning processes) combines with oxygen.
• Sulfur Dioxide (S02) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur -containing fossil fuels. Health effects include acute respiratory symptoms. • PM/0 and PM2.5 refers to particulate matter less than ten microns and two and one-half microns in diameter, respectively. Particulates of this size cause a greater health risk than larger -sized particles since fine particles can more easily cause irritation. • Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG) refers to organic chemicals that, with the interaction of sunlight photochemical reactions may lead to the creation of "smog." Projects in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) generating construction -related emissions that exceed any of the following emissions thresholds are considered to be significant under CEQA:
• 75 pounds per day of reactive organic compounds;
• 100 pounds per day of nitrogen dioxide;
• 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide;
• 150 pounds per day of PM1o;
• 55 pounds per day of PM2.5; or,
• 150 pounds per day of sulfur oxides.

A project would have a significant effect on air quality if any of the following operational emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants are exceeded:
• 55 pounds per day reactive organic compounds;
• 55 pounds per day of nitrogen dioxide;
• 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide;
• 150 pounds per day of PM,o;
• 55 pounds per day of PM2.5; or,
• 150 pounds per day of sulfur oxides.

3.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) No Impact:

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M).

Measures to improve regional air quality are outlined in the SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The most recent AQMP was adopted in 2022 and was jointly prepared with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The AQMP will help the SCAQMD maintain focus on the air quality impacts of major projects associated with goods movement, land use, energy efficiency, and other key areas of growth. Key elements of the 2022 AQMP include enhancements to existing programs to meet the 24 -hour PM2.5 Federal health standard and a proposed plan of action to reduce ground -level Ozone. The primary criteria for pollutants that remain non -attainment in the local area include PM2.5 and Ozone. Specific criteria to determine a project's conformity with the AQMP is defined in Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD's CEQAAir Quality Handbook.

The proposed Project is consistent with the assumptions underlying the AQMP and the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan and will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Projects that are consistent with the projections of employment and/or population forecasts identified in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) prepared by SCAG are considered consistent with the SCAQMD growth projections, since the RTP/SCS forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the SCAQMD. According to the Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report Adopted on September 3, 2020 by SCAG, the City of Rancho Mirage's population is projected to increase from the year 2016 figure of 18,200 to 25,200 in the year 2045, an increase of 7,000. The proposed 17 -unit project would potentially result in 32 new residents assuming an average household size of 1.85 persons per unit derived from the most recent California Department of Finance. Therefore, the proposed project is not in conflict with the growth projections established for the City by SCAG. The project's construction emissions would be below the thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD (the project's daily construction emissions are summarized in Table 2). In addition, the proposed project's long-term (operational) airborne emissions would be below levels that the SCAQMD considers to be a significant impact (refer to Table 3). As a result, no impacts would occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact:

According to the SCAQMD, any project is significant if it triggers or exceeds the SCAQMD daily emissions threshold identified previously and noted at the bottom of Tables 2 and 3. The proposed project's construction and operation would not lead to a violation of the above -mentioned criteria.

The analysis of daily construction and operational emissions was prepared utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEModV.2022.1.1.21). For air quality modeling purposes, a twelve-month period of construction for all construction phases was assumed.

City of Rancho Mirage 28
4-54

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Table 2 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions (Ibs./day) Construction Phase
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions

10.5 31.7

31.1 0.05

9.26 5.25
Daily Thresholds
75 100
550
150
150
55 Significant Impact?
No
No
No
No
No
No
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. California Emissions Estimator Model. Version 2022.1.1.21 (Used in Appendix A)
Long-term emissions refer to those air quality impacts that would occur once the proposed project has been constructed and is operational. These impacts would continue over the operational life of the project. The two main sources of operational emissions include mobile emissions and area emissions related to off -site electrical generation. The analysis of long-term operational impacts summarized in Table 3 also used the CaIEEModV.2022.1.1.21 computer model. The analysis summarized in Table 3 indicates that the operational (long-term) emissions would be below the SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds.

Table 3 Estimated Operational Emissions in Ibs./day
Emission Source
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
PM10
PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions

1.57 1.05

9.48 0.02

1.64 0.43
Daily Thresholds
55 55
550
150
150
55 Significant Impact?
No
No
No
No
No
No
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. California Emissions Estimator Model. Version 2022.1.1.21 (Used in Appendix A)
The analysis presented in Tables 2 and 3 reflects projected emissions that are typically higher during the summer months and represent a worse -case scenario. As indicated in Tables 2 and 3, the impacts are considered to be less than significant. In addition, the SCAQMD Rule Book contains numerous regulations governing various activities undertaken within the district. Among these regulations is Rule 403.2 — Fugitive Dust Control for the South Coast Planning Area, which was adopted in 1996 for the purpose of controlling fugitive dust. Adherence to Rule 403.2 regulations is required for all projects undertaken within the district. Future construction truck drivers must also adhere to Title 13 - §2485 of the California Code of Regulations, which limits the idling of diesel -powered vehicles to less than five minutes. Adherence to the aforementioned standard condition would minimize odor impacts from diesel trucks. Adherence to Rule 403 Regulations and Title 13 - §2485 of the California Code of Regulations would further reduce the potential impacts. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact:

According to the SCAQMD, residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities are considered sensitive receptor land uses. The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M). As indicated in the previous section (refer to Tables 2 and 3, the City of Rancho Mirage 29
4-55

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
proposed residential development would not result in an exceedance of SCAQMD thresholds. As indicated in Table 4, the project is not anticipated to exceed construction LSTs for particulates.

Further analysis of the CaIEEMod worksheets indicated that the primary source of construction PM emissions is fugitive dust. Adherence to additional mandatory Rule 403 regulations would reduce fugitive dust emissions by approximately 50% to levels that are less than significant. Rule 403 requires that temporary dust covers be used on any piles of excavated or imported earth to reduce wind-blown dust. In addition, all clearing, earthmoving, or excavation activities must be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of fugitive dust.

Table 4 Local Significance Thresholds Exceedance SRA 30 for 5 Acres of Disturbance (site is 8.42 acres)
Emissions
Maximum
Emissions
(lbs./day)
Type
Allowable Emissions Threshold (Ibs./day) and a
Specified Distance from Receptor (in meters)
25 50 100 200 500
NO„

1.05 Operation
304
340
425
547
875
NOx

31.7 Construction
304
340
425
547
875
CO

9.48 Operation
2,292
3,237
5,331
10,178
31,115
CO

31.1 Construction
1,480
3,237
5,331
10,178
31,115
PM10

1.64 Operation
4 11
16 27
60 PM10

9.26 Construction
14 44
67 112
248
PM25

0.43 Operation
2 3
5 9
31 PM25

5.25 Construction
8 11
19 37
128
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. California Emissions Estimator Model. Version 2022.1.1.21 (Used in Appendix A)
The Coachella Valley is currently designated as a serious nonattainment area for PM10 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less). The U.S. EPA -approved Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan is in place with an attainment strategy for meeting the PM10 standard. Some of the existing measures include the requirement of detailed dust control plans from builders that specify the use of more aggressive and frequent watering, soil stabilization, wind screens, and phased development to minimize fugitive dust. Appropriate air quality measures to prevent fugitive dust are required by the City's Fugitive Dust Control ordinance and plan implementation requirements, which are consistent with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.1 that apply to the Coachella Valley strategy for reducing fugitive dust emissions. Under the City's dust control regulations, a Local Air Quality Management Plan (LAQMP) must be prepared and approved prior to any earth -moving operations. Consistent with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.1, implementation of the Fugitive Dust Control Plan is required to occur under the supervision of an individual with training on Dust Control in the Coachella Valley. The plan would include methods to prevent sediment track -out onto public roads, prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding a 20 -percent opacity, and prevent visible dust emissions from extending more than 100 feet (vertically or horizontally from the origin of a source) or crossing any property line.

The project's contractors must comply with other SCAQMD regulations governing equipment idling and emissions controls as well as mandatory SCAQMD regulations governing fugitive dust (Rule 403) and odors (Rule 1401). In addition, future truck drivers visiting the site during the project's construction must adhere to Title 13 - §2485 of the California Code of Regulations, which City of Rancho Mirage 30
4-56

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
limits the idling of diesel -powered vehicles to less than five minutes. These regulations would reduce particulate emissions by as much as 50%. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant.
d) No Impact:

The SCAQMD has identified those land uses that are typically associated with odor complaints.

These uses include activities involving livestock, rendering facilities, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting activities, refineries, landfills, and businesses involved in fiberglass molding. The proposed residential project would not result in the generation of any odors. In addition, construction truck drivers must adhere to Title 13 - §2485 of the California Code of Regulations, which limits the idling of diesel -powered vehicles to less than five minutes.

Furthermore, the project's contractors must adhere to SCAQMD rules and regulations that govern fugitive dust during site preparation which would significantly reduce the generation of fugitive dust. As a result, no odor -related impacts would occur.

3.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 31
4-57

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the
project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
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?
j
I 1
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
I I
I I
r<
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
I 1
7 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?
11 7
I I
❑
SOURCES:

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

Coachella Valley Association of Governments. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.

City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code. As amended. August 2016 RCA Associates, Inc. General Biological Resources Assessment (TTM 38041). April 26, 2023.

City of Rancho Mirage
32 4-58

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

4.1 SETTING
Sensitive biological resources include a variety of plant and animal species that are specialized and endemic to a particular habitat type. Due to loss of habitat, some of these species have been designated by either, or both, the federal and state government resource agencies as threatened or endangered. Species listed as threatened include those whose numbers have dropped to such low levels and/or whose populations are so isolated that the continuation of the species could be jeopardized. Endangered species are those with such limited numbers or subject to such extreme circumstances that they are considered in imminent danger of extinction. Other government agencies and resource organizations also identify sensitive species, those that are naturally rare and that have been locally depleted and put at risk by human activities. While not in imminent danger of jeopardy or extinction, sensitive species are considered vulnerable and can become candidates for future listing as threatened or endangered.

The vegetation community present on site supports a sparse desert dune habitat encompassing mainly smaller native plants and some non-native grasses. The site contains a few species of plant which include the creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), hairy sand verbena (Abronia villosa var. villosa), Desert palafox (Palafoxia arida), whitestem blazingstar (Mentzelia albicaulis), Flatspine burr ragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), Dyebush (Psorothamnus emoryi) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum).

4.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation:

Only a single mammal was observed, the black tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) was seen during the April 2023 survey. The Antelope Ground squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus) and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) were not observed during the field investigation, we can assume they are in the area due to current conditions and population distributions. Other wildlife species that may occur on site include desert cottontails (Sylvilagus audubonii) and California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi), and Merriam's kangaroo rats (Dipodomys merriami) may also occur on the site given their wide -spread distribution in the region. No distinct wildlife corridors were identified on the site or in the immediate area.

City of Rancho Mirage 33
4-59

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
The Western Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), a candidate threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), was not observed on site. The following are the listed and special status species that have the ability to occur on the project site. It is not a comprehensive list of all the species in the quad. This information has been taken from the California Natural Diversity Database and is using the most current version.

Desert Tortoise: The property supports no suitable habitat for the desert tortoise based on the location of the site in a developed area of Rancho Mirage. No tortoises were observed anywhere within the property boundaries during the April 2023 surveys. In addition, Rancho Mirage falls outside the standard range of the Desert Tortoise. The protocol survey results are valid for one year as per CDFW and USFWS requirements.

Burrowing Owl: The site is located within documented burrowing owl habitat according to CNDDB (2023). No owls were seen on the property during the survey, and minimal suitable habitat was observed. Burrowing owls are not expected to occur on the site due to lack of suitable vegetation and burrows.

Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard: Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard have not been recently observed in the area according to CNDDB (2023). The lizards are not expected to occur on the site due to its location being bordered by numerous developments and roadways that act as natural barriers to entry. The Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard may be very infrequent in this specific area due to the area being highly developed and the amount of human traffic around the project site.

Sensitive Plants: There are four plant species of special concern, these species are the Flat - seeded spurge, Coachella Valley milk -vetch, Horn's milk -vetch and Chaparral sand -verbena.

There is marginal suitable habitat for three of the four species being the Flat -seeded spurge, Coachella Valley milk -vetch and Chaparral sand -verbena. These species occur in desert scrub or creosote bush scrub habitats. The horn's milk -vetch occurs in wetland/riparian habitats which are not present on site. Even with some marginally suitable habitat, none of the four plant species of special concern were observed on site and are not expected to occur on site in the future.

Future development activities include the grading and removal of all vegetation from the 8.4 -acre parcel; however, cumulative impacts to the general biological resources (plants and animals) in the surrounding area are expected to be negligible. This assumption is based on the habitat containing scarce vegetation of non-native species. As discussed above, the site does not support any desert tortoises or burrowing owls due to the lack of suitable habitat and potential burrows.

Joshua trees (a state candidate species) were not observed in the field investigations during April 2023 survey. Landscaping would be provided along the roadway frontages and sidewalks and would include acacias and date palm trees, would include date palm and acacia trees, agave shrubs, and drought tolerant (xeriscape) ground cover. To establish the existing environmental setting with respect to biological resources, CDFW recommends that the following mitigation measure, as well as any necessary mitigation measures:

City of Rancho Mirage 34
4-60

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
• (Biological Resources Mitigation No. 1) Prior to project construction activities, a complete and recent inventory of rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species located within the project footprint and within offsite areas with the potential to be affected, including California Species of Special Concern (CSSC) and California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511), will be completed by the Applicant and a qualified biologist. Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (CEQA Guidelines § 15380). The inventory should address seasonal variations in use of the project area and should not be limited to resident species. Focused species -specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable are required. Acceptable species specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where necessary.
• (Biological Resources Mitigation No. 2) In the event there is a delay in the project's construction (i.e. pauses in construction activities such as utility extensions and stormwater improvements) the Applicant shall retain the service of a qualified biologist to reassess biological resources resulting from an extended timeline for the project activities.

Wildlife may move into disturbed or graded sites when construction is paused. These preconstruction surveys for biological resources will need to be repeated prior to project activities and after pauses in construction to assess the presence of biological resources and to avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant.

As stated above, future development activities include the grading and removal of all vegetation from the 8.4 -acre parcel; however, cumulative impacts to the general biological resources (plants and animals) in the surrounding area are expected to be negligible. This assumption is based on the habitat containing scarce vegetation of non-native species. The following mitigation measures should be considered:
• (Biological Resources Mitigation No. 3) Prior to project construction activities, a thorough, recent, floristic -based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, following CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (see https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants) shall be performed by a qualified biologist. Should any state -listed plant species be present in the project area, the project proponent shall obtain appropriate CESA authorization for those species prior to the start of project activities. Should other special -status plants or natural communities be present in the project area, on -site or off -site habitat restoration (whichever is applicable) and/or enhancement and preservation should be evaluated and discussed in detail. Where habitat preservation is not available on -site, off -site land acquisition, management, and preservation should be evaluated.
• (Biological Resources Mitigation No. 4) Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the project Applicant shall oversee the preparation and submittal to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for City of Rancho Mirage 35
4-61

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
review and approval, a plan to salvage sand -dependent CVMSHCP Covered Species within the project area. The plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist experienced in surveying for and handling sand -dependent Covered Species. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the species -specific salvage methods and timing for each sand - dependent Covered Species identified within the project site and the location(s) where each species will be translocated. Only qualified biologist(s) with appropriate state and federal permits to handle special -status species shall carry out salvage activities. • (Biological Resources Mitigation No. 5) Very limited suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version) prior to vegetation removal or ground -disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, monitoring, relocation, minimization, and/or mitigation actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measures if avoidance is proposed. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also describe minimization and relocation actions that will be implemented. Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to result in take. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls. The project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval. Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of project - related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities.
• (Biological Resources Mitigation No. 6) Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal or ground -disturbing activities. Pre -construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior.

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results. Construction activities may not occur inside the established buffers, which shall remain on site until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.
• (Biological Resources Mitigation No. 7) During all project construction activities, the Applicant and the construction contractors shall restrict use of generators except for temporary use in emergencies. The Applicant and the construction contractors shall ensure the use of noise suppression devices such as mufflers or enclosures for generators. Sounds generated from any means must be below the 55-60 dB range within 50 -feet from the source.
• (Biological Resources Mitigation No. 8) During project construction and operation, the project Applicant and construction contractors shall eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active. The City shall ensure that lighting for Project activities is shielded, cast downward, and does not spill over onto other properties or upward into the night sky. The City and project Applicant shall ensure use of LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less.

The above mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to levels that are less than significant. b) No Impact:

No drainage channels were observed within the site boundaries. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.
c) No Impact:

No sensitive habitats (e.g., wetlands, vernal pools, critical habitats for sensitive species, etc.) were observed on the site during the field investigations. No riparian vegetation (e.g., cottonwoods, willows, etc.) exist on the site. No potential channels were observed on the property and it is the opinion of RCA Associates that no further surveys will be necessary. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.
d) No Impact:

The site's utility as a habitat and a migration corridor is constrained by the presence of an adjacent roadway and the development that is present in the neighboring areas. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.
e) No Impact:

City of Rancho Mirage 37
4-63

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Future development activities include the grading and removal of all vegetation from the 8.4 -acre parcel; however, cumulative impacts to the general biological resources (plants and animals) in the surrounding area are expected to be negligible. This assumption is based on the habitat containing scarce vegetation of non-native species. As discussed above, the site does not support any desert tortoises or burrowing owls due to the lack of suitable habitat and potential burrows.

Joshua trees (a state candidate species) were not observed in the field investigations during April 2023 survey. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.
f) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation:

The Project occurs within the CVMSHCP plan area and is subject to provisions and policies of the CVMSHCP. To comply with Local Permittee obligations under the CVMSHCP, CDFW recommends the following mitigation measure:
• (Biological Resources Mitigation No. 9) Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City of Rancho Mirage and project applicant shall ensure compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and its associated Implementing Agreement and the City shall ensure the collection of payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee.

The proposed project's implementation would not be in conflict with the provisions of any other adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans.

Although the site is located within the CVMSHCP boundary, the site is not located within a biological sensitive or any conservation areas. As a result, impacts are less than significant with mitigation.

4.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

The analysis of biological impacts determined that the following mitigation measures would be required to reduce the project's impacts to levels that would be less than significant.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 1. Prior to Project construction activities, a complete and recent inventory of rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species located within the Project footprint and within offsite areas with the potential to be affected, including California Species of Special Concern (CSSC) and California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511), will be completed by the Applicant and a qualified biologist. Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (CEQA Guidelines § 15380). The inventory should address seasonal variations in use of the Project area and should not be limited to resident species. Focused species -specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable are required. Acceptable species specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where necessary.

City of Rancho Mirage 38
4-64

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 2. In the event there is a delay in the project's construction (i.e. pauses in construction activities such as utility extensions and stormwater improvements) the Applicant shall retain the service of a qualified biologist to reassess biological resources resulting from an extended timeline for the project activities. Wildlife may move into disturbed or graded sites when construction is paused. These preconstruction surveys for biological resources will need to be repeated prior to project activities and after pauses in construction to assess the presence of biological resources and to avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 3. Prior to Project construction activities, a thorough, recent, floristic -based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, following CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (see https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/ Plants) shall be performed by a qualified biologist. Should any state -listed plant species be present in the Project area, the Project proponent shall obtain appropriate CESA authorization for those species prior to the start of Project activities. Should other special -status plants or natural communities be present in the Project area, on -site or off -site habitat restoration (whichever is applicable) and/or enhancement and preservation should be evaluated and discussed in detail. Where habitat preservation is not available on -site, off -site land acquisition, management, and preservation should be evaluated.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 4. Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the project Applicant shall oversee the preparation and submittal to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for review and approval, a plan to salvage sand -dependent CVMSHCP Covered Species within the Project area. The plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist experienced in surveying for and handling sand -dependent Covered Species. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the species -specific salvage methods and timing for each sand -dependent Covered Species identified within the Project site and the location(s) where each species will be translocated.

Only qualified biologist(s) with appropriate state and federal permits to handle special -status species shall carry out salvage activities.

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to result in take. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls. The Project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval. Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project -related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities.

The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the pre -construction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results. Construction activities may not occur inside the established buffers, which shall remain on site until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 7. During all Project construction activities, the Applicant and the construction contractors shall restrict use of generators except for temporary use in emergencies. The Applicant and the construction contractors shall ensure the use of noise suppression devices such as mufflers or enclosures for generators. Sounds generated from any means must be below the 55-60 dB range within 50 -feet from the source.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 8. During Project construction and operation, the project Applicant and construction contractors shall eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active. The City shall ensure that lighting for Project activities is shielded, cast downward, and does not spill over onto other properties or upward into the night sky. The City and project Applicant shall ensure use of LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less.

City of Rancho Mirage 40
4-66

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 9. Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City of Rancho Mirage and project Applicant shall ensure compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and its associated Implementing Agreement and the City shall ensure the collection of payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee.

City of Rancho Mirage 41
4-67

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES
CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the
project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5?
a
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
n
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
I 1
I I
E
SOURCES:

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places. http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov . 2023.

CRM TECH. Addendum to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for Tentative Tract Map No. 38041. June 6, 2023.

5.1 SETTING
Historic structures and sites are defined by local, State, and Federal criteria. A site or structure may be historically significant if it is locally protected through a General Plan or historic preservation ordinance. In addition, a site or structure may be historically significant according to State or Federal criteria even if the locality does not recognize such significance. To be considered eligible for the National Register, a property's significance may be determined if the property is associated with events, activities, or developments that were important in the past, with the lives of people who were important in the past, or represents significant architectural, landscape, or engineering elements. Specific criteria include the following:
• Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are associated with the lives of significant persons in or past;
• Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or, • Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

Ordinarily, properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties would qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories:
• A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance;
City of Rancho Mirage 42
4-68

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
• Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; • A building or structure removed from its original location that is significant for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure is associated with a historic person or event; • A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building associated with his or her productive life; • A cemetery that derives its primary importance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events;
• A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; • A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or, • A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.

5.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) No Impact:

Historical sources consulted during this study yielded no evidence of any settlement or development activities in the project area throughout the historic period. In the surrounding area, the earliest such activities evidently took place in the early post -WWII period, when several scattered buildings appeared across much of Section 30 and along newly constructed roads, including the forerunner of present-day Via Florencia. Archival records indicate that these buildings were the results of a wave of five -acre homestead claims on public land under the provisions of the Small Tract Act of 1938, a practice that was widespread in the southern California desert region at the time. However, none of these so-called "jackrabbit homesteads" were found within the project area itself, which has remained vacant, undeveloped, and apparently unused to the present time despite accelerated growth in the surrounding area since the 1980s. The intensive -level field survey of the project area produced negative results for potential "historical resources," and no buildings, structures, objects, site, or artifact deposits dating to the prehistoric or historic period were encountered throughout the course of the survey. Since the project's City of Rancho Mirage 43
4-69

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
implementation would not impact any Federal, State, or locally designated historic resources, no impacts would occur.
b) Less Than Significant Impact:

On September 22, 2022, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission's Sacred Lands File. The NAHC is the State of California's trustee agency for the protection of "tribal cultural resources," as defined by California Public Resources Code §21074, and is tasked with identifying and cataloging properties of Native American cultural value throughout the state. In the meantime, CRM TECH notified the nearby Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the upcoming archaeological field survey and invited tribal participation. The responses from the NAHC and the Agua Caliente Band are summarized in the remainder of this section.

On November 1, 2022, Daniel Ballester carried out the field survey of the project area with the assistance of Nicole Raslich, archaeological technician with the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. The survey was conducted at an intensive level by walking a series of parallel north -south transects at 15 -meter (approximately 50 -foot) intervals. In this way, the entire project area was systematically and carefully examined for any evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic period (i.e., 50 years or older). Ground visibility was excellent (95 to 100 percent) as the vegetation growth of the property was generally sparse, although a small portion of the project area was obscured by large creosote bushes. In this environment, however, shifting sands are more likely to contribute to obscured cultural remains than vegetation would.

CRM TECH has completed a historical/archaeological resources survey on approximately 1.7 acres of vacant land that have been added to Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38041 since the completion of the Phase I cultural resources study for the project in March 2023 (Ballester 2023).

The additional project area consists of the western portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 685-080-031, which was previously excluded from TTM 38041. It is located on the east side of Via Josefina at the intersection of Victory Lane, adjacent to the western boundary of the original project area, and in the northwest quarter of Section 30, T4S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Figure 1).

