HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.A - SOC Final
CEQA FINDINGS
and
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
for the
PALM SPRINGS FULFILLMENT CENTER PROJECT
CASE 3.4361 MAJ FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
1
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(Public Resource Code Section 21000 et seq.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 11
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 13
III. PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS ........................................................................................................ 13
IV. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ................... 13
A. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .............................................................................................. 14
i. Generate GHG Emissions, Either Directly or Indirectly, That May Have a Significant Impact
on the Environment ............................................................................................................................ 14
a) Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 14
b) Finding Related to Potentially Significant and Unavoidable Increase in Greenhouse Gas
Emissions ....................................................................................................................................... 14
B. TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................................... 16
i. Consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (VMT) ........................... 16
a) Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 17
b) Finding Related to Potentially Significant and Unavoidable VMT Impacts ......................... 17
V. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE
AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL ...................................... 18
A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 19
i. Substantial 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................ 19
a) Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 19
b) Finding Related to Substantial 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 o Fish and Wildlife or the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................................................................... 20
ii. Substantial Adverse Effects on 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 Site .................................................................................................... 21
a) Mitigation Measure ............................................................................................................... 21
b) Finding Related to Impacts to Movement of Wildlife Species or with Wildlife Corridors .. 21
iii. Conflict with the Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other Approved, Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan ........ 22
a) Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 22
2
b) Finding Related to Consistency with Local Policies or Applicable Habitat Conservation
Plans 22
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 23
i. Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource ........................................ 23
a) Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 23
b) Finding Related Adverse Changes in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource ....... 23
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................... 24
i. Directly or Indirectly Cause Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss,
Injury, or Death Involving Strong Seismic Ground Shaking .............................................................. 24
a) Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 24
b) Finding Related Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or
Death Involving Strong Seismic Ground Shaking ......................................................................... 28
ii. Result in Soil Erosion or Loss of Top Soil ................................................................................. 30
a) Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 30
b) Finding Related to Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil .............................................................. 31
iii. Located on an Unstable Geologic Unit Resulting in Potential for On-Site or Off-site Lateral
Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction or Collapse .............................................................................. 32
a) Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 32
b) Finding Regarding On-Site or Off-site Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction or
Collapse ......................................................................................................................................... 36
iv. Located on Expansive Soil ......................................................................................................... 38
a) Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 38
b) Finding Regarding Expansive Soils ...................................................................................... 38
v. Impacts to a Unique Paleontological Resource, Site or Unique Geologic Feature .................. 39
a) Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 39
b) Finding Regarding Unique Paleontological Resource, Site or Unique Geologic Feature ..... 40
D. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .............................................................................................. 40
i. Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing
the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................... 40
a) Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 40
b) Finding Related to Conflicts with Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation Adopted to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 41
E. TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................................... 42
i. Substantially Increase Hazards Due to Geometric Design Features or Incompatible Uses ..... 42
a) Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 42
b) Finding Regarding Hazards Due to Geometric Design Features or Incompatible Uses ....... 43
ii. Result in Inadequate Emergency Access ................................................................................... 43
3
a) Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 44
b) Finding Related to Inadequate Emergency Access ............................................................... 44
F. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 45
i. Impacts to Significant Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 45
a) Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 45
b) Finding Regarding Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................... 46
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT .......................................................................................................................................... 46
A. AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................................... 46
i. Effects on a Scenic Vista ............................................................................................................ 46
a) Finding Regarding Scenic Vistas .......................................................................................... 47
ii. Conflict with Applicable Zoning and Other Regulations Governing Scenic Quality ................ 49
a) Finding Regarding Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway .................................. 49
iii. Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare .................................................................. 49
a) Finding Regarding Substantial Light or Glare ...................................................................... 50
B. AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................................. 51
i. Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan ......................... 51
a) Findings Regarding Air Quality Plans .................................................................................. 51
ii. Result in Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant .......................... 52
a) Findings Regarding Cumulatively Considerable Net Increases of Any Criteria Pollutant ... 52
iii. Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations ....................................... 53
a) Findings Regarding Substantial Pollutant Concentrations .................................................... 53