On May 18, 2023, CRM TECH field director Daniel Ballester completed the intensive -level field survey of the additional project area by walking a series of parallel north -south transects spaced 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) apart. Like the original project area, the additional acreage lies across generally level terrain with fine dune sands mixed with some rocks covering the ground surface. Elevations on the property range approximately from 315 feet to 330 feet above mean sea level. The scattered vegetation growth consists mainly of creosote, brittlebush, wild mustard, and other small desert shrubs and grasses. Ground visibility was good to excellent (90-100%) throughout the area (Figure 2).

The survey encountered no potential "historical resources" within or adjacent to the additional project area. The building that once occupied the southernmost portion of the property did not leave any identifiable archaeological remains. Other than two clusters of tamarisk trees, no features survive to mark the former location of the building. The area around the tamarisk trees has evidently been used to dump refuse (primarily landscaping waste) in relatively recent times, but none of the items is of any historical/archaeological interest.

City of Rancho Mirage 44
4-70

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
According to EIC records, the project area had not been surveyed for cultural resources prior to this study (Fig. 5), and no cultural resources had been recorded on or adjacent to the property.

Within the one -mile scope of the records search, EIC records show at least 34 previous studies on various tracts of land and linear features, which collectively covered roughly 40 percent of the land within the scope of the records search (Fig. 5). As a result of these and other studies in the vicinity, five prehistoric sites, seven historic -period sites, and five isolates—i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts— have been identified within the one -mile radius.

The prehistoric sites in the vicinity consisted mainly of lithic and ceramic scatters and seasonal resource processing locations, but two of the sites, 33-017009 and 33-017010, also contained human remains. The historic -period sites were all fairly common for the Coachella Valley area, such as a refuse scatter, a ranch, and infrastructure features associated with roads, irrigation works, and the Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific) Railroad. All of these sites and isolates were located to the north of the project location, at distances of at least a half -mile at the nearest spot.

Therefore, none of them requires further consideration during this study.

In response to CRM TECH's inquiry, the NAHC reported in a letter dated November 3, 2022, that the Sacred Lands File search did not identify any Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity. Noting that the absence of specific 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 potential contacts in the region.

As a result, the impacts would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact:

There are no dedicated cemeteries located within or in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would be restricted to the project site and therefore would not affect any dedicated cemeteries in the vicinity. Notwithstanding, the following mitigation is mandated by the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(b)(4):
"A lead agency shall identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. The lead agency shall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures." Additionally, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code states:
"In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with (b) Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner City of Rancho Mirage 45
4-71

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission."
Adherence to the standard condition would ensure potential impacts remain at levels that are less than significant.

5.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

None Required.

City of Rancho Mirage 46
4-72

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
6 - ENERGY
ENERGY - Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
I 1
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
SOURCES:

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

SCAQMD. SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook. 1993.

California Air Resources Board and the Southern California Air Quality Management District. California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEModV.2022.1.1.21).

6.1 SETTING
Imperial Irrigation District (IID) would provide electricity to the project site. Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. Currently, the existing site is vacant and does not use electricity or natural gas. Electricity and natural gas are the primary sources of energy in the City of Rancho Mirage. Electricity is provided primarily by Southern California Edison (SCE) and Imperial Irrigation District (IID) provides services for everything north of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Bob Hope Drive in the City of Rancho Mirage.

The Rancho Mirage City Council started RMEA for the purpose of helping to reduce the community's IID electricity bills. Pursuant to CCA law, RMEA is an all -new, locally -run, not -for- profit power program created by the City of Rancho Mirage. RMEA purchases power directly from power providers, pays consultants for compliance functions, and sets electricity rates based on costs. The RMEA's power is delivered through IID poles and wires. IID is still the utility and would continue to bill and collect from customers but using RMEA's lower electricity rates would allow businesses and residents to save 5 percent. IID facilities include 12 kV transmission lines for local distribution. High voltage lines for more distant transmission range up to 115 kV and 230 kV.

Substations step down voltage for local distribution and use. The IID operates 133 substations within its service area and two substations are located near the City of Rancho Mirage: one on Interstate 10 and Monterey Avenue (Edom Substation) and one on East Ramon Road (Ramon Substation). These substations would serve the project site.

6.2 Discussion of Impacts:
a) Less than Significant Impact:

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
site is approximately 272 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and contains no slope. The vegetation community present on site supports a sparse desert dune habitat encompassing mainly smaller native plants and some non-native grasses. The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M).

During construction, the proposed project would consume energy related to the use of fuels used to power construction vehicles and other equipment that would be used during site clearing, grading, and construction. Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the proposed project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul truck trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would not present a significant demand on energy resources. The proposed project would be constructed pursuant to the 2022 energy standards of Title 24. Construction equipment greater than 150 horsepower (hp), is also required to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. For engines from 175 to less than 750 hp, the Tier 4 Final regulations took effect on January 1, 2014. For engines from 49 to less than 75 hp, it took effect on January 1, 2013. Finally, for engines from 75 to less than 175 hp, the Tier 4 regulations took effect on January 1, 2015. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use or by reducing the time of idling to no more than five minutes. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption.

Therefore, no significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

The increased demand is expected to be sufficiently served by the existing Imperial Irrigation District (IID) facilities. As shown in Table 5, the proposed project is anticipated to consume 262 kWh daily. The proposed project is located within the service area of the Southern California Gas Company. The project site currently has no demand for natural gas. Therefore, the development of the proposed project would create a permanent increase in the demand for natural gas. As shown in Table 5, the proposed project is anticipated to consume 3,776.8 cubic feet of natural gas on a daily basis.

City of Rancho Mirage 48
4-74

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Table 5 Proposed Project's Energy Consumption
Energy Type
Consumption Rate
Daily Energy Consumption
Electrical Consumption
Natural Gas Consumption
9,339.24 kWh/unit/year
35,564.29 BTU/unit/year
434.98 kWh/Day
1656.42 BTU/Day
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. California Emissions Estimator Model.

Version 2022.1.1.21 (Used in Appendix A)
According to the CaIEEMod air quality emissions model, the 17 units would consume 158,767 kWh of electricity on an annual basis. According to the same model, the 17 units would consume 604,593 BTUs on an annual basis. The proposed project's energy consumption would be related to energy that would be used for lighting and other household activities. Lighting would be required to follow the City's Outdoor Lighting Policy, which includes the use of energy efficient lighting. For these reasons, the project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. The project applicant would be required to work with the local electrical utility company to identify existing and future strategies that would be effective in reducing energy consumption. As a result, the impact would be less than significant.
b) Less than significant impact:

The State Building Standards Commission adopted updates to the California Green Building Standards Code (Code) which became effective on January 1, 2023. The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards (Title 24) became effective to aid efforts to reduce GHG emissions associated with energy consumption. Title 24 now requires that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant -emitting finish materials. The proposed project as well as any future development within the remainder of the project site would be required to conform to all pertinent energy conservation requirements. The proposed project would be required to comply with all pertinent Title 24 requirements along with other Low Impact Development (LID) requirements.

The project would provide for, and promote, energy efficiencies required under other applicable Federal and State of California standards and regulations, and in doing so, would meet or exceed all California Building Standards Code Title 24 standards. Moreover, energy consumed by the project's operation is calculated to be comparable to, or less than, energy consumed by other single family homes of similar scale and intensity that are constructed and operating in California.

On this basis, the project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Further, the project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing facilities or energy delivery systems. As a result, the potential impacts would be less than significant.

6.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 49
4-75

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

I I
1 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?
I I
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off -site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
I I
I I
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?
1 e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
I I
I I
❑
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
❑
I I
City of Rancho Mirage
50 4-76

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
SOURCES:

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

UC Davis. Soil Web. Website accessed October 10, 2023.

United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Website accessed October 10, 2023.

Landmark Geo Engineers and Geologists. Geotechnical Report for APNs 685-030-006, 685-080-010, and 685-080-031. December 16, 2023.

7.1 SETTING
The City of Rancho Mirage is located in a seismically active region. Earthquakes from several active and potentially active faults in the Southern California region could affect the proposed project site. In 1972, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act was passed in response to the damage sustained in the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The closest active fault to the project site is at the San Andreas Fault, approximately 3.6 miles northeast. Therefore, due to the distance of the fault zone, it can be concluded that the potential fault -rupture risk is low. Surface ruptures are visible instances of horizontal or vertical displacement, or a combination of the two. The amount of ground shaking depends on the intensity of the earthquake, the duration of shaking, soil conditions, type of building, and distance from epicenter or fault.

The potential impacts from fault rupture and ground shaking are considered no greater for the project site than for the surrounding areas given the distance between the site and the fault trace.

However, the deep groundwater in Rancho Mirage does not allow the saturation of the sediments; therefore, the potential for liquefaction to occur at the project site is less than significant.

Windblown sand and other recently deposited sediments are typically loose and, therefore, potentially subject to seismically induced settlement.

7.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) Less Than Significant Impact:

The City of Rancho Mirage is located in a seismically active region. Earthquakes from several active and potentially active faults in the Southern California region could affect the proposed project site. In 1972, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act was passed in response to the damage sustained in the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy City of Rancho Mirage 51
4-77

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
on the surface trace of active faults. closest active fault to the project site is at the San Andreas Fault, approximately 3.5 miles northeast. Therefore, due to the distance of the fault zone, it can be concluded that the potential fault -rupture risk is low. Surface ruptures are visible instances of horizontal or vertical displacement, or a combination of the two. The amount of ground shaking depends on the intensity of the earthquake, the duration of shaking, soil conditions, type of building, and distance from epicenter or fault. The potential impacts from fault rupture and ground shaking are considered no greater for the project site than for the surrounding areas given the distance between the site and the fault trace. However, the deep groundwater in Rancho Mirage does not allow the saturation of the sediments; therefore, the potential for liquefaction to occur at the project site is less than significant. Windblown sand and other recently deposited sediments are typically loose and, therefore, potentially subject to seismically induced settlement.

According to the City's General Plan, the project area has a moderate susceptibility to seismically induced settlement. Strong seismic shaking, the 2017 General Plan states, can cause densification or compaction of soils resulting in local or regional settlement of the ground surface, which can cause damage to foundations and structures. To ensure the safety of the project against seismically induced hazards, the project site shall adhere to the standard design requirements stated in the most recent California Building Code (CBC), and the City's building standards. Overall, impacts from seismically induced ground failure such as liquefaction and settlement are anticipated to be less than significant at the project site. As a result, the potential impacts regarding liquefaction and landslides are less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact:

The University of California, Davis SoilWeb database was consulted to determine the nature of the soils that underlie the project site. According to the University of California, Davis SoilWeb database, the property is underlain by Myoma fine sand and composed of Myoma, Coachella, Carsitas, and Riverwash soils associations with 0 to 5 percent slopes. The proposed project's contractors would be required to adhere to specific requirements that govern wind and water erosion during site preparation and construction activities. Following development, the project site would be paved and landscaped, which would minimize soil erosion. The project's construction would not result in soil erosion with adherence to those development requirements that restrict storm water runoff (and the resulting erosion) and require soil stabilization. In addition, stormwater discharges from construction activities that disturb one or more acres, or smaller sites disturbing less than one acre that are part of a common plan of development or sale, are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permitting program.

Prior to initiating construction, contractors must obtain coverage under an NPDES permit, which is administered by the State. In order to obtain an NPDES permit, the project Applicant must prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Riverside County has identified sample construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) that may be included in the mandatory SWPPP. The use of these construction BMPs identified in the mandatory SWPPP would prevent soil erosion and the discharge of sediment into the local storm drains during the project's construction phase. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact:

The proposed project's construction would not result in soil erosion since the project's contractors must implement the construction BMPs identified in the mandatory SWPPP. The BMPs would City of Rancho Mirage 52
4-78

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
minimize soil erosion and the discharge of sediment off -site. Additionally, the project site is not located within an area that could be subject to landslides or liquefaction. The soils that underlie the project site possess a low potential for shrinking and swelling. Soils that exhibit certain shrink swell characteristics become sticky when wet and expand according to the moisture content present at the time. Since the soils have a low shrink -swell potential, lateral spreading resulting from an influx of groundwater is slim. Moreover, the project will not result in the direct extraction of groundwater. As a result, the potential impacts would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact:

Department of Agriculture, these soils are acceptable for residential development. The applicant is required to adhere to all requirements detailed by the USDA. As a result, the potential impacts would be less than significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact:

The proposed project would be required to connect to and utilize the sanitary sewer system. No septic tanks systems would be used. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant. f) Less Than Significant Impact:

The surface deposits in the proposed project area are composed entirely of younger Quaternary Alluvium. This younger Quaternary Alluvium is unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers. Paleontological resources provide evidence of past life forms and their biota, which is valued for the information they yield about the history of earth and its past ecological settings. According to Figure 4.9.3, Paleontological Sensitivity, in the Riverside County General Plan, the property is recognized for having low potential for Paleontological Sensitivity. Areas recognized for having a "low" potential have a reduced likelihood of containing significant non-renewable paleontological resources, including vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils. Moreover, the site is currently developed as a paved parking lot and is not recognized as a unique paleontological or a unique geologic feature. Additionally, the project property lies in an urbanized context within the City, surrounded by residential uses, office buildings, and commercial buildings. No known paleontological sites are found within the project site. The potential for uncovering any significant resources during construction activities is unlikely, since the site has already been cleared, graded, and significantly disturbed from the construction of the existing development. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated.

7.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 53
4-79

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
8 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS — Would the
project:

Potentially
Significant
Im act
p
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Im act
p
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?
❑
❑
��
SOURCES:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. California Emissions Estimator Model. Version 2020. (Used in Appendix A) South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. Adopted December 2, 2022.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Analysis Handbook. 1993.

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

Rancho Mirage, City of. 2012 Sustainability Plan: Leadership in Energy Efficiency. 2013.

8.1 SETTING
Examples of greenhouse gasses (GHG) that are produced both by natural and industrial processes include carbon dioxide (002), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). The accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere regulates the earth's temperature. Without these natural GHG, the Earth's surface would be about 61°F cooler. However, emissions from fossil fuel combustion have elevated the concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere to above natural levels.

These man-made GHG will have the effect of warming atmospheric temperatures with the attendant impacts of changes in the global climate, increased sea levels, and changes to the worldwide biome. The major GHG that influences global warming are described below. • Water Vapor. Water vapor is the most abundant GHG present in the atmosphere. While water vapor is not considered a pollutant, while it remains in the atmosphere it maintains a climate necessary for life. Changes in the atmospheric concentration of water vapor are directly related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to "hold" more water when it is warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a GHG, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal indirect energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. When water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it would eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation. This would allow less energy to reach the Earth's surface thereby affecting surface temperatures.
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The natural production and absorption of CO2 is achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean. Manmade sources of CO2 include the burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid -1700's, these activities have increased the atmospheric concentrations of 002. Prior to the City of Rancho Mirage 54
4-80

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
industrial revolution, concentrations were fairly stable at 280 parts per million (ppm). The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, 2014) Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed about 78% of the total GHG emissions increase from 1970 to 2010, with a similar percentage contribution for the increase during the period 2000 to 2010.
• Methane (CH4). CH4 is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, although its atmospheric concentration is less than that of CO2. Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10 to 12 years), compared to some other GHGs (such as 002, N2O, and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CH4 has both natural and anthropogenic sources. It is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at the roots of the plants). Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of methane. Other human -related sources of methane production include fossil -fuel combustion and biomass burning. • Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Concentrations of N2O also began to increase at the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 1998, the global concentration of this GHG was documented at 314 parts per billion (ppb). N2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel -fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. It is also commonly used as an aerosol spray propellant. • Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane (C2H6) with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the Earth's surface). CFCs have no natural source but were first synthesized in 1928. It was used for refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. Due to the discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to halt their production was undertaken and in 1989 the European Community agreed to ban CFCs by 2000 and subsequent treaties banned CFCs worldwide by 2010. This effort was extremely successful, and the levels of the major CFCs are now remaining level or declining. However, their long atmospheric lifetimes mean that some of the CFCs would remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years.
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC). HFCs are synthetic man-made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Out of all the GHGs, they are one of three groups with the highest global warming potential. The HFCs with the largest measured atmospheric abundances are (in order), HFC-23 (CHF3), HFC-134a (CF3CH2F), and HFC-152a (CH3CHF2). Prior to 1990, the only significant emissions were HFC-23. HFC-134a use is increasing due to its use as a refrigerant. Concentrations of HFC-23 and HFC-134a in the atmosphere are now about 10 parts per trillion (ppt) each. Concentrations of HFC-152a are about 1 ppt. HFCs are manmade and used for applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants.
• Perfluorocarbons (PFC). PFCs have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. High-energy ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth's surface are able to destroy the compounds. Because of this, PFCs have very long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6). Concentrations of CF4 City of Rancho Mirage 55
4-81

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
in the atmosphere are over 70 ppt. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.
• SulfurHexafluoride (SF6). SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF6 has the highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated; 23,900 times that of CO2. Concentrations in the 1990s where about 4 ppt. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.

The SCAQMD mass emissions threshold is 3,000 MTCO2E per year. Carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO2E, is a term that is used for describing different greenhouses gases in a common and collective unit.

8.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) Less Than Significant Impact:

The proposed project would involve the subdivision of a seventeen lot residential development within the 8.42 acre project site. The proposed development would connect to a new 8 inch sewer line on the internal roadways and a new 12 inch sewer line on Via Josefina. The relatively level site is approximately 272 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and contains no slope. The vegetation community present on site supports a sparse desert dune habitat encompassing mainly smaller native plants and some non-native grasses. The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M). The State of California requires CEQA documents to do an evaluation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. GHG are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Examples of GHG that are produced both by natural and industrial processes include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). Carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO2E, is a term that is used for describing different greenhouses gases in a common and collective unit. The SCAQMD established the 3,000 MTCO2 per year threshold for residential land uses. As indicated in Table 6, the operational CO2E is 387 MTCO2E per year, which is well below the threshold.

Table 6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MT/yr)
Source
GHG Emissions (Metric Tons/year)
CO2
CH4
N20
CO2E
Long -Term — Mobile Emissions
307

0.01 0.01
312
Long -Term — Area Emissions

0.21 --
--

0.21 Long -Term — Energy Emissions
65 0.01
--

65.2 Long -Term — Total Emissions
377

0.18 0.02
387
Total Construction Emissions
Amortized Over 30 Years

10.93 Significance Threshold
3,000 MTCO2E/year
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. California Emissions Estimator Model. Version 2022.1.1.21 (Used in Appendix A)
City of Rancho Mirage 56
4-82

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
As indicated in Table 6, the majority of the GHG emissions (387 MTCO2E) would originate from mobile sources. As a result, the potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact:

The City of Rancho Mirage's 2012 Sustainability Plan: Leadership in Energy Efficiency (Plan) serves as a framework for the development and implementation of policies and programs that would reduce the City's GHG emissions. The Plan is within a broader sustainability planning context supported by Southern California Edison (SCE) and its rate payers in a program called "Green for Life." The Plan addresses climate change at the local level by taking action to reduce GHG emissions within the City's operations and within the City with the target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 as set by AB 32. In an effort to stay ahead of impending regulations, this Sustainability Plan defines the City of Rancho Mirage's goal of complying, at a minimum, with statewide mandates to reduce GHG emissions. At the same time, through considered action, Rancho Mirage anticipates the following outcomes:
• Increase energy efficiency in local government operations and in community activities; • Create new jobs in the community associated with smart energy management; • Save money now being spent for energy and explore the establishment of a revolving fund whereby energy savings will be available for municipal and community programs to enhance energy efficiency and continue to reduce GHG emissions; • Maintain or enhance the comfortable desert lifestyle of residents and visitors alike; and • Bring the CVAG jurisdictions together for effective regional sustainability and climate action planning.

Rancho Mirage completed the 2010 Greenhouse Gas Inventory creating a path to sustainability.

The inventory provided a detailed and clear analysis of the City's "carbon footprint," showing the sources and sectors of emissions, highlighting opportunities for emissions reductions that make sense for Rancho Mirage. Highlights of the 2010 GHG Inventory for Rancho Mirage are included below. (The full Inventory can be found in Section III of the Rancho Mirage Sustainability Plan):
• In 2010, Rancho Mirage emitted 277,698 metric tons of CO2e. To meet AB 32 targets, by 2020 the City needed to reduce its annual emissions by 54,272 mertric tons. • In 2010, the largest percentage of emissions - over 43% - came from the electricity used to power the City's homes, businesses, resorts, fountains, and streetlights. • In 2010, the largest percentage of emissions -over 43%- came from the electricity used to power the City's homes, businesses, resorts, fountains, and streetlights. 8.2 Discussion of Impacts: a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would allow for the development of seventeen single-family residential units.

City of Rancho Mirage 57
4-83

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
The Rancho Mirage General Plan's Safety Element in its section on Climate Change includes Goals, Policies and Programs with a preamble identifying the City's efforts to coordinate with state, regional, and County agencies to establish and maintain an up to date database on climate change conditions in the region, legislation affecting the City's regulatory responsibilities, and changing technical assessments that refine or re -characterize the climate change impacts affecting the region. The City would also monitor the effectiveness of its adaptation strategies.

The City's development review process is designed to assure that development proposals are thoroughly evaluated regarding climate change and that comprehensive mitigation measures are developed and implemented. The City is also taking a proactive role to assure the public is safe by informing them about severity of climate change impacts and what resources are available to them to mitigate these impacts. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The project would also comply with applicable Green Building Standards and City of Rancho Mirage's policies regarding sustainability (as dictated by the City's General Plan, Sustainability Plan, and Energy Action Plan). The previous section evaluated the proposed project's GHG emissions. The analysis determined that the GHG emissions would be below the regionally accepted thresholds. The calculated emissions would not exceed the GHG and criteria air pollutant thresholds and therefore would not interfere with the City's efforts to monitor and do its part to address climate change. The proposed project would not involve or require any variance from an adopted plan, policy, or regulation governing GHG emissions. As a result, no potential conflict with an applicable greenhouse gas policy plan, policy, or regulation would occur and the potential impacts are considered to be less than significant.

8.3 Mitigation Measures:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 58
4-84

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Im act
p
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Im act
p
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
I I
❑
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?
17 1 1
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
1 1
N
d) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
1 1
M
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project
area?
N
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
}A
SOURCES:

CaIEPA. DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List).

CalFire. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map.

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

City of Rancho Mirage
59 4-85

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

9.1 SETTING
Hazardous materials refer generally to hazardous substances that exhibit corrosive, poisonous, flammable, and/or reactive properties and have the potential to harm human health and/or the environment. Hazardous materials are used in a wide variety of products (household cleaners, industrial solvents, paint, pesticides, etc.) and in the manufacturing of products (e.g., electronics, newspapers, plastic products). Hazardous materials can include petroleum, natural gas, synthetic gas, acutely toxic chemicals, and other toxic chemicals that are used in agriculture, commercial, and industrial uses; businesses; hospitals; and households. Accidental releases of hazardous materials can occur from a variety of causes, including highway incidents, warehouse fires, train derailments, shipping accidents, and industrial incidents.

9.2 Discussion of Impacts:
a) Less Than Significant Impact:

The project's construction would require the use of diesel fuel to power the construction equipment. The diesel fuel would be properly sealed in tanks and would be transported to the site by truck. Other hazardous materials that would be used on -site during the project's construction phases include, but are not limited to, gasoline, solvents, architectural coatings, and equipment lubricants. These products are strictly controlled and regulated and in the event of any spill, cleanup activities would be required to adhere to all pertinent protocols. As a result, less than significant impacts would occur.
b) Less Than Significant Impact:

The project's construction would require the use of diesel fuel to power the construction equipment. The diesel fuel would be properly sealed in tanks and would be transported to the site by truck. Other hazardous materials that would be used on -site during the project's construction phase include, but are not limited to, gasoline, solvents, architectural coatings, and equipment lubricants. These products are strictly controlled and regulated and in the event of any spill, cleanup activities would be required to adhere to all pertinent protocols. As indicated in Subsection D, the project site is not listed in either the CaIEPA's Cortese List or the Environstor database. As a result, the likelihood of encountering contamination or other environmental City of Rancho Mirage 60
4-86

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
concerns during the project's construction phase is remote. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant.
c) No Impact:

There are no schools located within one -quarter of a mile from the project site. The nearest school is Della S Lindley Elementary School, located approximately 1.55 miles north of the project site.