iv. Result in Other Emissions (i.e., objectionable odors) ............................................................... 55
a) Findings Regarding Localized Air Quality Impacts and Odors ............................................ 55
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 56
i. Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources.......................... 56
a) Findings Regarding Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological
Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 56
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 56
i. Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource ............................... 56
a) Findings Regarding the Project’s Impact to Historical Resources ........................................ 56
ii. Disturb Any Human Remains .................................................................................................... 57
a) Findings Regarding the Project’s Disturbance of Any Human Remains .............................. 57
E. ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 57
i. Result In Potentially Significant Environmental Impact Due To Wasteful, Inefficient Or
Unnecessary Consumption Of Energy Resources, During Project Construction Or Operation ....... 57
4
a) Findings Regarding Wasteful, Inefficient or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy
Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 58
ii. Conflict or Obstruct a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency ......... 59
a) Findings Regarding Consistency with State or Local Plans for Renewable Energy or Energy
Efficiency ....................................................................................................................................... 59
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................................................................... 60
i. Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or Environment Due to Routine Transport, Use, or
Disposal of Hazardous Materials, or Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment
Through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involing the Release of Hazardous
Materials into the Environment .......................................................................................................... 60
a) Finding Regarding Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials, Create Accident
Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials ............................................................ 61
ii. Effect on an Emergency Response Plan .................................................................................... 62
a) Finding Regarding Effect on an Emergency Response Plan ................................................. 62
G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................... 62
i. Compliance with Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements ....................... 62
a) Findings Regarding Compliance with Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge
Requirements ................................................................................................................................. 63
ii. Effect on Groundwater Supplies or Interference with Groundwater Recharge ........................ 64
a) Findings Regarding Effect on Groundwater Supplies and Recharge .................................... 64
iii. Result in Erosion or Siltation On- or Off-Site ........................................................................... 66
a) Findings Regarding Erosion or Siltation On- or Off-Site ..................................................... 66
iv. Result in On- or Off-site Flooding ............................................................................................. 67
a) Findings Regarding On- or Off-Site Flooding ...................................................................... 67
v. Create Runoff Which Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or Planned Stormwater Drainage
Systems ............................................................................................................................................... 68
a) Findings Regarding Runoff ................................................................................................... 68
vi. Impede or Redirect Flood Flows ............................................................................................... 69
a) Findings Regarding Impeding or Redirecting Flood Flows .................................................. 69
vii. In Flood Hazard, Tsunami, or Seiche Zones, Risk Release of Pollutants Due to Project
Inundation .......................................................................................................................................... 70
a) Findings Regarding Risk Release of Pollutants Due to Project Inundation in Flood Hazard,
Tsunami, or Seiche Zones .............................................................................................................. 70
viii. Consistency with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management
Plan 71
a) Findings Regarding Consistency with Water Quality Control Plan and Sustainable
Groundwater Management Plan .................................................................................................... 71
H. NOISE ............................................................................................................................................ 72
5
i. Generation of Noise ................................................................................................................... 72
a) Noise contours were used to assess the project’s incremental 24-hour CNEL traffic-related
noise impacts at receiving land uses adjacent to these roadway segments. The noise contours are
measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CEL noise levels .............. 73
ii. Generation of Ground Borne Vibration .................................................................................... 74
a) Finding Regarding Ground Borne Vibration......................................................................... 74
I. POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................................. 75
i. Induce Direct or Indirect Unplanned Growth ........................................................................... 75
a) Findings Regarding Induced Growth .................................................................................... 75
J. PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................................................... 77
i. Impact Fire and Police Services ................................................................................................ 77
a) Finding Regarding Impact to Fire and Police Services ......................................................... 77
K. TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................................... 78
i. Consistency with an Applicable Plan or Policy Addressing the Circulation System ................ 78
a) Finding Regarding Consistency with Applicable Plan or Policy Addressing Circulation
System ............................................................................................................................................ 78
L. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 79
i. Require or Result in Construction of New or Expanded Facilities for Water, Wastewater,
Drainage or Utilities, the Construction of Which May Cause Significant Environmental Effects .... 79
a) Findings Regarding New and Expanded Facilities ............................................................... 80
ii. Sufficiency of Water Supplies .................................................................................................... 82
a) Findings Regarding Sufficiency of Water Supplies .............................................................. 83
iii. Wastewater Treatment System Capacity ................................................................................... 84
a) Findings Regarding Wastewater Treatment System Capacity .............................................. 84
iv. Generate Excess Solid Waste .................................................................................................... 85
a) Findings Regarding Excess Solid Waste ............................................................................... 85
v. Comply with Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste ................................................. 85
a) Findings Regarding Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste ................................. 86
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT ............... 86
A. AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................................... 86
i. Affecting a Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway ................................................... 86
a) Finding Regarding Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway .................................. 86
B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ..................................................................... 87
i. 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 ............................................. 87
6
a) Finding Regarding the Conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance to Non-Agricultural Use ............................................................................. 87
ii. Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use or a Williamson Act Contract .................. 88
a) Finding Regarding Conflicting with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use or a Williamson
Act Contract ................................................................................................................................... 88
iii. Conflict with Existing Zoning for or Cause Rezoning of Forest Land, Timberland, or
Timberland Zoned Timberland Production ........................................................................................ 88
a) Finding Regarding Conflicting with Existing Zoning for or Cause Rezoning of Forest Land,
Timberland, or Timberland Zoned Timberland Production ........................................................... 88
iv. Result in the Loss of Forest Land or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use ............... 89
a) Finding Regarding the Loss of Forest Land or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use
89
v. Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment Which, Due to Their Location or Nature,
Could Result in Conversion of Farmland, to Non-Agricultural Use or Conversion of Forest Land to
Non-Forest Use .................................................................................................................................. 89
a) Finding Regarding Changes in the Existing Environment Which, Due to Their Location or
Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Farmland, to Non-Agricultural Use or Conversion of
Forest Land to Non-Forest Use ...................................................................................................... 89
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 90
i. 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 .................................................... 90
a) Finding Regarding Having a Substantial Adverse Effect on Any Riparian Habitat or Other
Sensitive Natural Community ........................................................................................................ 90
ii. Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on State or Federally Protected Wetlands (Including, But
Not Limited to, March, Vernal Pool, Coastal, Etc.) Through Direct Removal, Filling, Hydrological
Interruption, or Other Means ............................................................................................................. 90
a) Finding Regarding Having a Substantial Adverse Effect on State or Federally Protected
Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................ 90
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................... 91
i. Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault ...................................................................................... 91
a) Finding Regarding the Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault ............................................. 91
ii. Result in Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction .......................................... 91
a) Finding Regarding Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction ..................... 92
iii. Result in Seismic-Related Landslides ........................................................................................ 92
a) Finding Regarding Seismic-Related Landslides ................................................................... 92
iv. 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 ..... 92
a) Finding Regarding Soils Incapable of Adequately Supporting the Use of Septic Tanks or
Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems .................................................................................... 93
7
E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................................................................... 93
i. Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances,
or Waste Within One-Quarter Mile an Existing or Proposed School ................................................ 93
a) Finding Regarding the Emission of Hazardous Emissions or the Handling of Hazardous or
Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste Within One-Quarter Mile an Existing or
Proposed School ............................................................................................................................ 93
ii. 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 .......................................................................................... 93
a) Finding Regarding the Projects Location 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 ................................................... 94
iii. For A Project Located Within An Airport Land Use Plan Or, Where Such A Plan Has Not
Been Adopted, Within Two Miles Of A Public Airport Or Public Use Airport, Would The Project
Result In A Safety Hazard Or Excessive Noise For People Residing Or Working InThe Project Area
94
a) Finding Regarding a Project Located Within An Airport Land Use Plan Or, Within Two
Miles Of A Public Airport Or Public Use Airport, Would The Project Result In A Safety Hazard
Or Excessive Noise For People Residing Or Working In The Project Area.................................. 94
iv. Expose People or Structures, Either Directly or Indirectly, to a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury
or Death Involving Wildland Fires .................................................................................................... 95
a) Finding Regarding the Exposure of People or Structures, Either Directly or Indirectly, to a
Significant Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Wildland Fires ............................................. 95
F. LAND USE AND PLANNING ..................................................................................................... 95
i. Physically Divide an Established Community ........................................................................... 95
a) Finding Regarding Physically Divide an Established Community ....................................... 95
ii. 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 ............ 96
a) Finding Regarding Causing 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 ..................................................................................................................... 96
G. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 97
i. 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 ................................................................................................ 97
a) Finding Regarding the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource that would be of
Value to the Region and the Residents of the State ....................................................................... 97
ii. Result in the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource Recovery Site Delineated on a
Local General Plan, Specific Plan, or Other Land Use Plan ............................................................ 98
a) Finding Regarding the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource Recovery Site
Delineated on a Local General Plan, Specific Plan, or Other Land Use Plan ................................ 98
H. NOISE ............................................................................................................................................ 98
8
i. 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 TheProject Area To
Excessive Noise Levels ....................................................................................................................... 98
a) Finding Regarding the Exposure of People Residing Or Working In The Project Area To
Excessive Noise Levels from Airports or Private Airstrips ........................................................... 98
I. POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................................. 99
i. Displace Substantial Numbers of Existing People or Housing, Necessitating the Construction
of Replacement Housing Elsewhere ................................................................................................... 99
a) Finding Regarding Displacing Substantial Numbers of Existing People or Housing,
Necessitating the Construction of Replacement Housing Elsewhere ............................................ 99
J. PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................................................... 99
i. Would The Project Result In Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated With The
Provision Of New Or Physically Altered Schools, Need For New Or Physically Altered Schools, The
Construction Of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Impacts, In Order To Maintain
Acceptable Service Ratios, Response Times Or Other Performance Objectives For Schools ........... 99
a) Finding Regarding Schools ................................................................................................... 99
ii. Would The Project Result In Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated With The
Provision Of New Of Physically Altered Parks, Need For New Or Physically Altered Parks, The
Construction Of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Impacts, In Order To Maintain
Acceptable Service Ratios, Response Times Or Other Performance Objectives For Parks ............ 100
a) Finding Regarding Parks ..................................................................................................... 100
iii. Would The Project Result In Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated With The
Provision Of New Of Physically Altered Governmental Facilities, Need For New Or Physically
Altered Governmental Facilities, The Construction Of Which Could Cause Signifiant Environmental
Impacts, In Order To Maintain Acceptable Service Ratios, Response Times Or Other Performance
Objectives For Any Of The Public Services: Other Facilities ......................................................... 101
a) Finding Regarding Other Facilities ..................................................................................... 101
K. RECREATION ............................................................................................................................ 101
i. 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 ............................................................................................................................ 101
a) Finding Regarding the Project’s Increase Use Of Existing Neighborhood And Regional
Parks Or Other Recreational Facilities Such That Substantial Physical Deterioration Of The
Facility Would Occur Or Be Accelerated .................................................................................... 101
ii. 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 .......... 102
a) Finding Regarding the Project’s Inclusion of Recreational Facilities or Construction or
Expansion of Recreational Facilities that Might have an Adverse Physical Effect on the
Environment ................................................................................................................................. 102
L. WILDIFRE .................................................................................................................................. 102
9
i. Would the Project Substantially Impair an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency
Evacuation Plan ............................................................................................................................... 102
a) Finding Regarding Substantially Impair an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or
Emergency Evacuation Plan ........................................................................................................ 103
ii. 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 ........................................................................................................................ 103
a) Finding Regarding Exacerbating Wildfire Risks, And Thereby Expose Project Occupants
To, Pollutant Concentrations From A Wildfire Or The Uncontrolled Spread Of A Wildfire ..... 103
iii. Would The Project Require The Installation Or Maintenance Of Associated Infrastructure
(Such As Roads, Fuel Breaks, Emergency Water Resources, Power Lines Or Other Utilities) That
May Exacerbate Fire Risk Or That May Result In Temporary Or Ongoing Impacts To The
Environment ..................................................................................................................................... 104
a) Finding Regarding Requiring The Installation Or Maintenance Of Associated Infrastructure
(Such As Roads, Fuel Breaks, Emergency Water Resources, Power Lines Or Other Utilities) That
May Exacerbate Fire Risk Or That May Result In Temporary Or Ongoing Impacts To The
Environment ................................................................................................................................. 104
iv. Would The Project 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............................................................................................................................ 104
a) Finding Regarding the Exposure of 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 ................................................................................................. 105
VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ........................................................ 105
A. AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................................. 105
B. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................ 106
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 107
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................ 107
E. ENERGY RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 108
F. GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 108
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................ 109
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................................ 109
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................. 110
J. NOISE .......................................................................................................................................... 110
K. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................ 111
L. PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................................................................................... 111
M. TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................................. 112
N. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 112
O. UTILITIES ................................................................................................................................... 113
10
IX. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE EIR AND REJECTED
115
A. ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT .................................................................................................... 116
B. ALTERNATIVE 2: REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE .............................................................. 116
C. ALTERNATIVE 3: INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK ALTERNATIVE ................................................. 117
D. ALTERNATIVE 4: WAREHOUSING ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................... 118
E. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVES ........ 118
X. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................... 119
XI. FINDINGS REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR ............................................... 122
11
Final EIR SCH No. 2023080091
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Palm Springs (“City”) prepared an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the
proposed Palm Springs Fulfillment Center Project (“project”) in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State
CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). The City is the
CEQA Lead Agency for the project. The EIR identifies potentially significant environmental
effects to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and
Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water
Quality, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Transportation, Tribal Cultural
Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems.