The next nearest schools to the project site include Palm Valley School, Rancho Mirage High school, and Xavier College Preparatory High School. The proposed residential project would not create a hazard to any local school. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. d) No Impact:

Government Code Section 65962.5 refers to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, commonly known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is a planning document used by the State and other local agencies to comply with CEQA requirements that require the provision of information regarding the location of hazardous materials release sites. A search was conducted through the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor website to identify whether the project site is listed in the database as a Cortese site. The project site is not identified as a Cortese site. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
e) No Impact:

The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and the site is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airports to the project site include the Palm Springs International Airport is located approximately 5.8 miles northwest of the project site and the Bermuda Dunes Airport is located approximately 7.4 miles southeast of the project. The project would not introduce a structure that would interfere with the approach and take off of aircraft utilizing any regional airports. As a result, no impacts related to this issue would occur. f) No Impact:

At no time would any adjacent street be completely closed to traffic during the proposed project's construction. In addition, all construction staging must occur on -site. As a result, no impacts are associated with the proposed project's implementation.
g) No Impact:

The project site is not located within a "moderate fire hazard severity zone." As a result, no impacts would result.

9.3 Mitigation Measures:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 61
4-87

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY —
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
❑
❑
A
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
I 1
I I

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off -site?
I I
I I
ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite?
1 I
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?
I i
I
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
❑
�I
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
1 I ❑
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
❑
1 I ❑
N
SOURCES:

FEMA. Glossary. Flood Zones. Website accessed October 10, 2023.

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

Fomotor Engineering. Preliminary Hydrology Study for Tentative Parcel Map 38081. June 7, 2023.

City of Rancho Mirage
62 4-88

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

10.1 SETTING
The proposed project would involve the subdivision of a seventeen lot residential development within the 8.42 acre project site. The proposed development would connect to a new 8 inch sewer line on the internal roadways and a new 12 inch sewer line on Via Josefina. The relatively level site is approximately 272 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and contains no slope. The vegetation community present on site supports a sparse desert dune habitat encompassing mainly smaller native plants and some non-native grasses. The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M).

10.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) Less Than Significant Impact:

During construction, compliance with waste discharge requirements would be met through the permit registration and coverage process under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ, as amended by 2010- 0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ. This permit is otherwise known as the Construction General Permit (CGP), applicable to any construction activity that results in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than one acre. In addition, stormwater discharges from construction activities that disturb one or more acres, or smaller sites disturbing less than one acre that are part of a common plan of development or sale, are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permitting program. As a result, the construction impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact:

Water used to control fugitive dust would be transported to the site via truck. No direct ground water extraction would occur. Furthermore, the construction and post -construction BMPs would address contaminants of concern from excess runoff, thereby preventing the contamination of local groundwater. These BMP controls may include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Stabilization practices for all areas disturbed by construction and grading. • Structural practices for all drainage/discharge locations. • Stormwater management controls, including measures used to control pollutants occurring in stormwater discharges after construction activities are complete. • Velocity dissipation devices to provide nonerosive flow conditions from the discharge point along the length of any outfall channel.
• Other controls, including waste disposal practices that prevent discharge of solid materials.

City of Rancho Mirage 63
4-89

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
In addition, there would be no direct groundwater withdrawals associated with the proposed project's implementation. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact:

The proposed project's location would be restricted to the proposed project site and would not alter the course of any stream or river that would lead to on- or off -site siltation or erosion. As a result, the potential impacts would be less than significant. d) No Impact:

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance maps obtained for the City of Rancho Mirage, the proposed project site is located in a flood hazard zone, labeled as "Zone X." Thus, properties located in "Zone X" are areas of minimal flood hazard.

The proposed project site is not located in an area that is subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. In addition, the project site is located inland approximately 70 miles from the Pacific Ocean and the project site would not be exposed to the effects of a tsunami. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.
e) No Impact:

The project's construction would not interfere with any groundwater management or recharge plan since there are no active groundwater management recharge activities on -site or in the vicinity.

According to the hydrology study prepared for the project site, the project with a 6 -hour / 100 year Synthetic Unit Hydrograph analysis produced a total net peak (after infiltration) proposed runoff volume of 43,736 cubic -feet for the contributing onsite and offsite run-on area under post - construction conditions, which was determined to be the worst case of the 1, 3, 6, and 24 -hour duration events when considering infiltration. The surface retention basin was sized to hold 47,001 cubic -feet with 3 to 1 side slops. The peak runoff volume would have a 100 -year peak onsite basin water depth of 4.74 feet (See Preliminary Hydrology Plan in the reference Materials).

There are two offsite run-on areas (See Preliminary Hydrology Plan in the Reference Materials) directed toward the site. Offsite WS -1 directs 1.98 -acres of runoff at 5.55 cubic -feet per second to a proposed channel between lots 7, 8, and 2 which would allow the flow to be directed into the proposed retention basin. Offsite WS -2 directs 0.80 -acres toward the south boundary of the site.

The retention basin has been sized with capacity to hold both offsite areas along with the proposed onsite runoff. We will look to obtain adjacent property owner permission for drainage alteration to remove the need for WS -2 to enter the site. All proposed storm drains, inlets and streets will be sized to adequately convey their respective 100 -year Rational Method discharges to the proposed surface retention basin. Basin overflow beyond the basin capacity would spill to the south and flow along the existing flow pattern for this location.

In general, the storm drain and inlet system would more than adequately convey the post - development 100- year peak discharge to the proposed retention basin, which would be sized to more than handle the required post -development 100 -year event / 3 -hour duration runoff (See City of Cathedral City Municipal Code 8.24.070 in the Reference Materials).

City of Rancho Mirage 64
4-90

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

10.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 65
4-91

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
LAND USE AND URBAN PLANNING —
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Im act
p
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
p
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community?
❑
❑
❑
�i.
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?
❑
❑
❑
/l
SOURCES:

Google Maps. Site Accessed May 23, 2023, and Rancho Mirage Zoning Map, Site Accessed, October 10, 2023.

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

11.1 SETTING
The proposed project would involve the subdivision of a seventeen lot residential development within the 8.42 acre project site. The proposed development would connect to a new 8 inch sewer line on the internal roadways and a new 12 inch sewer line on Via Josefina. The relatively level site is approximately 272 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and contains no slope. The vegetation community present on site supports a sparse desert dune habitat encompassing mainly smaller native plants and some non-native grasses. The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M).

11.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) No Impact:

City of Rancho Mirage 66
4-92

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
• South of the project site: A single-family residential development and vacant, undeveloped land abuts the project site's south side. These parcels are designated as Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) and Medium Density Residential (R -M). • West of the project site: Via Josefina abuts the west side of the project. Further west of the road are single family homes. These parcels are designated as Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2).

The granting of the requested entitlements and subsequent construction of the proposed project would not result in any expansion of the use beyond the current boundaries. As a result, the project will not lead to any division of an existing established neighborhood. As a result, no impacts would occur.
b) Less than Significant Impact:

The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M). According to the Rancho Mirage Land Use Element, the Medium Density Residential (R -M) designation provides for a variety of housing types. The allowable maximum density is four units per gross acre. The R -M zoning district is intended to encourage the development of a variety of residential development, including garden apartments and affordable housing. The proposed development would be consistent with this land use designation. As a result, less than significant impact would occur.

11.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 67
4-93

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
12 - MINERAL RESOURCES
MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the
project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
❑
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
❑
SOURCES:

California, State of. Department of Conservation. California 01/, Gas, and Geothermal Resources Well Finder.

California Department of Conservation. Mineral Land Classification Map for Riverside County accessed May 28, 2023.

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

12.1 SETTING
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) has developed mineral land classification maps and reports to assist in the protection and development of mineral resources.

According to the SMARA, the following four mineral land use classifications are identified:
• Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1): This land use classification refers to areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. • Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2): This land use classification refers to areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists. • Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3): This land use classification refers to areas where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be evaluated from the available data. Hilly or mountainous areas underlain by sedimentary, metamorphic, or igneous rock types and lowland areas underlain by alluvial wash or fan material are often included in this category.

Additional information about the quality of material in these areas could either upgrade the classification to MRZ-2 or downgrade it to MRZ-1.
• Mineral Resource Zone 4 (MRZ-4): This land use classification refers to areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other mineral resource zone.

12.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a). No Impact:

A review of California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources well finder indicates that there are no wells located in the vicinity of the project site. The project site is not located in a Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Area (SMARA) nor is it located in an area with active mineral extraction activities. A review of California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources well finder indicates that there are no wells located within or in the vicinity of the project site. The project site is not located within a designated Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) which means there are no significant mineral resources present on -site. As indicated previously, there are no active mineral extraction activities occurring on -site or in the adjacent properties. As a result, no impacts to mineral resources would occur.
b) No Impact:

As previously mentioned, no mineral, oil, or energy extraction and/or generation activities are located within the project site. Moreover, the proposed project would not interfere with any resource extraction activity. Therefore, no impacts would result from the implementation of the proposed project.

12.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 69
4-95

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
13 -NOISE
NOISE — Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
❑
��
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
❑
❑
��
c) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
❑
❑
7 SOURCES:

Toll -Free Airline. Riverside, California.

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

13.1 SETTING
Noise levels may be described using several methods designed to evaluate the "loudness" of a particular noise. The most commonly used unit for measuring the level of sound is the decibel (dB). Zero on the decibel scale represents the lowest limit of sound that can be heard by humans.

The eardrum may rupture at 140 dB. In general, an increase of between 3.0 dB and 5.0 dB in the ambient noise level is considered to represent the threshold for human sensitivity. Noise level increases of 3.0 dB or less are not generally perceptible to persons with average hearing abilities.

The most commonly used unit for measuring the level of sound is the decibel (dB). Zero on the decibel scale represents the lowest limit of sound that can be heard by humans.

City of Rancho Mirage 70
4-96

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

13.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) Less Than Significant Impact:

The City regulates noise -generating activities through the Municipal Code and requires that daytime noise levels be 60 dBA CNEL or less at the property line for residential land uses and 45 dBA CNEL or less for all interior areas. Existing land uses in the vicinity of the project site include vacant undeveloped land and residential development. Construction activities would result in localized and temporary increases in ambient noise levels and may impact sensitive receptors.

Construction noise sources are regulated within Sections 8.45.050 and 15.04.030(A) 117.1 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code which prohibit construction activities other than the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with no construction occurring on Sundays or federal holidays. The project's construction will occur during the hours permitted by the City of Rancho Mirage. These restrictions, muffling of construction equipment, and other measures will reduce, to some extent, construction noise impacts on surrounding land uses. Impacts will be temporary and will end once construction is complete. Construction noise will vary depending on the construction process, type of equipment involved, location of the construction site with respect to sensitive receptors, the scheduled proposed to carry out each task (e.g., hours and days of the week) and the duration of the construction work. The project's construction noise levels were estimated using the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model Version 1.1. The distance used between the construction activity and the nearest sensitive receptors varied depending on the individual pieces of equipment but a distance of 100 feet was used. The model assumes a

10.0 dBA reduction due to attenuation from the existing walls located along the street frontages of the nearby residential development. The results of the construction noise modeling are presented in Table 7 below. The middle column ("Baseline) indicates the anticipated noise levels adjacent to the construction equipment. The last column indicates the anticipated daytime noise levels 100 feet from the equipment.

Table 7 Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Sensitive Receptors
Construction Equipment
Baseline Max Lmax)
Projected Noise Levels
(in Lmax)
Backhoe

77.6 dBA

60.6 dBA
Compactor (Earth)

83.2 dBA

63.2 dBA
Concrete Mixer

78.8 dBA

61.8 dBA
Dump Truck

76.5 59.5 dBA
Excavator

80.7 dBA

63.7 dBA
Grader

85.0 dBA

68.0 dBA
Roller

80.0 dBA

60.0 dBA
Paver

77.2 dBA

61.2 dBA
Tractor

84.0 dBA

67.0 dBA
Flat Bed Truck

74.3 dBA

57.3 dBA
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model
As shown in Table 11, the majority of the equipment would result in noise levels under 65 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the equipment generating the noise. All of the adjacent residences are located more than 100 feet from where the equipment would be operating. As a result, the proposed project will City of Rancho Mirage 71
4-97

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
not expose sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact:

Construction activities would produce varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. While ground vibrations from typical construction activities very rarely reach levels high enough to cause damage to structures, special consideration must be made when sensitive or historic land uses are near the construction site. The construction activities that typically generate the highest levels of vibration are blasting and impact pile driving and the use of a vibratory roller. However, the project would not require blasting, pile driving, or vibratory rollers. The largest piece of vibration -generating equipment that could be used for project construction is a large bulldozer. Large bulldozers generate a vibration level of 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet. Existing or potential noise sensitive residential development is located on all sides of the project site. Ground vibrations associated with construction activities using modern construction methods and equipment rarely reach the levels that result in damage to nearby buildings though vibration related to construction activities may be discernible in areas located near the construction site. A possible exception is in older buildings where special care must be taken to avoid damage. Table 7 summarizes the levels of vibration and the usual effect on people and buildings. The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) has guidelines for vibration levels from construction related to their activities and recommends that the maximum peak - particle -velocity (PPV) levels remain below 0.05 inches per second at the nearest structures. PPV refers to the movement within the ground of molecular particles and not surface movement.

Vibration levels above 0.5 inches per second have the potential to cause architectural damage to normal dwellings. The U.S. DOT also states that vibration levels above 0.015 inches per second (in/sec) are sometimes perceptible to people, and the level at which vibration becomes an irritation to people is 0.64 inches per second. The effects of vibration on buildings are summarized in Table

8. Table 8 Common Effects of Construction Vibration
Peak Particle
Velocity (in/sec)
Effects on Humans
Effects on Buildings

3.0 Vibration is unpleasant
Potential for architectural damage and possible
minor structural damage
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
City of Rancho Mirage 72
4-98

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Various types of construction equipment have been measured under a wide variety of construction activities with an average of source levels reported in terms of velocity levels as shown in Table

9. Although the table gives one level for each piece of equipment, it should be noted that there is a considerable variation in reported ground vibration levels from construction activities. The data in Table 9 does provide a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions. Based on Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, a vibration level of 102 VdB (vibration decibels, or 0.5 inches per second [in/sec]) is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage.

Table 9 Vibration Source Levels for Typical Construction Equipment Construction Equipment
PPV @25 ft.
(inches/sec.)
Vibration
(VdB) @ 25 ft.

Pile Driver (impact)
Upper range

1.58 112
Typical

0.644
104
Pile Drive (Sonic)
Upper range

0.734
105
Typical

0.170
93 Clam Shovel Drop

0.202
94 Large Bulldozer

0.089
87 Caisson Drilling

0.089
87 Loaded Trucks

0.076
86 Small Bulldozer

0.035
79 Source: Federal Highway Administration FHWA Noise and Vibration During Construction The project will be required to adhere to all pertinent City noise control regulations. The limited duration of construction activities and the City's construction -related noise control requirements will reduce the potential impacts. A vibration level of 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet would be 0.53 in/sec PPV at 40 feet and 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet (refer to Table 8). These vibration levels would be less than the FTA thresholds. Additionally, construction equipment would move throughout the entire site and would only be located near the project boundaries for short periods of time. Thus, vibration levels at the receptors located near the project boundaries would be less than these maximum levels for a majority of the construction period. Although vibration levels may be perceptible for short periods of time, maximum vibration levels would not exceed FTA thresholds. Therefore, project construction would not generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant.
c) No Impact:

The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and is located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airports to the project site include the Palm Springs International Airport is located approximately 5.8 miles northwest of the project site and the Bermuda Dunes Airport is located approximately 7.4 miles southeast of the project. As a result, the proposed project will not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels related to airport uses. As a result, no impacts would occur.

City of Rancho Mirage 73
4-99

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

13.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 74
4-100

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
14 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the
project:

Potentially
Significant
Im act
p
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
p
No Impact
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?
❑
❑
L
SOURCES:

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2021-2023. Sacramento, California, May 2023.

14.1 SETTING
The existing population of the City, according to the most recent Department of Finance Data (2023), is 17,898 persons. The proposed project would involve the subdivision of a seventeen lot residential development within the 8.42 acre project site. The proposed development would connect to a new 8 inch sewer line on the internal roadways and a new 12 inch sewer line on Via Josefina. The relatively level site is approximately 272 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and contains no slope. The vegetation community present on site supports a sparse desert dune habitat encompassing mainly smaller native plants and some non-native grasses. The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M).

14.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) Less Than Significant Impact:

Growth -inducing impacts are generally associated with the provision of urban services to an undeveloped or rural area. Growth -inducing impacts include the following:
• New development in an area presently undeveloped and economic factors which may influence development. The site is currently undeveloped. All land use surrounding the property are designated for residential development.

City of Rancho Mirage 75
4-101

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
• Extension of roadways and other transportation facilities. Future roadway and infrastructure connections will serve the proposed project site only. • Extension of infrastructure and other improvements. The installation of any new utility lines will not lead to subsequent offsite development since these utility connections will serve the site only.
• Major off -site public projects (treatment plants, etc.). The project's increase in demand for utility services can be accommodated without the construction or expansion of landfills, water treatment plants, or wastewater treatment plants. • The removal of housing requiring replacement housing elsewhere. The site contains a single older dilapidated housing unit. As a result, no replacement housing will be required. • Additional population growth leading to increased demand for goods and services. The proposed 17 unit project would potentially result in 32 new residents assuming an average household size of 1.85 persons per unit derived from the most recent California Department of Finance.
• Short-term growth -inducing impacts related to the project's construction. The project will result in temporary employment during the construction phase.

The newly established roads and existing utility lines will serve the project site only and will not extend into undeveloped areas. According to the Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report Adopted on September 3, 2020 by SCAG, the City of Rancho Mirage's population is projected to increase from the year 2016 figure of 18,200 to 25,200 in the year 2045, an increase of 7,000. The 2022 population estimate of the City of Rancho Mirage is 17,633, According to the United States Census Bureau. The proposed project will not result in any unplanned growth.

Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact:

The project site's General Plan and Zoning designation is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2).

The proposed 17 unit project would potentially result in 32 new residents assuming an average household size of 1.85 persons per unit derived from the most recent California Department of Finance. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

14.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 76
4-102

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
15 - PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Im act
p
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Im act
p
No Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
A
iii) Schools?
r
iv) Parks?
L
v) Other public facilities?
I 1
❑
��
SOURCES:

Toll -Free Airline. Riverside, California.

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

15.1 SETTING
The proposed project would involve the subdivision of a seventeen lot residential development within the 8.42 acre project site. The proposed development would connect to a new 8 inch sewer line on the internal roadways and a new 12 inch sewer line on Via Josefina. The relatively level site is approximately 272 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and contains no slope. The vegetation community present on site supports a sparse desert dune habitat encompassing mainly smaller native plants and some non-native grasses. The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M).

City of Rancho Mirage 77
4-103

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

15.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
i) Less Than Significant Impact:

The Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), under contract with the City of Rancho Mirage, provides a full range of 24 -hour fire protection and emergency medical services to the City. The City's Fire Department is made up of 27 sworn, 2 full time non -sworn and 1 part time nonsworn personnel, serving 24.7 square miles with an estimated service population of 17,504 (Riverside County Fire Department for Rancho Mirage). RCFD maintains two fire stations within the City of Rancho Mirage, Fire Station 50, and Fire Station 69. Fire Station 50 is located at 70-801 Highway 111 and this station covers the southern portion of the City and is equipped with a Medic Engine and Paramedic Ambulance. Five firefighters are staffed at this station daily and three of the five firefighters are paramedics. Fire Station 69 is located at 71-751 Gerald Ford Drive and covers the northern portion of Rancho Mirage and is also staffed with five firefighters daily, with three of the five fire fighters being paramedics. The Riverside County Fire Department operates under a Regional Fire Protection Program, which allows all of its fire stations to provide support as needed regardless of jurisdictional boundaries.

The RCFD currently reviews all new development plans. The proposed project would be required to conform to all fire protection and prevention requirements, including, but not limited to, building setbacks, emergency access, and fire flow (or the flow rate of water that is available for extinguishing fires). The proposed project would only place an incremental demand on fire services since the including the installation of fire hydrants and sprinkler systems inside the buildings. Furthermore, the project will be reviewed by County Fire officials to ensure adequate fire service and safety as a result of project implementation. Development of the proposed project would result in a minimal increase in demand for fire services. Service calls could place an additional demand on fire personnel, fire apparatus and equipment. project will be constructed with strict adherence to all pertinent building and fire codes. In addition, the proposed project would be required to implement all pertinent Fire Code Standards. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant.
ii) Less Than Significant Impact:

Law enforcement services in the City of Rancho Mirage are provided under a contractual agreement with Riverside County Sheriff's Department (RCSD). Their staff consists of 29 full time officers (24 sworn and 5 non -sworn). The officers have a daily staffing of 7 officers that work in two, 12 -hour shifts. Four deputy patrol officers work the day shift, and 3 deputy patrol officers work the night shift. The City currently provides 1.77 officers per 1,000 residents. The Sheriffs department provides 24 -hour police law enforcement services and operates a small police substation at the Rancho Mirage Public Library. The main County sheriff's station is located Palm Desert at 73-705 Gerald Ford Drive. This station is approximately 4.4 miles from the project site.

The City's police department patrols 7 days a week, 365 days a year and 24 -hours a day. The RCSD contract provides for a staff of 30 full time officers (25 sworn and 5 non -sworn). The officers have a daily staffing of 7 officers that work in two, 12 -hour shifts. Four deputy patrol officers work the day shift, and 3 deputy patrol officers work the night shift. The City's contract currently provides

1.65 officers per 1,000 residents, which is well above the commonly used and accepted ratio of one officer per 1,000 residents. Emergency response times vary and are dependent on the location of patrol cars. The average response time for priority 1 calls in the City of Rancho Mirage was 5 to 6 minutes.

City of Rancho Mirage 78
4-104

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
The project site is located in an existing urban area and is currently serviced by the Sheriff's Department. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase the need for new or expanded police facilities and response times are not expected to be impacted. Additionally, all new construction in the City will be required to pay Development Impact Fees to assist in offsetting impacts to police services. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant. iii) Less Than Significant Impact:

The project site is within the boundary of the Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD). The construction of the proposed 17 single family units would not create a significant increase in school enrollments. The project would be required to pay School Impact Fees to the PSUSD.

Current impact fees at the time of writing are $4.79 per square foot for residential development.

The payment of these fees is considered to be mitigation of potential impacts. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant.
iv) Less Than Significant Impact:

City of Rancho Mirage provides public parks, open space, and multi -city recreational facilities with various amenities. The proposed project would be required to comply with the City's parkland in lieu fee (Quimby) and other development impact fees requirements. The future residents generated by project implementation may lead to an incremental increase in physical deterioration of City public recreational facilities. The occupancy of the 17 -units would not substantially increase the use of existing parks as to accelerate their physical deterioration since the site is relatively small and it would provide private open space amenities. Additionally, the project will be required to comply with the City's development impact fee requirements. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant.
v) Less Than Significant Impact:

The proposed project would not create direct demand for other governmental service. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant.

15.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 79
4-105

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
1 6 - RECREATION
RECREATION — Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
1 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?
SOURCES:

Fomotor Engineering. Preliminary Grading Plan TTM 38041. Sheet C.01. January 29, 2024.

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

16.1 SETTING
The proposed project would involve the subdivision of a seventeen lot residential development within the 8.42 acre project site. The proposed development would connect to a new 8 inch sewer line on the internal roadways and a new 12 inch sewer line on Via Josefina. The relatively level site is approximately 272 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and contains no slope. The vegetation community present on site supports a sparse desert dune habitat encompassing mainly smaller native plants and some non-native grasses. The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M).

16.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) Less Than Significant Impact:

The project would be required to comply with the City's parkland in lieu fee (Quimby) and other development impact fees requirements. The occupancy of the 17 units would not substantially increase the use of existing parks as to accelerate their physical deterioration since the site is relatively small and it would provide private open space amenities. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant.

City of Rancho Mirage 80
4-106

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
b) Less Than Significant Impact:

As previously indicated, the implementation of the proposed project would not physically impact any existing parks and recreational facilities in the City. No such facilities are located adjacent to the project site. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant.

16.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 81
4-107

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
1 7 - TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION — Would the project:

Potentially Less
Significant
Im act
p
Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
p
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
is
❑
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
❑
❑
❑
��
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
1 1
❑
❑
a
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
❑
��
SOURCES:

Fomotor Engineering. Preliminary Grading Plan TTM 38041. Sheet C.01. January 29, 2024.

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

17.1 SETTING
The proposed project would involve the subdivision of a seventeen lot residential development within the 8.42 acre project site. The proposed development would connect to a new 8 inch sewer line on the internal roadways and a new 12 inch sewer line on Via Josefina. The relatively level site is approximately 272 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and contains no slope. The vegetation community present on site supports a sparse desert dune habitat encompassing mainly smaller native plants and some non-native grasses. The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M).

17.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) Less Than Significant Impact:

The trip generation for the proposed project is based on the trip generation rates for Land Use 210 — "Single -Family Detached Housing" included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' City of Rancho Mirage 82
4-108

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
(ITE) Trip Generation, 11th Edition. As shown in Table 10, the proposed project is forecast to generate 13 total trips in the a.m. peak hour, 17 total trips in the p.m. peak hour, and 160 daily trips.