Where an EIR has been certified which identifies significant effects on the environment that would
occur if the project is approved or carried out, Public Resources Code Section 21081 and State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require the CEQA Lead Agency to make one or more of the
following written findings with respect to each significant effect:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate, avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and have been or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
EIR.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(3), and for the reasons detailed in Section IV below, the City finds that the project will
result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts to Greenhouse Gas Emissions (increases
in emissions of greenhouse gases would exceed SCAQMD’s threshold), and Transportation
(proposed project’s baseline and cumulative vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per Service Population
(SP) are greater than the City’s impact threshold) even after all feasible mitigation measures
recommended in the Draft/Final EIR are implemented.
As detailed in Section V below, the City further finds that for each of the potentially significant
effects identified in the EIR, other than Greenhouse Gas emissions, and one Transportation impact
identified above, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which will avoid or substantially lessen each of the significant environmental effects and that such
effects will therefore not result in significant effects on the environment.
While not required by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City further finds that the project
will not result in significant impacts with respect to the Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological,
Cultural, Energy, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water
12
Quality, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities
and Service Systems effects detailed in Section VI below.
As detailed in Section VII below, the City further finds that the environmentally superior
alternatives identified in the EIR (Alternative 1/ No Project Alternative and Alternative 2/Reduced
Intensity Alternative) are infeasible because neither environmentally superior alternative would
meet the majority of the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project, and is
otherwise infeasible and undesirable for the reasons stated herein. Specifically, the City finds that
Alternative 3/Industrial Business Park Alternative, is infeasible because it incrementally increases
the impacts of Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation, due to the
increased employees required for the Alternative.
For purposes of the Findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings consists of the following:
The City’s General Plan, as amended, and all environmental documents relating
thereto;
The Draft EIR for the project, including all Appendices thereto and all supporting
materials referenced therein;
The Recirculated Draft EIR for the project, including all Appendices thereto and
all supporting materials referenced therein;
The Final EIR for the project, including all comments on the Draft and Recirculated
Draft EIR, all responses thereto, and all supporting materials referenced therein;
All reports of the City relating to the project, including reports submitted to the City
by expert consultants, and all supporting materials referenced therein;
These Findings made by the City and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (“MMRP”) adopted by the City for the project;
All final City Staff reports relating to the Draft EIR, the Recirculated Draft EIR,
the Final EIR and/or the project;
All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, or other planning
documents relating to the project, the Draft EIR, the Recirculated Draft EIR or the
Final EIR, prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee
agencies; and
All matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to the
City’s policies, guidelines and regulations.
The official custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of
proceedings is:
City of Palm Springs
Planning Department
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Phone: 760-323-8245
13
Hours: Monday – Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Copies of all these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City’s
decision is based, are, and at all relevant times have been, available upon request at the offices of
the City, the custodian for such documents.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project area encompasses approximately 38 acres at the northwest corner of Indian Canyon
Drive and 19th Avenue. The project applicant proposes a Major Development Permit application
leading to the development of a high cube warehouse with fulfillment capabilities. The ultimate
build-out of the approximately 38-acre area includes a two-story, 739,360-square-foot warehouse
and fulfillment center with offices, and associated infrastructure (paved driveways and parking,
landscaping, three gated access points, retention area, and perimeter fencing). The project also
includes supporting drainage, water, wastewater and dry utility infrastructure on the project
property as well as outside the project property that is described in greater detail in Section 3.7 of
Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. A detailed project description is provided on
pages 3-1 through 3-18 of the Draft EIR.
III. PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
The applicant is requesting approval of a Major Development Permit, which, if approved, would
allow for and govern the development of the project site. The purpose of a Major Development
Permit is to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning
Code, and other adopted plans, regulations, and policies of the City; that the location, height,
massing, and placement of the proposed development is consistent with applicable standards; and
that the necessary infrastructure is in place to serve the proposed development.
IV. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
This section identifies the significant unavoidable impacts that require a Statement of Overriding
Considerations to be issued by the City upon approval of the project. Based on the analysis
contained in the Final EIR, the following impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation
have been determined to be significant and unavoidable, after all feasible mitigation measures have
been considered and adopted. These unavoidable impacts are overridden by the project benefits
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VIII, below.
Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(3) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the City of La Quinta finds that, for each of the following significant effects,
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or
avoid these significant effects on the environment to the maximum extent feasible. Nevertheless,
the City of Palm Springs further finds that for each of the significant effects, specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the Final EIR, which, as more fully described in Section VIII below, are hereby
incorporated by this reference. These findings are explained below and are supported by
substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.
14
A. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
i. Generate GHG Emissions, Either Directly or Indirectly, That May Have a
Significant Impact on the Environment
Project implementation would result in construction-phase and operational GHG emissions. For
construction phase project emissions, GHGs were quantified and amortized over the life of the
project. The annual and amortized construction emissions are presented in Table 4.7-1 (see DEIR
p. 4.7-13). The annual GHG emissions associated with project operation are summarized in Table
4.7-2, which indicates that construction and operation of the project would generate a net total of
approximately 9,438.47 MTCO2e/yr. Therefore, the proposed project would exceed the County’s
screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Thus, the project would have the potential to result in a
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to GHG emissions. Since the project exceeds the
3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold, the project’s impacts would be significant unless mitigated.
a) Mitigation Measures
To mitigate potential impacts concerning GHG emissions, the following mitigation measures are
hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:
GHG-1: The project shall implement Screening Table Measures providing for a
minimum 100 points per the County Screening Tables. The City shall verify
incorporation of the identified Screening Table Measures within the project
building plans and site designs prior to the issuance of building permit(s).
The City shall verify implementation of the identified Screening Table
Measures prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy.
b) Finding Related to Potentially Significant and Unavoidable Increase in
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs finds that impacts associated with GHG
emissions generated by the project are considered significant. The City’s currently approved CAP
does not provide criteria to evaluate proposed private development. Therefore, the City of Palm
Springs has used the standards and requirements of the County of Riverside CAP Update and
associated methodology in the evaluation of this project. Based on this methodology and as
described in Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the project is required to demonstrate compliance with
the County’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) Screening Tables and achieve a minimum of 100 points
as identified in the CAP. Operational mobile sources totaling approximately 8,056.38 MTCO2e
per year represent approximately 85 percent of the project’s total annual GHG emissions, which
are not directly reduced by the building efficiency measures under the CAP Update Screening
Table (see DEIR p. 4.7-14 to 4.7-16). Although Mitigation Measure GHG-1 reduces impacts to
the greatest extent feasible, the City considers the project’s GHG emissions to be significant and
unavoidable.
The City of Palm Springs further finds that greenhouse gas emission impacts will remain
significant and unavoidable and specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives, if any, identified in the Final EIR.
15
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated above, construction and operation of the project would generate a net total of
approximately 9,438.47 MTCO2e/yr. (Table 4.7-2 of the DEIR), which exceeds the County’s
screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. As described in Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the project
is required to demonstrate compliance with the County’s CAP Screening Tables and achieve a
minimum of 100 points as identified in the CAP.
A preliminary analysis of the project’s consistency with the County CAP is provided in Table 4.7-
3 of the DEIR and demonstrates that feasible measures are available to reduce the project’s impacts
pertaining to building envelope, indoor space efficiencies, building efficiency, clean energy, water
efficiency, and clean energy measures. Per Table 4.7-3, the total points earned by the project is
274. The proposed project’s ability to achieve a total of 274 points would be equivalent to a
reduction of approximately 8.8228 MTCO2e per 1,000 square feet of building area, which is
approximately 2.74 times greater than the target reduction of 3.22 MTCO2e per 1,000 square feet
of building area required by the CAP. Based on the project’s 739.36 1,000-square-foot units, the
project would achieve a total reduction of approximately 6,523.22 MTCO2e if it reached 274
points, which exceeds the minimum requirement (2,380.74 MTCO2e) for the project’s size and
demonstrates that the project can feasibly mitigate its GHG impacts.
The Screening Table Measures would achieve a minimum of 100 Screening Table Points and
would thereby ensure that the project would achieve GHG emissions levels and GHG emissions
reduction targets consistent with those identified in the County’s CAP.
As a result, the City considers the project’s GHG emissions to be significant and unavoidable.
Chapter 2.0 (Response to Comments) in the FEIR, includes a summary of the written comments
received during the public comment period, responses to those comments, and changes or errata
to the Draft EIR.
Advocates for the Environment submitted comments pertaining to GHG impacts in which they
requested for the project to be net-zero, claimed that the project’s GHG mitigation was insufficient,
requested clarification on the project’s provided mitigation, claimed a lack of substantial evidence
to support the findings, and requested for the project’s impacts to be fully mitigated. However, as
described on pages 4.7-13 through 4.7-17 of the DEIR, a comprehensive analysis of the GHG
reduction measures that can be implemented for the proposed project under the County’s CAP
Update reduction strategy based on the project’s land use was provided. This analysis demonstrates
consistency with statewide GHG reduction goals (such as SB 32 and the CARB Scoping Plan) is
appropriate for this project, as it reflects the regional analysis undertaken by Riverside County in
developing the CAP Update screening methodology and associated standards. The project’s
measures under GHG-1 include enhanced wall insulation, enhanced window insulation, enhanced
duct insulation, improved efficiency HVAC, high-efficiency water heaters, efficient lighting,
water-efficient toilets, urinals, faucets, and irrigation systems, in addition to compliance with the
California Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Based on the CAP methodology, the proposed
project’s ability to achieve a total of 274 points would comply with the screening table point value
criteria and would be roughly equivalent to a reduction of approximately 8.8228 MTCO2e per
16
1,000 square feet of building area, which is approximately 2.74 times greater than the target
reduction of 3.22 MTCO2e per 1,000 square feet of building area required by the CAP Update.
Neither the City, County, or SCAQMD have adopted a net-zero policy or threshold for land
development projects. Thus, the GHG analysis provided in the DEIR countered the claims by
Advocates for the Environment pertaining to net-zero attainment, sufficiency of the GHG
mitigation, support of the GHG findings, and ability to mitigate the impacts. Even with the
provided analysis, the GHG analysis conservatively considers that the project’s impacts would be
significant and unavoidable while still providing the adequate information consisting of the
applicable point attainment, associated efficiency, and GHG reductions.
The Committee to Stop Giant Warehouse Blight submitted comments pertaining to GHG impacts
in which they questioned the truck trip assumptions and calculations, the adequacy of the
mitigation to support the GHG emission assumptions, and the adequacy of the description of
adverse environmental effects. However, these comments were generally found to not be
supported by substantial evidence.
The DEIR provided an adequate trip analysis based on the project-specific traffic impact analysis,
prepared by the traffic experts at Urban Crossroads, Inc. The traffic analysis correctly analyzed
high cube warehouse operations and calculated trip generation based on professionally established
coefficients from the WSP study (January 29, 2019) which represent current Inland Empire trip
generation for high cube warehouses used in EIRs for warehouse projects throughout the region.
The Traffic Analysis (TA) used trip generation rates of 2.89 trips per 1000 square feet of gross
floor area. The methodology in the 2019 study provides a more conservative analysis consistent
with actual conditions in the region. Therefore, the truck rate used in the GHG analysis was
correctly undertaken as it relates to truck trips.