Table 10 Project Trip Generation
Land Use
Units
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Daily
Single Family
ITE Code 210

0.19 0.56

0.74 0.62

0.37 0.99

9.44 Project
17 units
3 10
13 11
6 17
160
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, 11th Edition The total trip generation assumed 160 trip ends per day for 17 single family units. Of this total, 13 trips would occur during the AM peak hour and 17 trips would occur during the PM peak hour.

The proposed project would not create a level of service deficiency at any area intersection due to the limited trip generation. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact:

Rancho Mirage's Transportation Analysis Policy (Policy) was updated and approved on February 2021 per Resolution No. 2021-06. This Policy aligns the City's transportation analysis with California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) and the City's goals as set forth in the Rancho Mirage General Plan updated in 2017. This policy establishes the thresholds for transportation impacts under CEQA by introducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT.) As required by SB 743, VMT will replace the former metric used to analyze traffic impacts which was LOS. According to Table 1 of the Policy, retail project types (including hotel) would result in a significant impact if the project caused a net increase in the total existing VMT for the region. City Resolution 2021-06 aligns the City's VMT analysis policy with SB-743.

The City's Transportation Analysis Policy identifies three types of screening criteria under which projects are not required to submit a detailed VMT analysis and a presumption of a less than significant transportation impact can be made based on the facts of the project. Project Type Screening Certain types of projects are exempt from the need to prepare a detailed VMT and may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact as they are local serving by nature, thus shortening travel distances by introducing shopping/services within the community, or they are small enough to not warrant assessment. As specified in the City's Transportation Analysis Policy, the following types of projects may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact:
• Local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet • Day care centers
• Local parks;
• Local -serving public facilities;
• Ministerial projects;
• Small infill projects;
City of Rancho Mirage 83
4-109

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
• Restricted affordable, transit supportive residential projects in planned growth areas with high -quality Transit;
• Transportation projects that do not increase VMT ; and • Projects that generate less than 110 daily vehicle trips. This provision generally correlates to typical development as listed as follows: 11 single-family residential dwelling units; 16 multi -family condominium or townhouse residential dwelling units; or 10,000 square feet of office.

The proposed project's trip daily generation is 160 trips. However, the proposed 17 -unit residential development is considered to be a small infill project. As a result, no significant VMT impacts would occur. According to the VMT legislation (SB 743) an "Infill site" means a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of- way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.

The nearest major intersections to the project site are listed below. The proposed project is anticipated to generate 160 daily trips with 13 morning (AM) peak hour trips and 17 evening (PM) peak hour trips. Assuming that 50% of the project peak hour trips would use the four study intersections, to AM peak hour trips at the four study intersections would increase by 6 trips while the PM traffic at the four intersections would increase by 8 trips. The current morning (AM) and evening PM) levels of service (Rancho Mirage General Plan Traffic Impact Analysis) at the four nearest intersections are summarized below:
• Dinah Shore Dr./Monterey Ave. (LOS C AM and LOS D PM); • Gerald Ford Dr./Monterey Ave. (LOS C AM and LOS C PM); • Dinah Shore Dr./Bob Hope Dr. (LOS C AM and LOS C PM); • Bob Hope Dr./Gerald Ford Dr. (LOS C AM and LOS C PM).

All four of the nearest intersections are operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better). The addition of 6 to 7 additional local trips during the peak hours would not result in a significant traffic impact at these intersections. Furthermore, Dinah Shore Drive, Monterey Drive, and Bob Hope Drive are all included as Sunline Transit Routes. As a result, the impacts would be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact:

The individual units would be arranged around the proposed cul-de-sac roadway. Each unit would be provided with an enclosed garage that would accommodate two vehicles. The driveway apron would accommodate an additional two vehicles. The entry way would be gated and would have a curb -to -curb width of 60 feet (30 -feet for the ingress travel land and 30 -feet for the egress travel lane. The internal roadway would have a curb -to -curb width of approximately 25 feet. The proposed project will not expose future drivers to dangerous intersections or sharp curves and the proposed project will not introduce incompatible equipment or vehicles to the adjacent roads.

As a result, the potential impacts would be less than significant.

City of Rancho Mirage 84
4-110

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
d) No Impact:

The proposed project would not affect emergency access to any adjacent parcels. At no time during construction will adjacent streets be completely closed to traffic. All construction staging must occur on -site. As a result, no impacts are associated with the proposed project's implementation.

17.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 85
4-111

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
1 8 - TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would
the project cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as
either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred place,
or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
1 1
V
SOURCES:

CRM TECH. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report. March 14, 2023.

Fomotor Engineering. Preliminary Grading Plan TTM 38041. Sheet C.01. January 29, 2024.

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

18.1 SETTING
The proposed project would involve the subdivision of a seventeen lot residential development within the 8.42 acre project site. The proposed development would connect to a new 8 inch sewer line on the internal roadways and a new 12 inch sewer line on Via Josefina. The relatively level site is approximately 272 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and contains no slope. The vegetation community present on site supports a sparse desert dune habitat encompassing mainly smaller native plants and some non-native grasses. The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M).

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
CRM TECH notified the nearby Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the upcoming archaeological field survey and invited tribal participation.

18.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation:

A Tribal Resource is defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 and includes the following:
• Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
• 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 I of Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision I of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
• A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.
• A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a "non -unique archaeological resource" as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms to the criteria of subdivision (a).

All potentially interested tribes identified by the NAHC were also contacted pursuant to AB -52 and SB-18 for information regarding their knowledge of cultural resources that were within or near the project area. Tribal consultation was completed on February 22, 2024. The tribal consultation letters are attached as Appendix H — Tribal Consultation Letters. All potentially interested tribes identified by the NAHC were also contacted pursuant to AB -52 for information regarding their knowledge of cultural resources that were within or near the project area. These groups include the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Cahuilla Band of Indians, Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, La Posta Band of Duegueno Mission Indians, Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians, Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation, Mesa Grand Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma, Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, Ramona Band of Cahuilla, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, and Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. One tribe, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, responded they are "unaware of specific cultural resources that may be affected by the proposed project." Although the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians stated the proposed project would not affect specific cultural resources, the applicant would be required to follow the mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources:

City of Rancho Mirage 87
4-113

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
(Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation No. 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 plan in consultation with the project Applicant, City of Rancho Mirage, and the appropriate Native American Tribes. The presence of an archaeologist shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's standards during any ground disturbing activities. (Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation No. 2) During any ground disturbing activities (including any archaeological testing and surveys) the presence of an approved Agua Caliente or Cahuilla Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) is required. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor shall 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. b) Less Than Significant Impact:

The project site is located within or on the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians territory. A search of the National Register of Historic Places and the list of California Historical Resources was conducted, and it was determined that no Native historic resources was listed within the City of Rancho Mirage. Since the project's implementation would not impact any Federal, State, or locally designated historic resources. As a result, no impacts would occur.

18.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

The analysis of tribal cultural resources impacts determined that the following mitigation measures would be required to reduce the project's impacts to levels that would be less than significant.

Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 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 plan in consultation with the project Applicant, City of Rancho Mirage, and the appropriate Native American Tribes. The presence of an archaeologist shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's standards during any ground disturbing activities.

Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 2. During any ground disturbing activities (including any archaeological testing and surveys) the presence of an approved Agua Caliente or Cahuilla Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) is required. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor shall 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.

City of Rancho Mirage 88
4-114

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
x
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
1 I

I I
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
projects projected demand in addition to
the providers existing commitments?
1 1
7 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?
I I
X
I I
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statues and
regulations related to solid waste?
I I
I I
SOURCES:

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Jurisdiction Review Reports. 2023.

Coachella Valley Water District. 2022-23 Annual Review. 2023.

Fomotor Engineering. Preliminary Grading Plan TTM 38041. Sheet C.01. January 29, 2024.

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

19.1 SETTING
The proposed project would involve the subdivision of a seventeen lot residential development within the 8.42 acre project site. The proposed development would connect to a new 8 inch sewer line on the internal roadways and a new 12 inch sewer line on Via Josefina. The relatively level site is approximately 272 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and contains no slope. The vegetation community present on site supports a sparse desert dune habitat encompassing mainly smaller native plants and some non-native grasses. The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and City of Rancho Mirage
89 4-115

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M).

19.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) Less Than Significant Impact:

There are no existing water or wastewater treatment plants, electric power plants, telecommunications facilities, natural gas facilities, or stormwater drainage infrastructure located on -site. Therefore, the project's implementation will not require the relocation of any of the aforementioned facilities. The existing unit located on the property is dilapidated and would be replaced. As a result, the potential impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact:

Groundwater is the primary source of domestic water supply in the Coachella Valley. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) is the largest provider of potable water in the valley and currently provides potable water in the project vicinity. CVWD operates more than 100 wells and serves a population of 290,000 in its service areas. CVWD's 2012 adopted Water Management Plan and 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) have been developed to assist the agency in reliably meeting current and future water demands in a cost-effective manner. The 2015 UWMP serves as a planning tool that documents actions in support of long-term water resources planning and ensures adequate water supplies are available to meet the existing and future urban water demands. There are no existing water infrastructure located on -site. The proposed development would connect to a new 8 inch sewer line on the internal roadways and a new 12 inch sewer line on Via Josefina. As indicated in Table 11, the proposed project is projected to consume approximately 9,632 gallons of water on a daily basis.

Table 11 Water Consumption (gals/day)
Use
Unit
Factor
Generation
Single-family Home
17 units
Total
17 units
566.6 gals./unit/day`
9,632 gals./day
9,632 gals./day
Source: Coachella Valley Water D'strict. 2022-23 Annual Review. 2023. *Based on 301 gals./capita/day
The existing water supply facilities and infrastructure will be able to accommodate this additional demand. In addition, the proposed project will be equipped with water efficient fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping will be planted throughout the project site. As a result, the impacts are considered to be less than significant. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact:

The CVWD operates 6 water reclamation plants and maintains more than 1,000 miles of sewer pipelines and more than 30 lift stations that transport wastewater to the nearest treatment facility City of Rancho Mirage 90
4-116

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
and nearly 6.3 billion gallons of wastewater is treated yearly. CVWD's peak flow factor of 200 gallons per day per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU), was used to determine the proposed wastewater generation for the project. The site was found to provide approximately 55 EDU and estimates a total wastewater demand of approximately 11,000 gallons per day (gpd), or 0.011 MGD. In addition, wastewater generated by the Project will be conveyed to CVWD Wastewater Reclamation Plant Number 10 in Palm Desert (WRP-10). Per the 2015 CVWD Urban Water Management Plan, WRP-10 has a capacity to treat 18 million gallons per day (MGD). This plant treats an annual average flow of 10.8 MGD (12,000 AFY) from the activated sludge plant. There are no existing water infrastructure located on -site. The proposed development would connect to a new 8 inch sewer line on the internal roadways and a new 12 inch sewer line on Via Josefina.

According to Table 12, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 2,227 gallons of sewage per day.

Table 12 Wastewater (Effluent) Generation (gals/day)
Use
Unit
Factor
Generation
Single Family Residential
Total
17 units
17 units
131 gals./unit/day*
2,227 gals./day
2,227 gals./day
Source: Coachella Valley Water D'strict. 2022-23 Annual Review. 2023. *Based on 69.6 gals./capita/day
The proposed project's sewage generation will likely be lower since the new plumbing fixtures that will be installed will consist of water conserving fixtures as is required by the current City Code requirements. As a result, the impacts are expected to be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact:

Solid waste disposal and recycling services for the City of Rancho Mirage is provided by Burrtec.

Solid waste and recycling collected from the proposed project will be hauled to the Edom Hill Transfer Station. Waste from this transfer station is then sent to a permitted landfill or recycling facility outside of the Coachella Valley. These include Badlands Disposal Site, El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill and Lamb Canyon Disposal Site. Cal -Recycle data indicates the Bandlands Disposal site has 15,748,799 cubic yards of remaining capacity, the El Sobrante Landfill has a remaining capacity of 143,977,170 tons of solid waste, and Lamb Canyon Disposal has a remaining solid waste capacity of 19,242,950 cubic yards.

The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 275 pounds per day of solid waste (refer to Table 13). The projected quantify of solid waste is limited and can be accommodate by the existing capacity. As a result, the potential impacts are considered to be less than significant.

City of Rancho Mirage 91
4-117

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Table 13 Solid Waste Generation (lbs/day)
Use
Unit
Factor
Generation
Single Family Residential
17 units

16.2 Ibs./unit/day*
275 lbs./day
Total 17 units 275 lbs./day
Source: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Jurisdiction Review Reports. 2023.
*Based on 8.60 lbs./capita/day
e) No Impact:

The proposed project, like all other development in Rancho Mirage and Riverside County, would be required to adhere to City and County ordinances with respect to waste reduction and recycling. As a result, no impacts related to State and local statutes governing solid waste are anticipated.

19.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 92
4-118

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
20 - WILDFIRE
WILDFIRE — Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
❑
❑
��
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants
to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
I i
❑
n
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated infrastructure
(such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
1 1
I i
X1
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?
11 1 I
X
SOURCES:

Fomotor Engineering. Preliminary Grading Plan TTM 38041. Sheet C.01. January 29, 2024.

Rancho Mirage, City of. City of Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update. Adopted November 16, 2017.

Rancho Mirage, City of. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://ranchomirageca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Rancho-Mirage- 2017-LHMP-Final-Adopted. pdf

20.1 SETTING
The proposed project would involve the subdivision of a seventeen lot residential development within the 8.42 acre project site. The proposed development would connect to a new 8 inch sewer line on the internal roadways and a new 12 inch sewer line on Via Josefina. The relatively level site is approximately 272 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and contains no slope. The vegetation community present on site supports a sparse desert dune habitat encompassing mainly smaller native plants and some non-native grasses. The project site is comprised of 3 vacant, undeveloped parcels. These parcels are subject to the Section 30 Design Guidelines and Master Circulation Plan. The Zoning designation for the westernmost parcel is Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2). A 1.5 -acre portion of this parcel would require a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) to change the current zoning from Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) City of Rancho Mirage
93 4-119

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
to Medium Density Residential (R -M). The remaining two parcels are designated as Medium Density Residential (R -M).

According to the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, The risk of fire in Rancho Mirage is considered moderate to very high due to a combination of hot dry summers, steep mountain terrain and sparse scrub vegetation. Although the majority of land within the City includes urbanized land such as golf courses, manicured lawns and street parkways, the northernmost area of the City (generally north of Ramon Road) is moderately susceptible to fire. Rows of Tamarisk trees flank both Interstate 10 and the UPRR as a wind break, which are highly prone to fire. Due to this relatively flat area being within the "blowsand" and wind corridor, fires can quickly spread to sparse desert vegetation.

20.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) No Impact:

Surface streets that would be improved would serve the project site and adjacent area.

Furthermore, the proposed project would not involve the closure or alteration of any existing evacuation routes that would be important in the event of a wildfire. At no time during construction will adjacent streets be completely closed to traffic. All construction staging must occur on -site.

As a result, no impacts would occur.
b) No Impact:

The project site is located in the midst of an undeveloped area. The proposed project may be exposed to particulate emissions generated by wildland fires in the mountains located to the west of the site. However, the potential impacts would not be exclusive to the project site since criteria pollutant emissions from wildland fires may affect the entire City as well as the surrounding cities and unincorporated county areas. As a result, no impacts would occur. c) No Impact:

The project site is not located in an area that is classified as a moderate fire risk severity within a State Responsibility Area (SRA), and therefore will not require the installation of specialized infrastructure such as fire roads, fuel breaks, or emergency water sources. As a result, no impacts would occur.
d) No Impact:

There is no risk from wildfire within the project site or the surrounding area given the project site's distance from any area that may be subject to a wildfire event. In addition, the site is not located within a moderate fire risk and state responsibility area. Therefore, the project would not expose future residents to flooding or landslides facilitated by runoff flowing down barren and charred slopes. As a result, no impacts would occur.

20.3 MITIGATION MEASURES:

None required.

City of Rancho Mirage 94
4-120

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
21 - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential
to 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, 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?
i/
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
%
c) Does the project have
environmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
1 1
X

21.1 SETTING
The following findings can be made regarding the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the results of this environmental assessment.

21.2 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS:
a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation:

The proposed project would not 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 City of Rancho Mirage
4-121
95 17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
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.

As indicated in Chapter 2.1 through 2.20, the proposed project will not result in any significant unmitigable environmental impacts.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 2. In the event there is a delay in the project's construction (i.e. pauses in construction activities such as utility extensions and stormwater improvements) the Applicant shall retain the service of a qualified biologist to reassess biological resources resulting from an extended timeline for the project activities. Wildlife may move into disturbed or graded sites when construction is paused. These preconstruction surveys for biological resources will need to be repeated prior to project activities and after pauses in construction to assess the presence of biological resources and to avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant.

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
the species -specific salvage methods and timing for each sand -dependent Covered Species identified within the Project site and the location(s) where each species will be translocated.

Only qualified biologist(s) with appropriate state and federal permits to handle special -status species shall carry out salvage activities.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 5. Very limited suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version) prior to vegetation removal or ground -disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, monitoring, relocation, minimization, and/or mitigation actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measures if avoidance is proposed. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also describe minimization and relocation actions that will be implemented. Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to result in take. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls. The Project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval. Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project -related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities.

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 7. During all Project construction activities, the project Applicant and construction contractors shall restrict use of generators except for temporary use in emergencies. The project Applicant and construction contractors shall ensure the use of noise suppression devices such as mufflers or enclosures for generators.

Sounds generated from any means must be below the 55-60 dB range within 50 -feet from the source.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 9. Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City of Rancho Mirage and project Applicant shall ensure compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and its associated Implementing Agreement and the City shall ensure the collection of payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee.

The proposed project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The environmental impacts will not lead to a cumulatively significant impact on any of the issues analyzed herein.

City of Rancho Mirage 98
4-124

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
c) No Impact:

The proposed project would not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

City of Rancho Mirage 99
4-125

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Table 13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Respons
A A ency le
Timing
Verification
(Date and
Initials)

AESTHETICS
No Mitigation was required.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
No Mitigation was required.

AIR QUALITY
No Mitigation was required.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 1. Prior to Project construction activities, a complete and recent inventory of rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species located within the Project footprint and within offsite areas with the potential to be affected, including California Species of Special Concern (CSSC) and California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511), will be completed by the project Applicant and a qualified biologist.

Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (CEQA Guidelines § 15380). The inventory should address seasonal variations in use of the Project area and should not be limited to resident species. Focused species -specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable are required. Acceptable species specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where necessary.

Project Developer
Qualified Biologist
City of Rancho
Mirage
Prior to
commencement of
Construction
Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 2. In the event there is a delay in the project's construction (i.e. pauses in construction activities such as utility extensions and stormwater improvements) the Applicant shall retain the service of a qualified biologist to reassess biological resources resulting from an extended timeline for the project activities. Wildlife may move into disturbed or graded sites when construction is paused. These preconstruction surveys for biological resources will need to be repeated prior to project activities and after pauses in construction to assess the presence of biological resources and to avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant.

Project Developer
Qualified Biologist
City of Rancho
Mirage
Prior to
commencement of
Construction
City of Rancho Mirage
100
4-126

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 3. Prior to Project construction activities, a thorough, recent, floristic -based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, following CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (see
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/ Plants) shall be performed by a qualified biologist. Should any state -listed plant species be present in the Project area, the Project proponent shall obtain appropriate CESA authorization for those species prior to the start of Project activities. Should other special -status plants or natural communities be present in the Project area, on -site or off -site habitat restoration (whichever is applicable) and/or enhancement and preservation should be evaluated and discussed in detail. Where habitat preservation is not available on -site, off -site land acquisition, management, and preservation should be evaluated.

Project Developer
Qualified Biologist
City of Rancho
Mirage
Prior to
commencement of
Construction
Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 4. Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the project Applicant shall oversee the preparation and submittal to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for review and approval, a plan to salvage sand -dependent Project Developer
CVMSHCP Covered Species within the Project area. The plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist experienced in surveying for and Qualified Biologist
Prior to
commencement of
handling sand -dependent Covered Species. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the species -specific salvage methods and timing for each sand -dependent Covered Species identified within the Project site and the location(s) where each species will be translocated. Only qualified biologist(s) with appropriate state and federal permits to handle special -status species shall carry out salvage activities.

City of Rancho
Mirage
Construction
Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 5. Very limited suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version) prior to vegetation removal or ground - disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, monitoring, relocation, minimization, and/or mitigation actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measures if avoidance is proposed. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat Project Developer
or burrow cannot be avoided, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also describe minimization and relocation actions that will be implemented.

Qualified Biologist
Prior to
commencement of
Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only City of Rancho
Construction
be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to result in take. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls. The Mirage
Project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval. Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project -related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare City of Rancho Mirage
101
4-127

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 6. Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal or ground -disturbing activities. Pre -construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the pre -construction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results. Construction activities may not occur inside the established buffers, which shall remain on site until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.

Project Developer
Qualified Avian
Biologist
City of Rancho
Mirage
Prior to
commencement of
Construction
Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 7. During all Project construction activities, the project applicant and construction contractors shall restrict use of generators except for temporary use in emergencies. The project applicant and construction contractors shall ensure the use of noise suppression devices such as mufflers or enclosures for generators. Sounds generated from any means must be below the 55-60 dB range within 50 -feet from the source.

Project Developer
City of Rancho
Mirage
ect's
Do the Pr phase
connstructi ng on phase
Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 8. During Project construction and operation, the project applicant and construction contractors shall eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active. The City shall ensure that lighting for Project activities is shielded, cast downward, and does not spill over onto other properties or upward into the night sky. The City and project Applicant shall ensure use of LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less.

Project Developer
City of Rancho
Mirage
During the Project's
construction phase
Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 9. Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City of Rancho Mirage and project applicant shall ensure compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and its associated Implementing Agreement and the City shall ensure the collection of payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee.

Project Developer
Coachella Valley
Conservation
Commission
City of Rancho
Mirage
Prior to
commencement of
Construction

CULTURAL RESOURCES
No Mitigation was required.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
No Mitigation was required.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
No Mitigation was required.

City of Rancho Mirage
102
4-128

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No Mitigation was required.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
No Mitigation was required.

LAND USE AND PLANNING
No Mitigation was required.

MINERAL RESOURCES
No Mitigation was required.

NOISE
No Mitigation was required.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
No Mitigation was required.

PUBLIC SERVICES
No Mitigation was required.

RECREATION
No Mitigation was required.

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
No Mitigation was required.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 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 plan in consultation with the project Applicant, City of Rancho Mirage, and the appropriate Native American Tribes. The presence of an archaeologist shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's standards during any ground disturbing activities.

Project Developer
Cultural Monitor
City of Rancho
Mirage
Prior to
commencement of
Construction
Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 2. During any ground disturbing activities (including any archaeological testing and surveys) the presence of an approved Agua Caliente or Cahuilla Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) is required. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor shall 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.

Project Developer
Cultural Monitor
City of Rancho
Mirage
Prior to
commencement of
Construction

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
No Mitigation was required.

Wildfire
City of Rancho Mirage
103
4-129

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
No Mitigation was required.

City of Rancho Mirage 104
4-130

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
CHAPTER 3: REFERENCES
The references that were consulted have been identified using footnotes.

CHAPTER 4: APPENDICES (UNDER A SEPARATE COVER)
Appendix A — Air Quality Report
Appendix B — Biological Study
Appendix C — Cultural Study
Appendix D — Energy Worksheets
Appendix E — Hydrology Study
Appendix F — Geotechnical Study
Appendix G — Roadway Construction Noise Model
Appendix H — Tribal Consultation Letters
CHAPTER 5: REPORT PREPARERS
Lead Agency
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, California 92270
Subconsultants
Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning
2211 S. Hacienda Boulevard, Suite 107
Hacienda Heights, California 91745
(626) 336-0033
Marc Blodgett, Project Principal
Raymond Wen, Project Manager & GIS Technician
City of Rancho Mirage 105
4-131

17 Lot Subdivision • TTM 38041
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2024
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

City of Rancho Mirage 106
4-132

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
RNCH 004 Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
1 / 76
4-133

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.12. Paving (2026) - Mitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.14. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy
2/76
4-134

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
3/76
4-135

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
4/76
4-136

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023

5.2. Off -Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated
5/76
4-137

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 6/76
4-138

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off -Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration
7/76
4-139

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
8/76
4-140

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field
Value
Project Name
Construction Start Date
Operational Year
Lead Agency
Land Use Scale
Analysis Level for Defaults
Windspeed (m/s)
Precipitation (days)
Location
County
City
Air District
Air Basin
TAZ
EDFZ
Electric Utility
Gas Utility
App Version

1.2. Land Use Types
RNCH 004
1/1/2025
2025
Project/site
County

3.30 0.80

33.79812665174441,-116.39780073267862
Riverside -Salton Sea
Rancho Mirage
South Coast AQMD
Salton Sea
5671
19 Imperial Irrigation District
Southern California Gas
2022.1.1.21
Land Use Subtype
Size
Unit
Lot Acreage
Building Area (sq ft)
Landscape Area (sq
ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population
Description
9/76
4-141

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Single Family
Housing

17.0 Dwelling Unit 5.52
33,150 199,119

1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

55.0 Sector
Measure Title
Construction
Construction
Construction
C-9
C -10-A
C-11

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Use Dust Suppressants
Water Exposed Surfaces
Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads
Un/Mit.

TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Unmit. 1.38 1.16 10.5 13.7 0.02 0.43 0.10 0.53 0.40 0.02 0.42 2,546 2,546 0.10 0.03 0.47 2,558
Mit. 1.38 1.16 10.5 13.7 0.02 0.43 0.10 0.53 0.40 0.02 0.42 2,546 2,546 0.10 0.03 0.47 2,558 0/0
Reduced
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 4.02 10.5 31.7 31.1 0.05 1.37 19.9 21.3 1.26 10.2 11.4 5,516 5,516 0.23 0.05 0.02 5,538 Mit. 4.02 10.5 31.7 31.1 0.05 1.37 7.89 9.26 1.26 3.99 5.25 5,516 5,516 0.23 0.05 0.02 5,538 60% 56% 61% 54%
ova
Reduced
10/76
4-142

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Average
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 1.18 0.99 9.01
Mit. 1.18 0.99 9.01
Reduced
Annual
(Max)
Unmit. 0.21 0.18 1.64
Mit.

Reduced

0.21 0.18

1.64 10.7 0.02

10.7 0.02

1.96 < 0.005

0.37 1.01

1.38 0.34

0.37 0.44 0.82 0.34
56%
41%

0.07 0.18 0.25 0.06

0.07 0.08 0.15
56% 41%

0.06 0.48 0.83

0.20 0.55
59% 34%

0.09 0.15

0.04 0.10
59% 34%
1,974 1,974 0.08
1,974 1,974 0.08
327 327 0.01
327 327

0.01 0.02 0.16

0.02 0.16
< 0.005 0.03
< 0.005 0.03
1,983
1,983
328
328

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
2025
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
TOG
ROG

1.38 1.16
NOx

10.5 2025 4.02 3.38 31.7
2026
Average
Daily
2025
2026
Annual

1.31 10.5

1.18 0.99

0.14 0.69

9.95 9.01

1.04 CO
SO2

13.7 0.02

31.1 0.05

13.3 0.02

10.7 0.02

1.47 < 0.005
PM10E

0.43 PM10D
PM10T

0.10 1.37 19.9

0.38 0.37

0.04 0.20

0.53 PM2.5E

0.40 21.3 1.26

0.52 1.01 1.38

0.02 0.06

0.35 0.34

0.04 PM2.5D
PM2.5T

0.02 0.42

10.2 11.4

0.05 0.37

0.48 0.83
< 0.005 0.04
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
2,546
2,546
CH4

0.10 5,516 5,516 0.23
2,530
2,530
1,974 1,974
256 256

0.10 0.08

0.01 N2O
R

0.03 0.47

0.05 0.02

0.03 0.02

0.02 0.16
< 0.005 0.03
CO2e
2,558
5,538
2,541
1,983
257
11 /76
4-143

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
2025 0.21 0.18 1.64 1.96 < 0.005 0.07 0.18 0.25 0.06 0.09 0.15 327 327 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 328 2026 0.03 0.13 0.19 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 42.3 42.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 42.5

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM1OD
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
R
CO2e
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
2025 1.38 1.16 10.5 13.7 0.02 0.43 0.10 0.53 0.40 0.02 0.42 2,546 2,546 0.10 0.03 0.47 2,558
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
2025 4.02 3.38 31.7 31.1 0.05 1.37 7.89 9.26 1.26 3.99 5.25 5,516 5,516 0.23 0.05 0.02 5,538 2026 1.31 10.5 9.95 13.3 0.02 0.38 0.20 0.52 0.35 0.05 0.37 2,530 2,530 0.10 0.03 0.02 2,541 Average
Daily
2025 1.18 0.99 9.01 10.7 0.02 0.37 0.44 0.82 0.34 0.20 0.55 1,974 1,974 0.08 0.02 0.16 1,983 2026 0.14 0.69 1.04 1.47 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 256 256 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 257 Annual
2025 0.21 0.18 1.64 1.96 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 0.15 0.06 0.04 0.10 327 327 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 328 2026 0.03 0.13 0.19 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 42.3 42.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 42.5

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.

TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM1OD
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
R
CO2e
Daily, -
Summer
(Max)
12/76
4-144

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Unmit. 0.89 1.57 0.99 9.48 0.02 0.03 1.61 1.64 0.03 0.41 0.43 9.73 2,453 2,463 1.08 0.09 7.10 2,524 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 0.66 1.35 1.05 5.64 0.02 0.03 1.61 1.64 0.03 0.41 0.43 9.73 2,221 2,231 1.08 0.10 0.42 2,287 Average
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 0.73 1.41 1.00 6.85 0.02 0.03 1.57 1.60 0.03 0.40 0.42 9.73 2,270 2,280 1.08 0.09 3.14 2,337 Annual
(Max)
Unmit. 0.13 0.26 0.18 1.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 1.61 376 377 0.18 0.02 0.52 387

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
R
CO2e
Mobile 0.78 0.71 0.82 8.45 0.02 0.01 1.61 1.63 0.01 0.41 0.42 2,036 2,036 0.07 0.09 6.86 2,070 Area 0.09 0.85 0.01 0.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.58 2.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.59 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 392 392 0.03 < 0.005 394 Water 1.32 22.5 23.8 0.14 < 0.005 28.3
Waste 8.40 0.00 8.40 0.84 0.00 29.4
Refrig. 0.24 0.24
Total 0.89 1.57 0.99 9.48 0.02 0.03 1.61 1.64 0.03 0.41 0.43 9.73 2,453 2,463 1.08 0.09 7.10 2,524 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Mobile 0.64 0.57

0.90 5.57

0.02 0.01 1.61

1.63 0.01
13/76

0.41 0.42
1,806 1,806 0.07 0.09 0.18 1,835
4-145

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Area
Energy 0.02 0.01 0.15
Water
Waste
Refrig.

Total 0.66 1.35 1.05

0.77 Average
Daily

0.06 < 0.005

5.64 0.02

0.01 0.01

0.03 1.61

0.01 1.64 0.03

0.01 0.41 0.43

1.32 8.40
392 392

22.5 23.8

0.00 8.40

0.03 0.14

0.84 9.73 2,221 2,231 1.08
Mobile 0.67 0.59 0.84 6.31 0.02 0.01 1.57 1.59 0.01 0.07 Area 0.05 0.81 < 0.005 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 1.28 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 392 392 0.03 < 0.005 - Water
Waste
Refrig. 0.24
Total 0.73 1.41 1.00 6.85 0.02 0.03 1.57 1.60 0.03 0.40 0.42 9.73 2,270 2,280 1.08 0.09 3.14 Annual
Mobile 0.12 0.11 0.15 1.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 307 307 0.01 0.01 0.48 312 Area 0.01 0.15 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.21 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 65.0 65.0 0.01 < 0.005 - 65.2 Water 0.22 3.72 3.94 0.02 < 0.005 - 4.68
Waste 1.39 0.00 1.39 0.14 0.00 4.87
Refrig. 0.04 0.04
Total 0.13 0.26 0.18 1.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 1.61 376 377 0.18 0.02 0.52 387 < 0.005 -
< 0.005 -

0.00 0.24

0.10 0.42

0.09 2.90
394

28.3 29.4

0.24 2,287
394

28.3 2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
14/76
PM2.5D
PM2.5T

1.32 22.5 23.8

8.40 0.00
BCO2
NBCO2

0.14 8.40 0.84
CO2T
CH4
< 0.005 -

0.00 N20
R
1,884

29.4 0.24
2,337
CO2e
4-146
1,854 1,854

0.40 0.41

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Mobile 0.78 0.71 0.82 8.45 0.02 0.01 1.61 1.63 0.01 0.41 0.42 2,036 2,036 0.07 0.09 6.86 2,070 Area 0.09 0.85 0.01 0.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.58 2.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.59 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 392 392 0.03 < 0.005 394 Water 1.32 22.5 23.8 0.14 < 0.005 28.3
Waste 8.40 0.00 8.40 0.84 0.00 29.4
Refrig. 0.24 0.24
Total 0.89 1.57 0.99 9.48 0.02 0.03 1.61 1.64 0.03 0.41 0.43 9.73 2,453 2,463 1.08 0.09 7.10 2,524 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Mobile 0.64 0.57 0.90 5.57 0.02 0.01 1.61 1.63 0.01 0.41 0.42 1,806 1,806 0.07 0.09 0.18 1,835 Area 0.77
Energy 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 392 392 0.03 < 0.005 394 Water 1.32 22.5 23.8 0.14 < 0.005 28.3
Waste 8.40 0.00 8.40 0.84 0.00 29.4
Refrig. 0.24 0.24
Total 0.66 1.35 1.05 5.64 0.02 0.03 1.61 1.64 0.03 0.41 0.43 9.73 2,221 2,231 1.08 0.10 0.42 2,287 Average
Daily
Mobile 0.67 0.59 0.84 6.31 0.02 0.01 1.57 1.59 0.01 0.40 0.41 1,854 1,854 0.07 0.09 2.90 1,884 Area 0.05 0.81 < 0.005 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.28 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 392 392 0.03 < 0.005 394 Water 1.32 22.5 23.8 0.14 < 0.005 28.3
Waste 8.40 0.00 8.40 0.84 0.00 29.4
Refrig. 0.24 0.24
Total 0.73 1.41 1.00 6.85 0.02 0.03 1.57 1.60 0.03 0.40 0.42 9.73 2,270 2,280 1.08 0.09 3.14 2,337 15/76
4-147

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Annual
Mobile 0.12 0.11 0.15 1.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 307 307 0.01 0.01 0.48 312 Area 0.01 0.15 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 65.0 65.0 0.01 < 0.005 65.2 Water 0.22 3.72 3.94 0.02 < 0.005 4.68
Waste 1.39 0.00 1.39 0.14 0.00 4.87
Refrig. 0.04 0.04
Total 0.13 0.26 0.18 1.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 1.61 376 377 0.18 0.02 0.52 387

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
TOG
Off -Road 2.86
Equipment
Demolitio
n
Onsite
truck
Average
Daily

0.00 ROG

2.40 0.00
NOx

22.2 0.00
CO

19.9 0.00
SO2

0.03 0.00
PM10E

0.92 0.00
PM10D

0.00 0.00
PM 10T

0.92 0.00

0.00 PM2.5E

0.84 0.00
PM2.5D
PM2.5T

0.00 0.00

0.84 0.00

0.00 BCO2
NBCO2
3,425

0.00 CO2T
3,425

0.00 CH4

0.14 0.00
N2O

0.03 0.00
R

0.00 CO2e
3,437

0.00 16/76
4-148

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Off -Road 0.16 0.13 1.22 1.09 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 - 188 Equipment
Demolitio - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
n
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual -
Off -Road 0.03 0.02 0.22 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 31.2 Equipment
Demolitio - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
n
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 190 190 0.01 0.01 0.02 192 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.84 1.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.86 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17/76
4-149

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023

3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
TOG
ROG
NOx
Co
SO2
PM10E
PM1OD
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Off -Road 2.86 2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.84 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 3,437 Equipment
Demolitio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
n
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
Off -Road 0.16 0.13 1.22 1.09 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 - 188 Equipment
Demolitio - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
n
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual -
Off -Road 0.03 0.02 0.22 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 31.2 Equipment
Demolitio - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
n
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
18/76
4-150

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 190 190 0.01 0.01 0.02 192 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.84 1.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.86 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
TOG
Off -Road 3.94
Equipment
ROG

3.31 NOx

31.6 CO

30.2 S02

0.05 PM10E

1.37 PM1OD
PM1OT

1.37 PM2.5E

1.26 PM2.5D
PM2.5T

1.26 BCO2
NBCO2
5,295
CO2T
5,295
CH4

0.21 N20

0.04 R
CO2e
5,314
19/76
4-151

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Dust 19.7 19.7 10.1 10.1
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average -
Daily
Off -Road 0.11 0.09 0.87 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 - 146 Equipment
Dust 0.54 0.54 0.28 0.28
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual -
Off -Road 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 24.1 Equipment
Dust 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily, -
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 221 221 0.01 0.01 0.02 224 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 / 76
4-152

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.48 6.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.56 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.07 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
Onsite
TOG
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily, -
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 3.94
Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movemen:

ROG
NOx

3.31 31.6
CO
SO2
PM10E

30.2 0.05 1.37
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E

1.37 1.26

7.67 7.67
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e

1.26 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 5,314

3.94 3.94
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average -
Daily
Off -Road 0.11
Equipment

0.09 0.87

0.83 < 0.005 0.04

0.04 0.03
21 /76

0.00 0.00

0.03 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 - 146
4-153

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Dust 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.11
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual
Off -Road 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 24.1 Equipment
Dust 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 221 221 0.01 0.01 0.02 224 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.48 6.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.56 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 1.07 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22 / 76
4-154

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Hauling 0.00

0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
TOG
Off -Road 2.07
Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite
truck
Average
Daily

0.00 Off -Road 0.11
Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite
truck
Annual

0.00 Off -Road 0.02
Equipment
ROG

1.74 0.00

0.10 0.00

0.02 NOx

16.3 0.00

0.89 0.00

0.16 CO

17.9 0.00

0.98 0.00

0.18 SO2

0.03 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
PM10E

0.72 0.00

0.04 0.00

0.01 PM10D

7.08 0.00

0.39 0.00
PM10T

0.72 7.08

0.00 0.04

0.39 0.00

0.01 PM2.5E

0.66 0.00

0.04 0.00

0.01 PM2.5D

3.42 0.00

0.19 0.00
PM2.5T

0.66 3.42

0.00 0.04

0.19 0.00

0.01 BCO2
NBCO2
2,959

0.00 162

0.00 26.8
CO2T
2,959

0.00 162

0.00 26.8
CH4

0.12 0.00

0.01 0.00
< 0.005
N2O

0.02 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
R

0.00 0.00
CO2e
2,970

0.00 163

0.00 26.9
23 / 76
4-155

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Dust
From
Material
Movemen
Onsite
truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Average
Daily
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.07 0.06

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.08

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.81 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.06 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated

0.00 0.00

0.07 0.07

0.00 0.00

0.20 0.20

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.03 0.03

0.00 0.00

0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
Onsite
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
PM10E
PM10D
PM1OT
PM2.5E
24/76
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2

0.00 0.00
190 190

0.00 0.00

11.1 11.1

0.00 0.00

1.84 1.84

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
NBCO2
CO2T

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
CH4

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.02

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 0.02

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
N20
R

0.00 192

0.00 0.00

11.2 0.00

0.00 1.86

0.00 0.00
CO2e
4-156

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 2.07 1.74 16.3 17.9 0.03 0.72 0.72 0.66 0.66 2,959 2,959 0.12 0.02 2,970 Equipment
Dust 2.76 2.76 1.34 1.34
From
Material
Movement
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average -
Daily
Off -Road 0.11 0.10 0.89 0.98 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 - 163 Equipment
Dust 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.07
From
Material
Movement
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual -
Off -Road 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 26.9 Equipment
Dust 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
25 / 76
4-157

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
TOG
Off -Road 1.35
Equipment
Onsite
truck

0.00 ROG

1.13 0.00
NOx

10.4 0.00
CO

13.0 0.00
SO2

0.02 0.00
PM10E

0.43 0.00
PM10D

0.00 PM 10T

0.43 0.00
PM2.5E

0.40 0.00
PM2.5D

0.00 PM2.5T

0.40 0.00
BCO2
NBCO2
2,398

0.00 CO2T
2,398

0.00 CH4

0.10 0.00
N2O

0.02 0.00
R

0.00 CO2e
2,406

0.00 26/76
4-158

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 0.43 0.40 0.40 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 2,406 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
Off -Road 0.77 0.64 5.97 7.45 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.23 1,370 1,370 0.06 0.01 1,375 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual
Off -Road 0.14 0.12 1.09 1.36 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 227 227 0.01 < 0.005 - 228 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 90.9 90.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 92.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 60.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 77.3 77.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 78.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 57.6 57.6 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 59.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
27 / 76
4-159

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 47.2 47.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 47.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 32.9 32.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 34.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.82 7.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.92 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.44 5.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.67 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
TOG
Off -Road 1.35
Equipment
Onsite
truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)

0.00 Off -Road 1.35
Equipment
Onsite
truck
Average
Daily

0.00 Off -Road 0.77
Equipment
ROG

1.13 0.00

0.64 NOx

10.4 0.00

5.97 CO

13.0 0.00

7.45 SO2

0.02 0.00

0.01 PM10E

0.43 0.00

0.25 PM10D

0.00 0.00
PM10T

0.43 0.00

0.25 PM2.5E

0.40 0.00

0.23 PM2.5D

0.00 0.00
PM2.5T

0.40 0.00

0.23 BCO2
NBCO2
2,398

0.00 2,398

0.00 1,370
CO2T
2,398

0.00 2,398

0.00 1,370
CH4

0.10 0.00

0.06 N2O

0.02 0.00

0.01 R

0.00 0.00
CO2e
2,406

0.00 2,406

0.00 1,375
28 / 76
4-160

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
truck
Annual
Off -Road 0.14 0.12 1.09 1.36 < 0.005 0.05
Equipment

0.00 0.00

0.05 0.04 0.04 227 227 0.01 < 0.005 - 228
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 90.9 90.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 92.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 60.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 77.3 77.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 78.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 57.6 57.6 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 59.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 47.2 47.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 47.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 32.9 32.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 34.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.82 7.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.92 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.44 5.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.67 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29 / 76
4-161

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
TOG
ROG
NOx
Co
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Off -Road 1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 0.38 0.35 0.35 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 2,405 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
Off -Road 0.08 0.06 0.60 0.79 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 - 146 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual
Off -Road 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 24.1 24.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 24.2 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
30 / 76
4-162

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Average
Daily

0.03 0.02
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005
Hauling

0.03 0.06

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.31 0.00

0.03 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.02 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.08 0.08

0.02 0.02

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02 0.02
< 0.005 0.01

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

75.7 75.7

56.5 56.5

0.00 0.00

4.91 4.91

3.43 3.43 < 0.005

0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.81 0.81

0.57 0.57

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005 0.01

0.01 < 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 0.01
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

76.7 58.8

0.00 4.97

3.57 0.00

0.82 0.59

0.00 3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
TOG
ROG
Off -Road 1.28
Equipment
Onsite
truck
Average
Daily

1.07 0.00 0.00
NOx

9.85 0.00
CO
SO2

13.0 0.02

0.00 0.00
PM10E

0.38 0.00
PM10D
PM10T

0.38 0.00 0.00
PM2.5E

0.35 0.00
PM2.5D
PM2.5T

0.35 0.00 0.00
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
2,397
2,397

0.00 0.00
CH4

0.10 0.00
N20
R

0.02 0.00 0.00
CO2e
2,405

0.00 31 /76
4-163

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Off -Road 0.08
Equipment
Onsite 0.00
truck
Annual
Off -Road 0.01
Equipment
Onsite 0.00
truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Average
Daily
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.06 0.60 0.79

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.01 0.11 0.14

0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.02 0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 -

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005 -

0.00 0.00

0.03 0.02 0.03 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 0.02
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 3A 1. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
32 / 76

0.02 0.01

0.00 145 145

0.00 0.00

24.1 24.1

0.00 0.00

75.7 56.5

0.00 75.7

56.5 0.00

0.01 < 0.005 -

0.00 0.00
146

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005 -

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.01 0.00

24.2 0.00 0.00

0.01 < 0.005

0.00 76.7

58.8 0.00
< 0.005 4.91 4.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.97
< 0.005 3.43 3.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.57

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005 0.81 0.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.82
< 0.005 0.57 0.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.59

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4-164

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
TOG
ROG.

NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
R
CO2e
Off -Road 0.91 0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.29 0.29 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 1,516 Equipment
Paving 0.00
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
Off -Road 0.05 0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 83.1 Equipment
Paving 0.00
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual
Off -Road 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 13.8 Equipment
Paving 0.00
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
33 / 76
4-165

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.08
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Vendor 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00
Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.75 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.05 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
186 186 < 0.005

0.00 0.00 0.00

10.9 10.9

0.00 0.00

1.80 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

1.80 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.02

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 0.02

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
188

0.00 0.00

11.0 0.00

0.00 1.82

0.00 0.00

3.12. Paving (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
TOG
ROG
Off -Road 0.91
Equipment

0.76 Paving - 0.00
NOx

7.12 CO
S02

9.94 0.01
PM10E

0.32 PM10D
PM10T

0.32 PM2.5E

0.29 PM2.5D
PM2.5T

0.29 BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
1,511
1,511
CH4

0.06 N20
R

0.01 CO2e
1,516
34/76
4-166

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average -
Daily

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Off -Road 0.05 0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 83.1 Equipment
Paving 0.00
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual
Off -Road 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 13.8 Equipment
Paving 0.00
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 186 186 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 188 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 1.80 1.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.82 35 / 76
4-167

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
TOG
ROG
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 0.15
Equipment

0.12 Architect
ural
Coatings
Onsite
truck
Average
Daily

10.4 0.00 0.00
Off -Road 0.01 0.01
Equipment
Architect
ural
Coatings
Onsite
truck

0.57 0.00 0.00
Annual -
Off -Road < 0.005 < 0.005
Equipment
NOx

0.86 0.00

0.05 0.00

0.01 CO
SO2

1.13 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.06 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.01 < 0.005
PM10E

0.02 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
PM1OD
PM10T

0.02 0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
PM2.5E

0.02 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
36 / 76
PM2.5D
PM2.5T

0.02 0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
BCO2

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
NBCO2
CO2T
134 134

0.00 0.00

7.32 7.32

0.00 0.00

1.21 1.21
CH4

0.01 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
N20
R
< 0.005 -

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 -

0.00 0.00
< 0.005 -
CO2e
134

0.00 7.34

0.00 1.22
4-168

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Architect
Coatings

0.10 Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.1 15.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.89 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.90 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
CO2e
Onsite
37 / 76
4-169

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 0.15
Equipment
Architect
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00
truck
Average
Daily

0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02

10.4 0.02 0.02

0.02 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 - 134

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off -Road 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - Equipment
Architect 0.57
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual
Off -Road < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 -
Equipment
Architect 0.10
ural
Coatings
< 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 -
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
38 / 76

0.00 0.00

7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 -

0.00 0.00

7.34 0.00 0.00

1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 -

0.00 0.00

1.22 0.00 0.00
4-170

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.1 15.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.89 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.90 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Single 0.78 0.71 0.82 8.45 0.02 0.01 1.61 1.63 0.01 0.41 0.42 Family
Housing
39 / 76
2,036 2,036 0.07 0.09 6.86 2,070
4-171

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Total 0.78 0.71 0.82 8.45 0.02 0.01 1.61 1.63 0.01 0.41 0.42 2,036 2,036 0.07 0.09 6.86 2,070 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single 0.64 0.57 0.90 5.57 0.02 0.01 1.61 1.63 0.01 0.41 0.42 1,806 1,806 0.07 0.09 0.18 1,835 Family
Housing
Total 0.64 0.57 0.90 5.57 0.02 0.01 1.61 1.63 0.01 0.41 0.42 1,806 1,806 0.07 0.09 0.18 1,835 Annual
Single 0.12 0.11 0.15 1.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 307 307 0.01 0.01 0.48 312 Family
Housing
Total 0.12 0.11 0.15 1.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 307 307 0.01 0.01 0.48 312

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Single 0.78 0.71 0.82 8.45 0.02 0.01 1.61 1.63 0.01 0.41 0.42 Family
Housing
Total 0.78 0.71 0.82 8.45 0.02 0.01 1.61 1.63 0.01 0.41 0.42 2,036 2,036 0.07 0.09 6.86 2,070
2,036 2,036 0.07 0.09 6.86 2,070
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single 0.64 0.57 0.90 5.57 0.02 0.01 1.61 1.63 0.01 0.41 0.42 1,806 1,806 0.07 0.09 0.18 1,835 Family
Housing
Total 0.64 0.57 0.90 5.57 0.02 0.01 1.61 1.63 0.01 0.41 0.42 1,806 1,806 0.07 0.09 0.18 1,835 Annual
40 / 76
4-172

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Single 0.12 0.11 0.15 1.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 307 307 0.01 0.01 0.48 312 Family
Housing
Total 0.12 0.11 0.15 1.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 307 307 0.01 0.01 0.48 312

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM 10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
Total
Annual
Single
Family
Housing
Total

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
41 /76
199 199 0.01 < 0.005 - 199
199 199 0.01 < 0.005 - 199
199 199 0.01 < 0.005 - 199
199 199 0.01 < 0.005 - 199

32.9 32.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 33.0

32.9 32.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 33.0
4-173

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily, —
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
Total
Annual
Single
Family
Housing
Total

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 199 199 0.01 < 0.005 — 199
199 199 0.01 < 0.005 — 199
199 199 0.01 < 0.005 — 199
199 199 0.01 < 0.005 — 199

32.9 32.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.0

32.9 32.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.0
Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM 10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily, —
Summer
(Max)
Single 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01
Family
Housing

0.01 0.01 — 0.01
42/76
194 194 0.02 < 0.005 —
194
4-174

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Total 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 194 194 0.02 < 0.005 - 194 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 194 194 0.02 < 0.005 - 194 Family
Housing
Total 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 194 194 0.02 < 0.005 - 194 Annual
Single < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 32.1 32.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 32.2 Family
Housing
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 32.1 32.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 32.2

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Single 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01
Family
Housing
Total 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01
Family
Housing

0.01 0.01 0.01 194 194 0.02 < 0.005 - 194

0.01 0.01 0.01 194 194 0.02 < 0.005 - 194
Total 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 194 194 0.02 < 0.005 - 194 Annual
43 / 76
4-175

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Single
Family
Housing
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.03 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 -
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 -

32.1 32.1
< 0.005
< 0.005

32.1 32.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 -

32.2 32.2

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
TOG
Consum
er
Products
Architect
ural
Coatings
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.09 ROG
NOx

0.71 0.06

0.09 0.01
CO

0.96 SO2
< 0.005
PM10E
PM10D
< 0.005
Total 0.09 0.85 0.01 0.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 -
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Consum
er
Products
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.71 0.06
Total 0.77
PM 10T
PM2.5E
< 0.005
< 0.005
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
< 0.005
BCO2
NBCO2
< 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 -

2.58 CO2T
CH4

2.58 2.58 2.58
< 0.005
N2O
< 0.005
R
CO2e

2.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 2.59
44/76
4-176

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Annual
Consum - 0.13
er
Products
Architect 0.01
ural
Coatings
Landsca 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.21 pe
Equipme
nt
Total 0.01 0.15 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 -

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

0.21 0.21
< 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.21
Source
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Consum -
er
Products

0.71 Architect 0.06
ural
Coatings
Landsca 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 -
pe
Equipme
nt
< 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 -

2.58 2.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 -

2.59 Total 0.09 0.85 0.01 0.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 2.58 2.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 2.59 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
45 / 76
4-177

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Consum — 0.71
er
Architect 0.06
ural
Coatings
Total 0.77
Annual
Consum — 0.13
er
Products
Architect 0.01
ural
Coatings
Landsca 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.21 pe
Equipme
nt
Total 0.01 0.15 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.21

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM 10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
Total
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

1.32 22.5 23.8 0.14 < 0.005 — 28.3
46 / 76

1.32 22.5 23.8 0.14 < 0.005 — 28.3
4-178

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
Total
Annual
Single
Family
Housing
Total

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

1.32 22.5 23.8 0.14 < 0.005 - 28.3

0.22 3.72 3.94 0.02 < 0.005 - 4.68

0.22 3.72 3.94 0.02 < 0.005 - 4.68
Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
Total
Annual
47 / 76

1.32 22.5 23.8 0.14 < 0.005 - 28.3

1.32 22.5 23.8 0.14 < 0.005 - 28.3
4-179

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Single
Family
Housing

0.22 3.72 3.94 0.02 < 0.005 -

4.68 Total 0.22 3.72 3.94 0.02 < 0.005 - 4.68

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM 10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
Total
Annual
Single
Family
Housing
Total

4.5.2. Mitigated

8.40 0.00 8.40 0.84 0.00

29.4 8.40 0.00 8.40 0.84 0.00 29.4
- 8.40 0.00 8.40 0.84 0.00 29.4
48 / 76

8.40 0.00 8.40 0.84 0.00 29.4

1.39 0.00 1.39 0.14 0.00 4.87

1.39 0.00 1.39 0.14 0.00 4.87
4-180

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM1OD
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
R
CO2e
Daily, -
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
Total
Annual
Single
Family
Housing
Total

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

8.40 0.00 8.40 0.84 0.00

29.4 29.4

29.4 8.40 0.00 8.40 0.84 0.00 29.4

1.39 0.00 1.39 0.14 0.00 4.87

1.39 0.00 1.39 0.14 0.00 4.87
Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM1OD
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
R
CO2e
Daily, -
Summer
(Max)
49 / 76
4-181

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Single
Family
Housing
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
Total
Annual
Single
Family
Housing
Total — —

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) — — — — 0.24 0.24

0.24 0.24

0.24 0.24
— — — 0.24 0.24

0.04 0.04
— — — — 0.04 0.04
Land
Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
Total
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM 10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e

0.24 0.24

0.24 0.24
Daily, — — —
Winter
(Max)
Single — — — — — — 0.24 0.24
Family
Housing
50/76
4-182

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Total
Annual
Single
Family
Housing
— — 0.24 0.24

0.04 0.04
Total

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

0.04 0.04
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM1OE
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
R
CO2e
51 / 76
4-183

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM1OD
PM1OT
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 52 / 76
4-184

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Equipme
Type
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM1OT
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM1OT
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
53/76
4-185

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM1OD
PM1OT
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM1OD
PM1OT
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
54/76
4-186

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Total

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (1b/clay for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM1OD
PM1OT
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and Species
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
- Unmitigated
GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
PM10E
PM1OD
PM1OT
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequest
ered
Subtotal
Remove
d
55 / 76
4-187

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Subtotal —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequest
ered
Subtotal
Remove
d
Subtotal
Annual
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequest
ered
Subtotal
Remove
d
Subtotal

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
56/76
4-188

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (1b/clay for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (1b/clay for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM 10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (1b/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (1b/clay for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species
TOG
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
R
CO2e
57/76
4-189

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequest
ered
Subtotal
Remove
d
Subtotal
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequest
ered
Subtotal
Remove
d
Subtotal
Annual
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequest
ered
Subtotal
58 / 76
4-190

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Remove
d
Subtotal -

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Days Per Week
Work Days per Phase
Phase Description
Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Paving
Architectural Coating
Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Paving
Architectural Coating

5.2. Off -Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
1/1/2025
1/30/2025
2/14/2025
3/15/2025
2/1/2026
3/2/2026
1/29/2025
2/13/2025
3/14/2025
1/31/2026
3/1/2026
3/30/2026

5.00 5.00

20.0 10.0

20.0 230

20.0 20.0
Phase Name
Equipment Type
Fuel Type
Engine Tier
Number per Day
Hours Per Day
Horsepower
Load Factor
Demolition
Demolition
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel
oes
Concrete/Industrial Diesel
Saws
Excavators
Diesel
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average

1.00 3.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00
59 / 76

8.00 8.00

8.00 33.0

36.0 367
367

84.0 0.73

0.38 0.40

0.40 0.37

8.00 36.0 0.38
4-191

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Grading
Grading
Grading
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Paving
Paving
Paving
Architectural Coating
Graders
Rubber Tired Dozers
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Cranes
Forklifts
Generator Sets
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Welders
Pavers
Paving Equipment
Rollers
Air Compressors
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average

1.00 1.00

3.00 1.00

2.00 2.00

2.00 1.00

8.00 8.00

8.00 7.00

8.00 8.00

7.00 8.00

8.00 8.00

8.00 6.00
148
367

84.0 367

82.0 14.0

84.0 46.0

81.0 89.0

36.0 37.0

0.41 0.40

0.37 0.29

0.20 0.74

0.37 0.45

0.42 0.36

0.38 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name
Demolition
Demolition
Demolition
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Grading
Grading
Grading
Grading
Equipment Type
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Excavators
Rubber Tired Dozers
Rubber Tired Dozers
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Excavators
Graders
Rubber Tired Dozers
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Fuel Type
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Engine Tier
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Number per Day

1.00 3.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

3.00 Hours Per Day

8.00 8.00

8.00 Horsepower

33.0 36.0
367
367

84.0 36.0
148
367

84.0 Load Factor

0.73 0.38

0.40 0.40

0.37 0.38

0.41 0.40

0.37 60 / 76
4-192

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Paving
Paving
Paving
Architectural Coating
Cranes
Forklifts
Generator Sets
Tractors/Loa de rs/Backh
oes
Welders
Pavers
Paving Equipment
Rollers
Air Compressors
Diesel
Diesel
Average
Average
Diesel Average
Diesel
Average
Diesel Average
Diesel
Diesel
Average
Average
Diesel Average
Diesel
Average

1.00 7.00

3.00 8.00

1.00 8.00

3.00 7.00

1.00 8.00

2.00 2.00

2.00 8.00

8.00 8.00

1.00 6.00
367

82.0 14.0

84.0 46.0

81.0 89.0

36.0 37.0

0.29 0.20

0.74 0.37

0.45 0.42

0.36 0.38

0.48 5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name
Demolition
Demolition
Demolition
Demolition
Demolition
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Grading
Grading
Grading
Trip Type
Worker
Vendor
One -Way Trips per Day

15.0 Hauling
Onsite truck

0.00 Miles per Trip

18.5 10.2

20.0 Worker 17.5
Vendor
Hauling

0.00 Onsite truck

18.5 10.2

20.0 Worker

15.0 18.5
Vendor

10.2 Vehicle Mix
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT
61 /76
4-193

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Grading
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading
Building Construction
Onsite truck
HHDT
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Worker

6.12 18.5
Vendor
Hauling

1.82 10.2

0.00 20.0
Onsite truck
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
Paving
Paving
Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving
Paving
Paving
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
Vendor

10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Onsite truck HHDT
Worker 1.22

18.5 Vendor
Hauling

0.00 10.2

20.0 Onsite truck
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name
Trip Type
One -Way Trips per Day
Miles per Trip
Vehicle Mix
Demolition
Demolition
Demolition
Demolition
Demolition
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Worker
Vendor

15.0 18.5

10.2 Hauling

0.00 20.0
Onsite truck
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
62/76
4-194

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Site Preparation Vendor 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck HHDT
Grading
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck HHDT
Building Construction
Building Construction Worker 6.12 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 1.82 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck HHDT
Paving
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck HHDT
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating Worker 1.22 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non -applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 63 / 76
4-195

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name
Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non -Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non -Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
67,129
22,376

0.00 0.00
Phase Name
Material Imported (cy)
Material Exported (cy)
Acres Graded (acres)
Material Demolished (sq. ft.)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading
Paving

0.00 0.00

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non -applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving

0.00 0.00

0.00 15.0

20.0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.19
Land Use
Area Paved (acres)
Asphalt
Single Family Housing

0.19 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (Ib/MWh)
0%
Year
kWh per Year
CO2
CH4
N2O
2025
2026

0.00 0.00
457
457
64/76

0.03 0.03
< 0.005
< 0.005
4-196

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type
Trips/Weekday
Trips/Saturday
Trips/Sunday
Trips/Year
VMT/Weekday
VMT/Saturday
VMT/Sunday
VMT/Year
Single Family
Housing

5.9.2. Mitigated
160
162
145
57,875
2,255
2,279
2,043
813,387
Land Use Type
Trips/Weekday
Trips/Saturday
Trips/Sunday
Trips/Year
VMT/Weekday
VMT/Saturday
VMT/Sunday
VMT/Year
Single Family
Housing
160
162

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
145
57,875
2,255
2,279
2,043
813,387
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non -Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non -Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
67128.75

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
22,376

0.00 0.00
Season
Unit
Value
Snow Days
day/yr
65/76

0.00 4-197

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Summer Days

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
day/yr
180
Season
Unit
Value
Snow Days
Summer Days

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N20 and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) day/yr
day/yr

0.00 180
Land Use
Electricity (kWh/yr)
CO2
CH4
N20
Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Single Family Housing 158,767

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N20 and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) 457

0.0330

0.0040
604,593
Land Use
Electricity (kWh/yr)
CO2
CH4
N20
Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Single Family Housing
158,767
457

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

0.0330

0.0040
604,593
Land Use
Indoor Water (gal/year)
Outdoor Water (gal/year)
Single Family Housing

5.12.2. Mitigated
691,454
66/76
4,566,944
4-198

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Land Use
Indoor Water (gal/year)
Outdoor Water (gal/year)
Single Family Housing

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
691,454
4,566,944
Land Use
Waste (ton/year)
Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing

5.13.2. Mitigated

15.6 Land Use
Waste (ton/year)
Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing

15.6 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type
Equipment Type
Refrigerant
GWP
Quantity (kg)
Operations Leak Rate
Service Leak Rate
Times Serviced
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing

5.14.2. Mitigated
Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R -410A
Household refrigerators R -134a
and/or freezers
2,088
1,430
< 0.005

0.12 2.50

0.60 2.50

0.00 10.0

1.00 Land Use Type
Equipment Type
Refrigerant
GWP
Quantity (kg)
Operations Leak Rate
Service Leak Rate
Times Serviced
Single Family Housing
Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R -410A
2,088
< 0.005
67 / 76

2.50 2.50

10.0 4-199

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators R -134a 1,430 and/or freezers

5.15. Operational Off -Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

0.12 0.60

0.00 1.00
Equipment Type
Fuel Type
Engine Tier
Number per Day
Hours Per Day
Horsepower
Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type
Fuel Type
Engine Tier
Number per Day
Hours Per Day
Horsepower
Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type
Fuel Type
Number per Day
Hours per Day
Hours per Year
Horsepower
Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type
Fuel Type
Number
Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)
Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)
Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type
Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
68/76
4-200

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Vegetation Land Use Type
Vegetation Soil Type
Initial Acres
Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type
Vegetation Soil Type
Initial Acres
Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type
Initial Acres
Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type
Initial Acres
Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type
Number
Electricity Saved (kWh/year)
Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type
Number
Electricity Saved (kWh/year)
Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal -Adapt midcentury 2040-2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100. 69 / 76
4-201

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Climate Hazard
Result for Project Location
Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat
Extreme Precipitation
Sea Level Rise
Wildfire

23.4 0.00

0.00 annual days of extreme heat
annual days with precipitation above 20 mm
meters of inundation depth
annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal -Adapt, 2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about 3/4 an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal -Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal -Adapt (2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIR005). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard
Exposure Score
Sensitivity Score
Adaptive Capacity Score
Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat
Extreme Precipitation
Sea Level Rise
Wildfire
Flooding
Drought
Snowpack Reduction
Air Quality Degradation
1 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0 N/A
N/A
0 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0 N/A
N/A
0 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A N/A

N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 70 / 76
4-202

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard
Exposure Score
Sensitivity Score
Adaptive Capacity Score
Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat
Extreme Precipitation
Sea Level Rise
Wildfire
Flooding
Drought
Snowpack Reduction
Air Quality Degradation
1 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 N/A
N/A
1 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 N/A
N/A
1 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 N/A
N/A
2 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2 N/A
N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator
Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators
AQ-Ozone
AQ-PM
AQ-DPM
Drinking Water
Lead Risk Housing

88.7 7.34

43.4 45.4

1.31 71 /76
4-203

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 3.08
Traffic 64.6
Effect Indicators
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 43.3
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population
Asthma
Cardio-vascular
Low Birth Weights
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators
Education
Housing
Linguistic
Poverty
Unemployment

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

20.9 16.5

20.3 25.9

86.8 7.38

21.5 4.23
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator
Economic
Above Poverty
Employed
Median HI
Result for Project Census Tract

47.56833055

15.56525087

74.56691903
72 / 76
4-204

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Education
Bachelor's or higher 65.96945977
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 48.45374054
Transportation
Auto Access 37.4566919
Active commuting 25.81804183
Social
2 -parent households 97.56191454
Voting 86.88566662
Neighborhood
Alcohol availability 82.80508148
Park access 2.194276915
Retail density 35.17259079
Supermarket access 45.92583087
Tree canopy 17.8108559
Housing
Homeownership 83.62633132
Housing habitability 22.35339407
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 25.38175286 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 6.274862056
Uncrowded housing 70.21686129
Health Outcomes
Insured adults 97.45925831
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 80.6
High Blood Pressure 0.0
73 / 76
4-205

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 94.6
Cognitively Disabled 39.7
Physically Disabled 49.3
Heart Attack ER Admissions 64.0
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 79.8
Elderly 0.9
English Speaking 70.5
Foreign -born 10.7
Outdoor Workers 98.2
74/76
4-206

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity
Impervious Surface Cover
Traffic Density
Traffic Access
Other Indices
Hardship
Other Decision Support
2016 Voting

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

47.2 47.5

23.0 34.9

92.5 Metric
Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Project Located in a Low -Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)

7.00 56.0
No
No
No
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
75 / 76
4-207

RNCH 004 Detailed Report, 12/13/2023
Screen
Justification
Operations: Hearths
76/76
4-208

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

RANCHO MIRAGE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
(Township 4 South, Range 6 East, Section 30)
(TTM 38041)
Prepared for:

Fomotor Engineering
Prepared by:

RCA Associates, Inc.
15555 Main Street, #D4-235
Hesperia, California 92345
(760) 596-0017
Principal Investigators:

Ryan Hunter, Senior Environmental Scientist/Biologist
Brian Bunyi, Environmental Scientist/Wildlife Biologist 4RCAL
))) «<-

ASSOCIATCS,INC
Project: #2023-53 BA
April 26, 2023
4-209

TITLE PAGE
Date Report Written: April 26, 2023
Date Field Work Completed: April 10, 2023
Report Title: General Biological Resources Assessment
Project Location: Rancho Mirage, California
APN: 685-030-006, 685-080-010 & 685-080-031
TTM: 38041
Prepared for: Fomotor Engineering
Principal Investigators: Ryan Hunter, Senior Environmental Scientist/Biologist Brian Bunyi, Environmental Scientist/Wildlife Biologist Contact Information:

Randall C. Arnold, Jr.

RCA Associates, Inc.
15555 Main Street, #D4-235
Hesperia, California 92345
(760) 596-0017
[email protected]
www.rcaassociatesllc.com
Ryan D. Hunter
RCA Associates, Inc.
15555 Main Street, #D4-235
Hesperia, CA 92345
(760) 998-9165
[email protected]
www.rcaassociatesllc.com
4-210

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2

3.0 METHODOLOGIES 4

4.0 LITERATURE SEARCH 5

5.0 RESULTS 8

5.1 General Biological Resources 8

5.2 Federal and State Listed Species 9

5.3 Species of Special Concern 9

5.4 Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitat 10

5.5 Protected Plants 10

6.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 11

6.1 General Biological Resources 11

6.2 Federal and State Listed and Species of Special Concern 11

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS 12

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 13
CERTIFICATION 15
Appendix A — Tables and Figures

REGULATORY CONTEXT

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Biological surveys were conducted on an 8.4 -acre parcel (Approximate), located at east of the intersection of Via Josefma and Victory Dr. in the City of Rancho Mirage, California (Township 4 South, Range 6 East, Section 30, USGS Cathedral City, California Quadrangle, 1956) (Figures 1 and 2). The property is located in an area zoned for very low density usage (RL-2) in Rancho Mirage, California.

As part of the environmental process, California Depaitment of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) data sources were reviewed. Following the data review, surveys were performed on the site on April 10, 2023, during which the biological resources on the site and in the surrounding areas were documented by biologists from RCA Associates, Inc.

As part of the surveys, the property and adjoining areas were evaluated for the presence of native habitats which may support populations of sensitive wildlife species. The property was also evaluated for the presence of sensitive habitats including wetlands, vernal pools, riparian habitats, and jurisdictional areas.

Habitat assessments were also conducted for the desert tortoise and burrowing owl. Based on data from USFWS, CDFW, and a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, 2023).

Scientific nomenclature for this report is based on the following references: Hickman (1993), Munz (1974), Stebbins (2003), Sibley (2016) and Whitaker (1980).

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
APRIL 2023
4-212

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The property is approximately 8.4 -acres and is located at located at east of the intersection of Via Josefma and Victory Dr. in the City of Rancho Mirage, California (APN: 685-030-006, 685-080- 010 & 685-080-031). The site is located in Section 30, Township 4 South, Range 6 East (USGS Cathedral City, CA 7.5 -minute quadrangle) (Figures 1 and 2). Vacant land surrounds the property in the south and west, while a community of homes lines the northern and eastern border of the property.

The relatively flat site is approximately 83 meters above sea level and contains no slope. The vegetation community present on site supports a sparse desert dune habitat encompassing mainly smaller native plants and some non-native grasses. The site contains a few species of plant which include the creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), hairy sand verbena (Abronia villosa var. villosa), Desert palafox (Palafoxia arida), whitestem blazingstar (Mentzelia albicaulis), Flatspine burr ragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), Dyebush (Psorothamnus emoryi) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Section 5.0 provides a more detailed discussion of the various plant species observed during the surveys.

The site supports a minimal amount of wildlife, with many of them being birds. A single mammalian species was seen on site, the blacktailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus). Species that were not observed, but are expected to occur on site given their abundance in the surrounding areas include California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and antelope ground squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus).

Birds observed included house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), common ravens (Corvus corax), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), rock pigeon (Columba livia), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Say's phoebe (Sayornis saya) and Verdin (Auriparusflaviceps). Section 5.0 provides a more detailed discussion of the various species observed during the surveys.

No reptiles were observed during the field investigation, due to the temperature and time of day which may have been a factor in their absence. Species that are expected to occur on site include the western whiptail lizard (Cnemidophorus tigris) and common side -blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana). Table 2 provides a compendium of wildlife species.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 2 APRIL 2023
4-213

There were no observations that indicated that a potential channel is present on the site. It is the opinion of RCA Associates, Inc. that no additional surveys will be required at this time.

In addition, no sensitive habitats (e.g., sensitive species, critical habitats, etc.) have been documented in the immediate area according to the CNDDB (2023) and none were observed during the field investigations.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
3 APRIL 2023
4-214

3.0 METHODOLOGIES
General biological surveys were conducted on April 10, 2023, during which biologists from RCA Associates, Inc. initially walked meandering transects throughout the property. During the surveys, data was collected on the plant and animal species present on the site. All plants and animals detected during the surveys were recorded and are provided in Tables 1 & 2 (Appendix A). The property was also evaluated for the presence of habitats which might support sensitive species. Scientific nomenclature for this report is based on the following references: Hickman (1993), Munz (1974), Stebbins (2003), Sibley (2016) and Whitaker (1980). Following completion of the initial reconnaissance survey, habitat assessments were conducted for the desert tortoise and burrowing owl. Weather conditions consisted of wind speeds of 0 to 5 mph, temperatures in the low to mid 80's (°F) (AM), and 15% cloud cover. The applicable methodologies are summarized below.

General Plant and Animal Surveys: Meandering transects were walked on the site and in surrounding areas (i.e., the zone of influence) where accessible at a pace that allowed for careful documentation of the plant and animal species present on the site. All plants observed were identified in the field or sampled and brought back for further identification. Wildlife was identified through visual observations and/or by vocalizations. Habitat assessments were conducted for the desert tortoise and burrowing owl. Tables 1 and 2 (Appendix A) provides a comprehensive compendium of the various plant and animal; species observed during the field investigations.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
4 APRIL 2023
4-215

4.0 LITERATURE SEARCH
As part of the environmental process, a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search was performed. Based on this review, it was determined that sixteen special status species have been documented within the Cathedral City quad of the property. The following tables provide data on each special status species which has been documented in the area.

Table 4-1: Federal and State Listed Species and State Species of Special Concern.

E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SSC = Species of special concern; CNPS = California Native Plant Society; CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Data Base
NAME
STATUS

HABITAT

REQUIREMENTS

PRESENCE/

ABSENCE ON PROPERTY
Plant Species
Within Cathedral City Quadrangle
Chaparral sand -verbena
(Abronia villosa var. aurita)
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: 1B.1
Desert Scrub
The site does support suitable habitat
for the species; however none were
observed during field surveys.

Horn's milk -vetch
(Diplacus mohavensis)
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: 1B.1
Alkali Sink, wetland -riparian
Site does not support minimum
suitable habitat for the species; and no
species were observed during the field
survey.

Coachella Valley milk -vetch
(Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae)
Federal: Endangered
State: None
CNPS: 1B.2
Creosote Bush Scrub
The site does support minimum
suitable habitat for the species;
however none were observed during
field surveys.

Arizona spurge
(Euphorbia arizonica)
Federal: None
State: None
CLAPS: 2B.3
Desert Habitat with compact
soils
The site does not support minimum
suitable habitat for the species; and
none were observed during field
surveys.

Flat -seeded spurge
(Euphorbia platysperma)
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: 1B.2
Creosote Bush Scrub
The site does not support minimum
suitable habitat for the species; and
none were observed during field
surveys.

Slender cottonheads
(Nemacaulis denudata var.
gracilis)
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: 2B.2
Dunes and sandy areas
The site does support minimum
suitable habitat for the species;
however none were observed during
field surveys.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
5 APRIL 2023
4-216

Desert spike -moss
Federal: None
Rocky and sandy slopes, in
The site does not support minimum
(Selaginella eremophila)
State: None
open rock or crevices, on rock
suitable habitat for the species; and
CNPS: 2B.2
or terrestrial.
none were observed during field
surveys.

Purple stemodia
Federal: None
wetland -riparian
The site does not support minimum
(Stemodia durantifolia)
State: None
CNPS: 2B.1
suitable habitat for the species; and
none were observed during field
surveys.

Notes:

Status abbreviations:

CNPS List 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere CNPS List 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CNPS List 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common somewhere else CNPS List 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common somewhere else
CNPS List 3: Plants about which more information is needed - a review list CNPS List 4: Plants of limited distribution - a watch list .1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/ high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2 Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened/ moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
.3 Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/ low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)
NAME
STATUS

HABITAT

REQUIREMENTS

PRESENCE/

ABSENCE ON PROPERTY
Wildlife Species
Within Cathedral City Quadrangle
Western yellow bat (Lasiurus
xanthinus)
Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Riparian woodland
The site does not support minimum
suitable habitat for the species; and
none were observed during field
surveys.

Burrowing owl (Athene
cunicularia)
Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Grasslands and desert habitats
The site does not support minimal
suitable habitat for the species and no
owls or owl sign, or suitable burrows,
were observed during field surveys.

Casey's June beetle
(Dinacoma caseyi)
Federal: Endangered
State: None
Alluvial habitat
The site does not support minimum
suitable habitat for the species; and
none were observed during field
surveys.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
6 APRIL 2023
4-217

Flat -tailed horned lizard
(Phrynosoma mcallii)
Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Sandy desert hardpan or
gravel flats
The site does not support minimum
suitable habitat for the species; and
none were observed during field
surveys.

Le Conte's thrasher (Toxostoma
lecontei)
Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Desert scrub
The site does not support minimum
suitable habitat for the species; and
none were observed during field
surveys.

Coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica
californica)
Federal: Threatened
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Coastal sage scrub
The site does not support minimum
suitable habitat for the species; and
none were observed during field
surveys.

Coachella Valley fringe -toed
lizard
(Uma inornate)
Federal: Threatened
State: Endangered
Sandy desert habitat
The site does support minimum
suitable habitat for the species;
However, none were observed during
field surveys.

Palm Springs round -tailed
ground squirrel
(Xerospermophilus tereticaudus
chlorus)
Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Desert succulent shrub, desert
wash, desert scrub, alkali
desert scrub, and levees in
cropland habitat.

The site does not support minimum
suitable habitat for the species; and
none were observed during field
surveys.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
7 APRIL 2023
4-218

5.0 RESULTS

5.1 General Biological Resources
The site supports a desert scrub community which sparsely covers the property (Figure 3). Species present on the site included Tamarisk (Tamarix), creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), desert twin bugs (Dicoria canescens), Puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris) and kelch grass (Schismus barbatus).

Table 1 provides a compendium of all plants occurring on the site and/or in the immediate surrounding area.

Birds observed included Says phoebe (Sayornis saya), white throated swift (Aeronautes saxatalis), ravens (Corvus corax), rock pigeon (Columba livia), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern mocking bird (Mimus polyglottos) and house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus). Table 2 provides a complete compendium of wildlife species occurring on site or in the surroundin g area
Only a single mammal was observed, the black tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) was seen during the April 2023 survey. The Antelope Ground squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus) and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) were not observed during the field investigation, we can assume they are in the area due to current conditions and population distributions. Other wildlife species that may occur on site include desert cottontails (Sylvilagus audubonii) and California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi), and Merriam's kangaroo rats (Dipodomys merriami) may also occur on the site given their wide -spread distribution in the region. Tables 1 and 2 (Appendix A) provides a compendium of the various plant and animal species identified during the field investigations and those common to the area. No distinct wildlife corridors were identified on the site or in the immediate area.

No reptiles were observed on site during the April 2023 field investigations. However, some reptiles that may inhabit the site include the Western Whiptail Lizard (Cnemidophorus tigris) and Side -blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana).

No sensitive habitats (e.g., wetlands, vernal pools, critical habitats for sensitive species, etc.) were observed on the site during the field investigations.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 8 APRIL 2023
4-219

The following are the listed and special status species that have the ability to occur on the project site. It is not a comprehensive list of all the species in the quad. This information has been taken from the California Natural Diversity Database and is using the most current version.

5.2 Federal and State Listed Species
Desert Tortoise: The property supports no suitable habitat for the desert tortoise based on the location of the site in a developed area of Rancho Mirage. No tortoises were observed anywhere within the property boundaries during the April 2023 surveys. In addition, Rancho Mirage falls outside the standard range of the Desert Tortoise. The protocol survey results are valid for one year as per CDFW and USFWS requirements.

5.3 Species of Special Concern
Burrowing Owl: The site is located within documented burrowing owl habitat according to CNDDB (2023). No owls were seen on the property during the survey, and minimal suitable habitat was observed. Burrowing owls are not expected to occur on the site due to lack of suitable vegetation and burrows.

Sensitive Plants: There are four plant species of special concern, these species are the Flat -seeded spurge, Coachella Valley milk -vetch, Horn's milk -vetch and Chaparral sand -verbena. There is marginal suitable habitat for three of the four species being the Flat -seeded spurge, Coachella Valley milk -vetch and Chaparral sand -verbena. These species occur in desert scrub or creosote bush scrub habitats. The horn's milk -vetch occurs in wetland/riparian habitats which are not present on site. Even with some marginally suitable habitat, none of the four plant species of special concern were observed on site and are not expected to occur on site in the future.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 9 APRIL 2023
4-220

5.4 Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitat
No riparian vegetation (e.g., cottonwoods, willows, etc.) exist on the site. No potential channels were observed on the property and it is the opinion of RCA Associates that no further surveys will be necessary.

5.5 Protected Plants
As of September 22, 2020, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife temporarily listed the western Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) as an endangered species until a final decision is made in 2023. Joshua trees were not observed on site during the April 10, 2023 field investigations.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 10 APRIL 20-
4-221

6.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

6.1 General Biological Resources
Future development of the site will impact the general biological resources present on site, because most if not all of the vegetation will be removed during future construction activities. The site is expected to support very few wildlife species which will be impacted by development activities.

Those species with limited mobility (i e , small mammals and reptiles) will experience increases in mortality during the construction phase. However, more mobile species (i.e., birds, large mammals) will be displaced into adjacent areas and will likely experience minimal impacts.

Therefore, loss of about 8.4 -acres of a relatively disturbed desert scrub habitat is not expected to have a significant cumulative impact on the overall biological resources in the region given the presence of similar habitat throughout the surrounding area. No sensitive habitats (e.g., wetlands, vernal pools, critical habitats for sensitive species, etc.) were observed on the site during the field investigations.

6.2 Federal and State Listed and Species of Special Concern No federal or State -listed species were observed on the site during the field investigations which include the desert tortoise. In addition, there are no documented observations of these species either on the site or in the immediate area. The site is not expected to support populations of the desert tortoise based on the absence of habitat, suitable burrows, or signs.

The Western Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), a candidate threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), was not observed on site. Refer to section 5.5 for more information on the status and requirements on this species.

A pre -construction burrowing owl survey may be required by CDFW to determine if any owls have moved on to the site since the April 10, 2023 surveys. As stated in CDFW's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, the most effective method of completing a pre -construction survey (take avoidance survey) should be performed within 14 days of ground disturbance, followed by a final pre -construction survey within 48 hours of breaking ground.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 11 APRIL 2023
4-222

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Future development activities include the grading and removal of all vegetation from the 8.4 -acre parcel; however, cumulative impacts to the general biological resources (plants and animals) in the surrounding area are expected to be negligible. This assumption is based on the habitat containing scarce vegetation of non-native species. As discussed above, the site does not support any desert tortoises or burrowing owls due to the lack of suitable habitat and potential burrows.

Joshua trees (a state candidate species) were not observed in the field investigations during April 2023 survey. The following mitigation measures should be considered:

1. Pre -construction surveys for burrowing owls, desert tortoise, and nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code shall be conducted prior to the commencement of Project -related ground disturbance. a. Appropriate survey methods and timeframes shall be established, to ensure that chances of detecting the target species are maximized. In the event that listed species, such as the desert tortoise, are encountered, authorization from the USFWS and CDFW must be obtained. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance measures shall be implemented to ensure that nests are not disturbed until after young have fledged.
b. Pre -construction surveys shall encompass all areas within the potential footprint of disturbance for the project, as well as a reasonable buffer around these areas.

2. A focused plant survey should be considered for all special status plant species that have the potential to occur on the site to be performed during the blooming season (April - June) to determine the potential environmental effects of the proposed projects on special status plants and sensitive natural communities following recommended protocols by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

If any sensitive species are observed on the property during future activities, CDFW and USFWS (as applicable) should be contacted to discuss specific mitigation measures which may be required for the individual species. CDFW and USFWS are the only agencies which can grant authorization for the "take" of any sensitive species and can approve the implementation of any applicable mitigation measures.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 12 APRIL 2023
4-223

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baldwin, Bruce G, et. al.
2002. The Jepson Desert Manual. Vascular Plants of Southeastern California.

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Bureau of Land Management
January 2005. Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement for the West Mojave Plan. Vol. 1A.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium
1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines.

California Department of Fish and Game
1990. California Wildlife: Volume 1 (Amphibians and Reptiles), Volume II (Birds), and Volume III (Mammals).

California Depaitment of Fish and Game
2014. Rarefind 3 Natural Diversity Database. Habitat and Data Analysis Branch.

Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game
March 7, 2013. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 34 pp.

California Native Plant Society
2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA x + 388 pp.

Ehrlich, P., Dobkin., Wheye, D.

Birder's Handbook. A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds.

Simon & Schuster Building Rockefeller Center 1230 Avenue of the Americas. New York, New York 10020.

Hickman, James C.

The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California. University of California Press.

Berkeley, CA. 3rd Edition. 1996.

Jaeger, Edmund C.
1969. Desert Wild Flowers. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 321 pp.

Kays, R. W. & Wilson, D. E.

Mammals of North America. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 2002.

Munz, Philip A.
1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1086 pp.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 13 APRIL 2023
4-224

Sibley, David Allen.

Sibley Birds West: Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. Knopf. 2016 Stebbins, Robert C.

A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company. 2003.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2010 Desert Tortoise Survey Protocol.

Whitaker, John 0.

The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred A Knopf, Inc. 1980.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 14 APRIL 2023
4-225

CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits, presents the data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Fieldwork conducted for this assessment was performed by Ryan Hunter and Brian Bunyi. I certify that I have not signed a non -disclosure or consultant confidentiality agreement with the project applicant or applicant's representative and that I have no financial interest in the project.

Date: 04/26/2023
Signed: c beer
g't4i t EG, av
Field Work Performed By: Ryan Hunter
Senior Environmental Scientist/Biologist
Field Work Performed By: Brian Bunyi
Environmental Scientist/Wildlife Biologist
GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 15 APRIL 2023
4-226

Appendix A
Tables and Figures
4-227

Source:

A
Figure 1: Regional Exhibit
Produced By: RCA Associates Inc.

East of the Intersection of Via
Josefina and Victory Dr. in the
City of Rancho Mirage, CA.

Legend
Project Boundary
lionnnla
Dun
Bermuda DunesDunes
Uinta Software
Acreage:

8.4 -Acres
(Approximately)
Project #:
2023-53
kRCA
>» <<<
ASSOCIATES.INC

` • • •
•
• •
r ' F ,
�G ip
Legend
Project Boundary
a
t _
Y `III 1R
'"'-'-
inafi Shore Ir I! -
y
si ! s Dinah Sfiore'Dr_ Dinah Dinah Shope i�
Shore Dr ,
Dina 'Stsrsre Dr Dinah"Shore Dr - M
•9
y■
, ►„ I ii
•`[i • • •'
, _ __ =J
,tar
—
kg
r r , . `. s
U .... �r
afM if 1 !�,�jyl
rjari lir is
01 iw :vii
~�+� � �. •L' • �
�� •. • ••
_-_ -

.
9r�
_

_ m -
_ 1 ,,,
.l r
r- ,y
.0 le1�
1 li� •
R • ... •
o, y r '. . ,' a• ,• I
•
i

• ih, '1
V
r:-. V
p1 *1
"r aw
* •
• .'
- _ iii _.
•
•
•
••, .• , vb
_ 'x t
Figure 2: Vicinity Exhibit
Produced By: RCA Associates Inc.

East of the Intersection of Via
Josefina and Victory Dr. in the

City of Rancho Mirage, CA.

Source: Uinta Software
RCA'

ASSOCIATES INC
Acreage: 8.4 -Acres
(Approximately)
Project#: 2023-53

Table 1 - Plants observed on the site and known to occur in the immediate surrounding area.

Common Name
Scientific Name
Location
Asian mustard
Brassica tournefortii
On Site and in the surrounding area.

Creosote bush
Larrea tridentata
"
Cheatgrass
Bromus tectorum
"
Tamarisk
Tamarix
"
Hairy sand verbena
Abronia villosa var. villosa
"
Nettle leaf goosefoot
Chenopodiastrum murale
"
Desert twin bugs
Dicoria canescens
"
London rocket
Sisymbrium irio
"
Birdcage evening primrose
Oenothera deltoides
"
Puncture vine
Tribulus terrestris
"
Tumbleweed
Kali tragus var. tragus
"
Fourwing saltbush
Atriplex canescens
"
Flatspine bur ragweed
Ambrosia acanthicarpa
"
Western tansymustard
Descurainia pinnata
"
Desert palafox
Palafoxia arida
"
Kelch grass
Schismus barbatus
"
Note: The above list is not intended to be a comprehensive list of every plant which may occur on the site or in the zone of influence.
4-232

Table 2 - Wildlife observed on the site during the field investigations.

Common Name
Scientific Name
Location
Common raven
Corvus corax
On -site and in the surrounding area.

House finch
Carpodacus mexicanus
"
Rock pigeon
Columba livia
"
House sparrow
Passer domesticus
"
Mourning Dove
Zenaida macroura
"
Cooper's hawk
Accipiter cooperii
"
White throated swift
Aeronautes saxatalis
"
Say's Phoebe
Sayornis saya
"
Verdin
Auriparus flaviceps
"
Northern mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
"
Note: The above Table is not a comprehensive list of every animal species which may occur in the area, but is a list of those common species which were identified on the site or which have been observed in the region by biologists from RCA Associates, Inc.
4-233

REGULATORY CONTEXT
The following provides a summary of federal and state regulatory jurisdiction over biological and wetland resources. Although most of these regulations do not directly apply to the site, given the general lack of sensitive resources, they provide important background information.

Federal Endangered Species Act
The USFWS has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of any fish or wildlife species that is federally listed as threatened or endangered without prior approval pursuant to either Section 7 or Section 10 of the ESA. ESA defines "take" as "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." Federal regulation 50CFR17.3 defines the term "harass" as an intentional or negligent act that creates the likelihood of injuring wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50CFR17.3).

Furthermore, federal regulation 50CFR17.3 defines "harm" as an act that either kills or injures a listed species. By definition, "harm" includes habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures a listed species by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns such as breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering (50CFR217.12).

Section10(a) of the ESA establishes a process for obtaining an incidental take permit that authorizes non federal entities to incidentally take federally listed wildlife or fish. Incidental take is defined by ESA as take that is "incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of another wise lawful activity." Preparation of a habitat conservation plan, generally referred to as an HCP, is required for all Section 10(a) permit applications. The USFWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) have joint authority under the ESA for administering the incidental take program. NOAA Fisheries Service has jurisdiction over anadromous fish species and USFWS has jurisdiction over all other fish and wildlife species.

Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed under the ESA, 4-234

or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its habitat. Federal agencies are also required to minimize impacts to all listed species resulting from their actions, including issuance or permits or funding. Section 7 requires consideration of the indirect effects of a project, effects on federally listed plants, and effects on critical habitat (ESA requires that the USFWS identify critical habitat to the maximum extent that it is prudent and determinable when a species is listed as threatened or endangered). This consultation results in a Biological Opinion prepared by the USFWS stating whether implementation of the HCP will result in jeopardy to any HCP Covered Species or will adversely modify critical habitat and the measures necessary to avoid or minimize effects to listed species.

Although federally listed animals are legally protected from harm no matter where they occur, section 9 of the ESA provides protection for endangered plants by prohibiting the malicious destruction on federal land and other "take" that violates State law. Protection for plants not living on federal lands is provided by the California Endangered Species Act.

California Endangered Species Act
CDFW has jurisdiction over species listed as threatened or endangered under Section 2080 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. Section 2080 prohibits the take of a species listed by CDFW as threatened or endangered. The state definition of take is similar to the federal definition, except that Section 2080 does not prohibit indirect harm to listed species by way of habitat modification.

To qualify as take under the state ESA, an action must have direct, demonstrable detrimental effect on individuals of the species. Impacts on habitat that may ultimately result in effects on individuals are not considered take under the state ESA but can be considered take under the federal ESA.

Proponents of a project affecting a state -listed species must consult with CDFW and enter into a management agreement and take permit under Section 2081. The state ESA consultation process is similar to the federal process. California ESA does not require preparation of a state biological assessment; the federal biological assessment and the CEQA analysis or any other relevant information can provide the basis for consultation. California ESA requires that CDFW coordinate consultation for joint federally listed and state -listed species to the extent possible; generally, the state opinion for the listed species is brief and references provisions under the federal opinion. 4-235

Clean Water Act, Section 404
The COE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulate the placement of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States" under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the United States include lakes, rivers, streams, and their tributaries, and wetlands. Wetlands are defined for regulatory purposes as "areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 328.3, 40 CFR 230.3).

The COE may issue either individual permits on a case -by -case basis or general permits on a program level. General permits are pre -authorized and are issued to cover similar activities that are expected to cause only minimal adverse environmental effects. Nationwide permits (NWP's) are general permits issued to cover particular fill activities. All NWP's have general conditions that must be met for the permits to apply to a particular project, as well as specific conditions that apply to each NWP.

Clean Water Act, Section 401
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires water quality certification and authorization of placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands and Other Waters of the United States. In accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, criteria for allowable discharges into surface waters have been developed by the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality. As such, proponents of any new project which may impair water quality as a result of the project are required to create a post construction stormwater management plan to ensure offsite water quality is not degraded. The resulting requirements are used as criteria in granting National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits or waivers, which are obtained through the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Any activity or facility that will discharge waste (such as soils from construction) into surface waters, or from which waste may be discharged, must obtain an NPDES permit or waiver from the RWQCB. The RWQCB evaluates an NPDES permit application to determine whether the proposed discharge is consistent with the adopted water quality objectives of the basin plan. 4-236

California Fish and Wildlife Code, Sections 1600-1616
Under the California Fish and Wildlife Code, Sections 1600-1616 CDFW regulates projects that divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.

Proponents of such projects must notify CDFW and enter into a streambed alteration agreement with them.

Section 1602 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code requires a state or local government agency, public utility, or private entity to notify CDFW before it begins a construction project that will: (1) divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or the bed, bank, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; (2) use materials from a streambed; or (3) result in the disposal or deposition of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into any river, stream, or lake. Once the notification is filed and determined to be complete, CDFW issues a streambed alteration agreement that contains conditions for construction and operations of the proposed project.

California Fish and Wildlife Code, Section 3503.5
Under the California Fish and Wildlife Code, Section 3503.5, it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes (hawks, eagles, and falcons) or Strigiformes (owls).

Take would include the disturbance of an active nest resulting in the abandonment or loss of young.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, or their eggs and nests. As used in the MBTA, the term "take" is defined as "to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, kill, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, unless the context otherwise requires." Most bird species native to North America are covered by this act.

Sensitive Natural Communities
The California Office of Planning and Research and the Office of Permit Assistance (1986) define project effects that substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants, or that disrupt or 4-237

divide the physical arrangement of an established community as significant impacts under CEQA.

This definition applies to certain natural communities because of their scarcity and ecological values and because the remaining occurrences are vulnerable to elimination. For this study, the term "sensitive natural community" includes those communities that, if eliminated or substantially degraded, would sustain a significant adverse impact as defined under CEQA. Sensitive natural communities are important ecologically because their degradation and destruction could threaten populations of dependent plant and wildlife species and significantly reduce the regional distribution and viability of the community. If the number and extent of sensitive natural communities continue to diminish, the status of rare, threatened, or endangered species could become more precarious, and populations of common species (i.e., not special status species) could become less viable. Loss of sensitive natural communities also can eliminate or reduce important ecosystem functions, such as water filtration by wetlands and bank stabilization by riparian woodlands for example.

Protected Plants
The California Desert Native Plant Act was passed in 1981 to protect non -listed California desert native plants from unlawful harvesting on both public and privately -owned lands. Harvest, transport, sale, or possession of specific native desert plants is prohibited unless a person has a valid permit. The following plants are under the protection of the California Desert Native Plants Act:
• Dalea spinosa (smoketree)
• All species of the genus Prosopis (mesquites)
• All species of the family Agavaceae (century plants, nolinas, yuccas) • All species of Cactus
• Creosote Rings, ten feet in diameter or greater
• All Joshua Trees
The project would be required to comply with the County of San Bernardino Desert Native Plant Protection Ordinance. The removal of any trees listed under Section 88.01.060 would be required to comply with Section 88.01.050, which requires the project applicant to apply for a Tree or Plant Removal Permit prior to removal from the project site.
4-238

HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 38041
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 685-030-006, 685-080-010, and a Portion of 685-080-031 City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California
For Submittal to:

Development Services Department, Planning Division
City of Rancho Mirage
69825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Prepared for:

Philip Fomotor, P.E., P.L.S.

Fomotor Engineering
225 South Civic Drive, Suite I-5
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Prepared by:

CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite AB
Colton, CA 92324
Bai "Tom" Tang, Principal Investigator
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator
March 14, 2023
CRM TECH Contract No. 3946
4-239

Title:

Author(s):

Consulting Firm:

Date:

For Submittal to:

Prepared for:

Project Size:

USGS Quadrangle:

Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Tentative Tract Map No. 38041, Assessor's Parcel Nos. 685-030-006, 685-080-010, and a Portion of 685-080-031, City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California Daniel Ballester, Archaeologist/Field Director

CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-6400
March 14, 2023
Development Services Department, Planning Division
City of Rancho Mirage
69825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
(760) 328-2266
Philip Fomotor, P.E., P.L.S.

Fomotor Engineering
225 South Civic Drive, Suite I-5
Palm Springs, CA 92262

6.6 acres
Cathedral City, Calif., 7.5' quadrangle (Section 30, T4S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian)
Keywords: Coachella Valley, western Colorado Desert; no "historical resources" under CEQA
4-240

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Between September 2022 and March 2023, at the request of Fomotor Engineering, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on 6.6 acres of vacant desert land on the northern edge of the City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California. The subject property of the study, Tentative Tract Map No. 38041, encompasses what are currently Assessor's Parcel Nos. 685-030-006, 685-080-010, and a portion of 685-080- 031, located on the west side of Key Largo Avenue between Via Vail and Ginger Rogers Road, in the northwest quarter of Section 30, T4S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian.

The study is part of the environmental review process for a proposed subdivision of the property for residential development. The City of Rancho Mirage, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any "historical resources," as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project area.

In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH initiated a historical/archaeological resources records search and a Native American Sacred Lands File search, contacted local Native American representatives, pursued historical background research, and carried out an intensive -level field survey. Throughout the various avenues of research, this study encountered no "historical resources" within or adjacent to the project area.

Therefore, CRM TECH recommends to the City of Rancho Mirage a conclusion that the proposed project will have No Impact on any "historical resources." No further cultural resources investigation is recommended for the project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study.

However, if buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth -moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the fords. i
4-241

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION 1
SETTING 4
Current Natural Setting 4
Cultural Setting 5
Prehistoric Context 5
Ethnohistoric Context 5
Historic Context 7
RESEARCH METHODS 8
Records Search 8
Native American Participation 8
Historical Background Research 8
Field Survey 8
RESULTS AND FINDINGS 9
Records Search 9
Native American Participation 9
Historical Background Research 9
Field Survey 12
DISCUSSION 12
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13
REFERENCES 13
APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications 15
APPENDIX 2: Native American Responses 18

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity 1
Figure 2. Project area 2
Figure 3. Recent satellite image of the project area 3
Figure 4. Overview of the project area 4
Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies 10
Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856 11 Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1901 11
Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941 11
Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1951-1958 11 ii
4-242

INTRODUCTION
Between September 2022 and March 2023, at the request of Fomotor Engineering, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on 6.6 acres of vacant desert land on the northern edge of the City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The subject property of the study, Tentative Tract Map No. 38041, encompasses what are currently Assessor's Parcel Nos. 685-030- 006, 685-080-010, and a portion of 685-080-031, located on the west side of Key Largo Avenue between Via Vail and Ginger Rogers Road, in the northwest quarter of Section 30, T4S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Figs. 2, 3).

The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any "historical resources," as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project area.

In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH initiated a historical/archaeological resources records search and a Native American Sacred Lands File search, contacted local Native American representatives, pursued historical background research, and carried out an intensive -level field survey. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of the study. Personnel who participated in the study are named in the appropriate sections below, and their qualifications are provided in Appendix 1.

SO(
0 L,arnet
t._ 4
I' Cathgdr
A4'20
-r - 1 117,
J
ch
SCALE 1:250,000
10 miles
Figure 1. Project vicinity (based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 120'x60' quadrangle [USGS 1979]). 1 4-243

SCALE 1:24,000
1/2
�-1
1000 2000 3000 4000 feet 4
Figure 2. Project area (based on USGS Cathedral City, Calif., 7.5' quadrangles [USGS 1981]). 2 4-244

Figure 3. Recent satellite image of the project area.
3 4-245

SETTING

CURRENT NATURAL SETTING
The City of Rancho Mirage is located in the Coachella Valley, a northwest -southeast trending desert valley that constitutes the western end of the Colorado Desert. Dictated by this geographic setting, the climate and environment of the region are typical of the southern California desert country, marked by extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the region reach over 120 degrees Fahrenheit in summer, and dip to near freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is less than five inches, and the average annual evaporation rate exceeds three feet.

The irregularly shaped project area lies on the generally level and sandy desert floor between the San Jacinto Mountains to the southwest and the Indio Hills to the northeast. The adjacent land features a residential neighborhood to the west, a Unitarian Universalist Church to the north, a dog park and undeveloped land to the east, and another vacant property to the south (Fig. 3). Elevations in the project area range roughly from 310 feet to 320 feet above mean sea level, with the terrain sloping gently downward to the northeast.

Vegetation in the vicinity consists mainly of creosote bushes and brittlebush with occasional examples of small grasses and brush. The surface soil is characterized by the lightly undulating, somewhat compact sand dunes (Fig. 4). Sources of the disturbance in the past includes the activities associated with construction and paving of Key Largo Avenue, construction of a block wall along the northern boundary, and a dirt road that was used in the southern portion of the project area.

Figure 4. Overview of the project area (view to the north; photograph taken on November 1, 2022). 4 4-246

CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
Numerous investigations on the history of cultural development in southern California have led researchers to propose a number of cultural chronologies for the desert regions. A specific cultural sequence for the Colorado Desert was offered by Schaefer (1994) on the basis of the many archaeological studies conducted in the area. The earliest time period identified is the Paleoindian (ca. 8,000 to 10,000-12,000 years ago), when "small, mobile bands" of hunters and gatherers, who relied on a variety of small and large game animals as well as wild plants for subsistence, roamed the region (ibid.:63). These small groups settled "on mesas and terraces overlooking larger washes" (ibid.:64). The artifact assemblage of that period typically consists of very simple stone tools, "cleared circles, rock rings, [and] some geoglyph types" (ibid.).

The Early Archaic Period follows and dates to ca. 8,000 to 4,000 years ago. It appears that a decrease in population density occurred at this time and that the indigenous groups of the area relied more on foraging than hunting. Very few archaeological remains have been identified to this time period. The ensuing Late Archaic Period (ca. 4,000 to 1,500 years ago) is characterized by continued low population densities and groups of "flexible" sizes that settled near available seasonal food resources and relied on "opportunistic" hunting of game animals. Groundstone artifacts for food processing were prominent during this time period.

The most recent period in Schaefer's scheme, the Late Prehistoric, dates from ca. 1,500 years ago to the time of the Spanish missions, and saw the continuation of the seasonal settlement pattern.

Peoples of the Late Prehistoric Period were associated with the Patayan cultural pattern and relied more heavily on the availability of seasonal "wild plants and animal resources" (Schaefer 1994:66).

It was during this period that ceramics and the bow/arrow were introduced into the region.

The shores of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, during times of its presence, attracted much settlement and resource procurement activities. In times of the lake's desiccation and absence, according to Schaefer (1994:66), the Native people moved away from its receding shores towards rivers, streams, and mountains. Numerous archaeological sites dating to the last high stand of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, roughly between 1600 and 1700 A.D., have been identified along its former shoreline.

Testing and mitigative excavations at these sites have recovered brown and buff ware ceramics, a variety of groundstone and projectile point types, ornaments, and cremation remains.

Ethnohistoric Context
The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where U.S. surveyors noted large numbers of Indian villages and rancherias, occupied by the Cahuilla people, in the mid - 19th century. The origin of the name "Cahuilla" is unclear, but may originate from their own word kawiya, meaning master or boss (Bean 1978). The Takic-speaking Cahuilla are generally divided by anthropologists into three groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla of the San Gorgonio Pass -Palm Springs area, the Mountain Cahuilla of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla of the eastern Coachella Valley. The 5 4-247

basic written sources on Cahuilla culture and history include Kroeber (1925), Strong (1929), and Bean (1978), based on information provided by such Cahuilla informants as Juan Siva, Francisco Patencio, Katherine Siva Saubel, and Mariano Saubel. The following ethnohistoric discussion is based primarily on these sources.

The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead, membership was in terms of lineages or clans. Each lineage or clan belonged to one of two main divisions of the people, known as moieties. Their moieties were named for the Wildcat, or Tuktum, and Coyote, or Istam. Members of clans in one moiety had to marry into clans from the other moiety. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called their own, for purposes of hunting game, and gathering raw materials for food, medicine, ritual, or tool use. They interacted with other clans through trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies.

Cahuilla subsistence was defined by the surrounding landscape and primarily based on the hunting and gathering of wild and cultivated foods, exploiting nearly all of the resources available in a highly developed seasonal mobility system. They were adapted to the arid conditions of the desert floor, the lacustral cycles of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, and the environments of the nearby mountains.

When the lake was full, or nearly full, the Cahuilla would take advantage of the resources presented by the body of fresh water, building elaborate stone fish traps. Once the lake had desiccated, they relied on the available terrestrial resources. The cooler temperatures and resources available at higher elevations in the nearby mountains were also taken advantage of.

The Cahuilla diet included seeds, roots, wild fruits and berries, acorns, wild onions, pifion nuts, and mesquite and screw beans. Medicinal plants such as creosote, California sagebrush, yerba buena and elderberry were typically cultivated near villages (Bean and Saubel 1972). Common game animals included deer, antelope, big horn sheep, rabbits, wood rats and, when Holocene Lake Cahuilla was present, fish and waterfowl. The Cahuilla hunted with throwing sticks, clubs, nets, traps, and snares, as well as bows and arrow (Bean 1978; CSRI 2002). Common tools included manos and metates, mortars and pestles, hammerstones, fire drills, awls, arrow -straighteners, and stone knives and scrapers. These lithic tools were made from locally sourced material as well as materials procured through trade or travel. They also used wood, horn, and bone spoons and stirrers; baskets for winnowing, leaching, grinding, transporting, parching, storing, and cooking; and pottery vessels for carrying water, storage, cooking, and serving food and drink (ibid.).

As the landscape defined their subsistence practices, the tending and cultivation practices of the Cahuilla helped shape the landscape. Biological studies have recently found evidence that the fan palms found in the Coachella Valley and throughout the southeastern California desert (Washingtonia filifera) may not be relics from a paleo-tropical environment, but instead a relatively recent addition brought to the area and cultivated by native populations (Anderson 2005). The planting of palms by the Cahuilla is well -documented, as is their enhancement of palm stands through the practice of controlled burning (ibid.; Bean and Saubel 1972). Burning palm stands would increase fruit yield dramatically by eliminating pests such as the palm borer beetle, date scales, and spider mites (Bean and Saubel 1972). It also prevented out -of -control wildfires by eliminating dead undergrowth before it accumulated to dangerous levels. The Cahuilla also burned stands of chia to produce higher yields, and deergrass to yield straighter, more abundant stalks for basketry (ibid.; Anderson 2005).
6 4-248

Population data prior to European contact is almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from 3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons covering a territory of over 2,400 square miles. During the 19th century, the Cahuilla population was decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Pass or Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more of the Indian reservations in and near the Coachella Valley, including Agua Caliente, Morongo, Cabazon, Torres Martinez, and Augustine.

There has been a resurgence of traditional ceremonies in recent years, and the language, songs, and stories are now being taught to the youngest generations.

Historic Context
In 1823-1825, Jose Romero, Jose Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco became the first noted European explorers to travel through the Coachella Valley when they led a series of expeditions in search of a route to Yuma (Johnston 1987:92-95). Due to its harsh environment, few non -Indians ventured into the desert valley during the Mexican and early American periods, except those who traveled along the established trails. The most important of these trails was the Cocomaricopa Trail, an ancient Indian trading route that was "discovered" in 1862 by William David Bradshaw and known after that as the Bradshaw Trail (Gunther 1984:71; Ross 1992:25). In much of the Coachella Valley, this historic wagon road traversed a similar course to that of present-day State Route 111.

During the 1860s -1870s, the Bradshaw Trail served as the main thoroughfare between coastal southern California and the Colorado River, until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1876-1877 brought an end to its heyday (Johnston 1987:185).

Non -Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1870s with the establishment of railroad stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad, and spread further in the 1880s after public land was opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws (Laflin 1998:35-36; Robinson 1948:169-171). Farming became the dominant economic activity in the valley thanks to the development of underground water sources, often in the form of artesian wells. Around the turn of the century, the date palm was introduced into the Coachella Valley, and by the late 1910s dates were the main agricultural crop and the tree an iconic image celebrating the region as the "Arabia of America" (Shields Date Gardens 1957). Then, starting in the 1920s, a new industry featuring equestrian camps, resorts, hotels, and eventually country clubs began to spread throughout the Coachella Valley, transforming it into southern California's premier winter retreat.

In the Rancho Mirage area, the first notable settlement activities occurred in the 1910s -1920s, when several date ranches were established in the present-day city boundary (Love and Tang 1996:7). In 1924, R.P. "Bert" Davie and E.E. McIntyre subdivided the Rancho Rio del Sol Estates around today's Clancy Lane, creating a small community nicknamed "Little Santa Monica" (ibid.:8). Ten years later, Louis Blankenhorn and Laurence Macomber began a new subdivision at the mouth of Magnesia Spring Canyon, and for the first time bestowed the name Rancho Mirage on the community (ibid.). After the end of WWII, Rancho Mirage embarked on a period of rapid growth.

With the development of the Thunderbird Country Club and the Tamarisk Country Club in 1951- 1952, Rancho Mirage set the trend in the post -WWII boom among the five cove communities along Highway 111 (ibid.:8-9). This trend has continued into the present and has given rise to the City of Rancho Mirage's popular reputation as the "country club city." 7 4-249

RESEARCH METHODS

RECORDS SEARCH
The historical/archaeological resources records search was completed by the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside, on October 26, 2022. During the records search, EIC administrative/coordinator assistant Eulices Lopez examined maps and records on file for previously identified cultural resources and existing cultural resources reports within a one -mile radius of the project location. Previously identified cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, or Riverside County Historic Landmarks, as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources Inventory.

NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
On September 22, 2022, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission's Sacred Lands File. The NAHC is the State of California's trustee agency for the protection of "tribal cultural resources," as defined by California Public Resources Code §21074, and is tasked with identifying and cataloging properties of Native American cultural value throughout the state. In the meantime, CRM TECH notified the nearby Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the upcoming archaeological field survey and invited tribal participation. The responses from the NAHC and the Agua Caliente Band are summarized below and attached to this report in Appendix 2.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH field director Daniel Ballester. Sources consulted during the research included published literature in local and regional history, U.S. General Land Office (GLO) land survey plat maps dated 1856, U.S. General Land Office (GLO) topographic maps dated 1904-1981, and aerial/satellite images taken between 1972 and 2021. The historical maps are accessible at the websites of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the USGS, and the aerial/satellite images are available at the Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) Online website and through the Google Earth software.

FIELD SURVEY
On November 1, 2022, Daniel Ballester carried out the field survey of the project area with the assistance of Nicole Raslich, archaeological technician with the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. The survey was conducted at an intensive level by walking a series of parallel north -south transects at 15 -meter (approximately 50 -foot) intervals. In this way, the entire project area was systematically and carefully examined for any evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic period (i.e., 50 years or older). Ground visibility was excellent (95 to 100 percent) as the vegetation growth of the property was generally sparse, although a small portion of the project area was obscured by large creosote bushes. In this environment, however, shifting sands are more likely to contribute to obscured cultural remains than is vegetation. 8 4-250

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

RECORDS SEARCH
According to EIC records, the project area had not been surveyed for cultural resources prior to this study (Fig. 5), and no cultural resources had been recorded on or adjacent to the property. Within the one -mile scope of the records search, EIC records show at least 34 previous studies on various tracts of land and linear features, which collectively covered roughly 40 percent of the land within the scope of the records search (Fig. 5). As a result of these and other studies in the vicinity, five prehistoric sites, seven historic -period sites, and five isolates—i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts— have been identified within the one -mile radius.

NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
In response to CRM TECH's inquiry, the NAHC reported in a letter dated November 3, 2022, that the Sacred Lands File search did not identify any Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity. Noting that the absence of specific 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 potential contacts in the region. The NAHC's reply, including the referral list, is attached in Appendix 2 for reference by the City of Rancho Mirage in future government -to -government consultations with the pertinent Native American representatives, if necessary.

As mentioned above, Nicole Raslich from the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office participated in the archaeological field survey of the project area following CRM TECH's outreach effort. In a letter dated October 6, 2022, Ms. Raslich identified the project location as a part of the tribe's Traditional Use Area. She requested copies of all cultural resource documentation generated for the project for tribal review as well as the presence of archaeological and Native American monitors during ground -disturbing activities in the project area.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Historical sources consulted during this study yielded no evidence of any settlement or development activities in the project area throughout the historic period (Figs. 6-9; NETR Online 1972). In the surrounding area, the earliest such activities evidently took place in the early post -WWII period, when a number of scattered buildings appeared across much of Section 30 and along newly constructed roads (Fig. 9). Archival records indicate that these buildings were the results of a wave of five -acre homestead claims on public land under the provisions of the Small Tract Act of 1938, a 9 4-251

Scope of
records
search

GUA CALIE
24 IAN RESE
•
p
TE\
1122
7004 6854—>
9151
10299_
0 a
0 35329,
L
Y
0 h
ham
306
FIOAG
'Water
1029` 4, 0
rdfjt' - J'
7720
10550 �\,\ 4547
10551
L4w2-2-,-110-2\48 4547
:4117
' - 7304
' • • 30
•••••• •

7.7 31
77>
• I
'9874
r-
7756�
9016
C�tl
T
Project area
Areas previously
surveyed
Linear surveys
SCALE 1:24,000
1000 0 1000 2000 feet
Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies in the vicinity of the project area, listed by EIC file number. Locations of known historical/archaeological resources are not shown as a protective measure. 10 4-252

A 7 (-2e
. t�Ji`�.
c74J
(J//(/
„ a U
T4S R5E
>bx
..

Serf io -
Project
area
I

1.4J/r/.

Y, f of
�9so
/f4 7 I A'/..
,fmn
0 2000 4000 feet

H H H I
r CV,O
•�y r
17Qc �1w.

No map coverage
Project
area
Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856 Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1901 (source:
(source: GLO 1856a; 1856b).

Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941 (source:

USGS 1941).

Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1951-1958
(source: USGS 1958).

SCALE 1:62,500
1 mile
USGS 1904).
ti
SCALE 1:24,000
0 1000 2000 feet
W s E.er'
Et aTri.
•
11 4-253

practice that was widespread in the southern California desert region at the time (BLM n.d.).

However, none of these so-called "jackrabbit homesteads" were found within the project area itself, which has remained vacant, undeveloped, and apparently unused to the present time despite accelerated growth in the surrounding area since the 1980s (Fig. 2; NETR Online 1972-2018; Google Earth 1985-2021).

FIELD SURVEY
The intensive -level field survey of the project area produced negative results for potential "historical resources," and no buildings, structures, objects, site, or artifact deposits dating to the prehistoric or historic period were encountered throughout the course of the survey.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources within the project area and to assist the City of Rancho Mirage in determining whether such resources meet the official definition of "historical resources," as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in particular CEQA.

According to PRC §5020.1(j), 'historical resource' includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California." More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term "historical resources" applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the lead agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). Regarding the proper criteria for the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that "generally a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be `historically significant' if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources" (Title 14 CCR § 15064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c))
In summary of the research results presented above, no potential "historical resources" were previously recorded within the project area, and none were found during the present survey. In addition, the Native American input did not identify any sites of traditional cultural value nearby, and 110 notable cultural features were known to be present in the project area throughout the historic period. Based on these findings, and in light of the significance criteria listed above, the present report concludes that no "historical resources" exist within the project area. 12 4-254

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CEQA establishes that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a "historical resource" is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (PRC §21084.1). "Substantial adverse change," according to PRC §5020.1(q), "means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired." As stated above, this study has concluded that no "historical resources," as defined by CEQA, are present within the project area. Accordingly, CRM TECH presents the following recommendations to the City of Rancho Mirage:
• The proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known "historical resources.
• No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. • If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth -moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.

REFERENCES
Anderson, M. Kat
2005 Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California's Natural Resources. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:

California; pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell John, and Katherine Siva Saubel
1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior) n.d. The Official Federal Land Records Site. http://www.glorecords.blm.gov .

CSRI (Cultural Systems Research, Inc.)
2002 The Native Americans of Joshua Tree National Park: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment Study. Http:// www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/jotr/history6.htm .

GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1856a Plat map: Township No. 4 South Range No. 5 East, SBBM; surveyed in 1855-1856. 1856b Plat map: Township No. 4 South Range No. 6 East, SBBM; surveyed in 1855-1856.

Google Earth
1985-2021 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1985, 1996, 2002, 2004-2006, 2009, 2011-2013, 2015-2019, and 2021. Available through the Google Earth software.

Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. J.D.

Gunther, Riverside.

Johnston, Francis J.
1987 The Bradshaw Trail; revised edition. Historical Commission Press, Riverside. 13 4-255

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Laflin, Patricia
1998 Coachella Valley California: A Pictorial History. The Donning Company, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Love, Bruce, and Bai "Tom" Tang
1996 Cultural Resources Report: Rancho Mirage General Plan, City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California. On File, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research) Online
1972-2018 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1972, 1984, 1996, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020. http://www.historicaerials.com .

Robinson, W.W.
1948 Land in California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Ross, Delmer G.
1992 Gold Road to La Paz: An Interpretive Guide to the Bradshaw Trail. Tales of the Mojave Road Publishing Company, Essex, California.

Schaefer, Jerry
1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent Approaches and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16(1):60-80.

Shields Date Gardens
1957 Coachella Valley Desert Trails and the Romance and Sex Life of the Date. Shields Date Gardens, Indio.

Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 26.

USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1904 Map: Indio, Calif (30', 1:125,000); surveyed in 1901. 1941 Map: Edom, Calif. (15', 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941. 1958 Map: Thousand Palms, Calif (15', 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1951-1956, field -checked in 1958.
1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (120'x60', 1:250,000); 1959 edition revised. 1981 Map: Cathedral City, Calif. (7.5', 1:24,000); 1958 edition photorevised in 1978. 14 4-256

APPENDIX 1:

PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/HISTORIAN
Bai "Tom" Tang, M.A.

Education
1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, University of California, Riverside.
1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Xi'an, China. 2000 "Introduction to Section 106 Review," presented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno.
1994 "Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites," presented by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno.

Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1993-2002 Project Historian/Architectural Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California. 1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. 1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, University of California, Riverside. 1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, University of California, Riverside. 1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Xi'an Foreign Languages Institute, Xi'an, China.

Cultural Resources Management Reports
Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California's Cultural Resources Inventory System (with Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990.

Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit, Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991. 15 4-257

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ARCHAEOLOGIST
Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA (Registered Professional Archaeologist) Education
1991
1981
1980-1981
Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside; with honors.

Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru.
2002 "Section 106 —National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local Level," UCLA Extension Course #888.
2002 "Recognizing Historic Artifacts," workshop presented by Richard Norwood, Historical Archaeologist.
2002 "Wending Your Way through the Regulatory Maze," symposium presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals.
1992 "Southern California Ceramics Workshop," presented by Jerry Schaefer. 1992 "Historic Artifact Workshop," presented by Anne Duffield -Stoll.

Professional Experience
2002-
1999-2002
1996-1998
1992-1998
1992-1995
1993-1994
1991-1992
1984-1998
Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California.

Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside, California.

Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands, California.

Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside.

Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside.

Adjunct Professor, Riverside Community College, Mt. San Jacinto College, U.C.

Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardino Valley College.

Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside.

Project Director, Field Director, Crew Chief, and Archaeological Technician for various southern California cultural resources management firms.

Research Interests
Cultural Resource Management, Southern Californian Archaeology, Settlement and Exchange Patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change, Native American Culture, Cultural Diversity.

Cultural Resources Management Reports
Principal investigator for, author or co-author of, and contributor to numerous cultural resources management study reports since 1986.

Memberships
Society for American Archaeology; Society for California Archaeology; Pacific Coast Archaeological Society; Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. 16 4-258

PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/FIELD DIRECTOR
Daniel Ballester, M.S., RPA (Registered Professional Archaeologist) Education
2013 M.S., Geographic Information System (GIS), University of Redlands, California. 1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino. 1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California, Riverside.
1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. 2007 Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), California State University, San Bernardino.
2002 "Historic Archaeology Workshop," presented by Richard Norwood, Base Archaeologist, Edwards Air Force Base; presented at CRM TECH, Riverside, California.

Professional Experience
2002- Field Director/GIS Specialist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 2011-2012 GIS Specialist for Caltrans District 8 Project, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California.
2009-2010 Field Crew Chief, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California. 2009-2010 Field Crew, ECorp, Redlands.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California. 1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California. 1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.

Cultural Resources Management Reports
Field Director, co-author, and contributor to numerous cultural management reports since 2002. 17 4-259

APPENDIX 2

NATIVE AMERICAN RESPONSES
18 AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUIIIA INDIANS

TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION
October 06, 2022
[VIA EMAIL TO:[email protected]]

CRM TECH
Ms. Nina Gallardo
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Re: TTM 38041, 38266, 38273
Dear Ms. Nina Gallardo,
03-008-2022-005
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the TTM 38041, 38266, 38273 project. The project area is not located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. However, it is within the Tribe's Traditional Use Area. For this reason, the ACBCI THPO requests the following:
*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 archaeologist that meets the Secretary of Interior's standards during any ground disturbing activities.
*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.

Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (760) 883-1134. You may also email me at [email protected].

Cordially,
5401 DINAH SHORE O uvt, PALM SPRINGS. CA 92264
T 780'699,68OO 1- 760,600/A924 WWW.AGUACALIENTE-NSN
4-261

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Nicole Raslich
Archaeological Technician
Tribal Historic Preservation Office

AGUA CALIENTE BAND

OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
5401 DINAH SHORE ONivt, PALM SPRINGS. CA 92264
T 780'699,68OO f 760,600/A924 WWW.AGUAGALI[NTE-NSN

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luisen`o
R]CAN STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom. Governor
0 November 3, 2022

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseno

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Nina Gallardo

CRM TECH
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Proposed Tentative Tract Map Numbers 38041, 38266, and 38273 Project, Riverside County Dear Ms. Gallardo:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

Page 1 of 1 ends

Rancho Mirage City CouncilOctober 3, 2024

Rancho Mirage City Council
October 3, 2024