Moreover, pages 4.7-11 through 4.7-14 of the DEIR provided an adequate description of the
construction and operational emission quantities, sources and factors to support the findings. Table
4.7-2 (Project GHG Emissions) on page 4.7-13 of the DEIR summarized the total GHG emission
levels attributed to construction and operation of the proposed project. Table 4.7-3 (CAP
Consistency - Commercial/Industrial Land Use) on page 4.7-15 of the DEIR provided the points
attained in relation to the Riverside County CAP Update, and mitigation measure GHG-1 requires
compliance with the County CAP’s point system. Therefore, the EIR has required implementation
of all feasible mitigation measures, but still correctly concludes that impacts will be significant
and unavoidable.
B. TRANSPORTATION
i. Consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (VMT)
In order to determine project related VMT impacts, the proposed project’s Baseline VMT per
service population (SP) was compared to the City’s adopted threshold. Project-generated VMT per
SP resulted in a project generated VMT of 59.77 for baseline and 52.24 for cumulative conditions.
The proposed project’s baseline and cumulative VMT per Service Population are greater than the
City’s impact threshold of 34.52 VMT per SP, therefore representing a significant impact.
17
a) Mitigation Measures
To mitigate potential impacts concerning VMTs, the following mitigation measures are hereby
adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:
TRA-1: VMT Reduction Program: The Applicant will implement a VMT Reduction
Program during operations which includes the following measures:
Implement a ridesharing program and provide preferential parking for
rideshares.
Provide opportunities for telecommuting/ alternative work hour
programs.
Construct on-site bicycle racks, lockers and shower rooms.
b) Finding Related to Potentially Significant and Unavoidable VMT Impacts
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA guidelines, the City Planning Commission finds that, for the significant effects of the
project related to VMT and consistency with CEQA Guidelines 15054.3, described above and
discussed further in the Final EIR, Mitigation TRA-1 has been incorporated into the project which
lessens such significant environmental effects as described in the Final EIR to the maximum extent
feasible. Mitigation as described above and implemented in the Final EIR, which has been adopted
by the City and is enforceable through the MMRP and project conditions of approval, will reduce
VMT to the Maximum extent feasible.
The City of Palm Springs further finds that despite implementation of the Mitigation Measure
identified in the Final EIR, VMT and consistency with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3 will remain a
significant effect. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the mitigation measures or alternatives, if any, identified in the Final EIR. In fact, the EIR did not
identify any mitigation measures or project alternative that would further reduce the project’s
unavoidable impacts except the no project/no development alternative which is deemed
unacceptable by the Planning Commission as explained in more detail below. Furthermore, the
City finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the
project, including but not limited to generating sales tax revenue to enhance the City’s economic
base and ensure its long-term financial stability, outweigh the significant effects to the
environment, as more fully described below which is hereby incorporated by this reference. These
findings are further explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of
proceedings.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The Palm Springs Guidelines identify the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model
(RIVTAM) as the appropriate tool for conducting VMT analysis for land use projects. RIVTAM
considers interaction between different land uses based on socio‐economic data such as population,
households and employment. Project VMT was calculated using the most current version of
RIVTAM. Adjustments in socioeconomic data (SED) (i.e., employment) were made to the specific
18
Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) within the RIVTAM model to reflect the project’s proposed
population and employment uses.
The project will result in 718 jobs. Project-generated VMT per SP resulted in a project generated
VMT of 59.77 for baseline and 52.24 for cumulative conditions. The proposed project’s baseline
and cumulative VMT per Service Population are greater than the City’s impact threshold of 34.52
VMT per SP.
Palm Springs General Plan Circulation Element Policy CR1.11 encourages large employers
(employers with 100 or more persons) to adopt incentive programs that include ridesharing, fleet
vehicles and vanpools, preferential parking for rideshares, subsidized shuttle bus services,
telecommuting, alternative work hour programs, bicycle racks, lockers and shower rooms, and
information on transit services to reduce overall traffic volumes in the City.
Comments received by Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance included a question
(Comment 5h) regarding the truck/trailer and delivery van activity used in the VMT Analysis.
However the best available source for high-cube fulfillment center use would be the trip-generation
statistics published in the High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study (WSP, January 29, 2019)
which was commissioned by the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). The
WSP trip generation rates were published in January 2019 and are based on data collected at 11
local high-cube fulfillment center sites located throughout Southern California (specifically
Riverside County and San Bernardino County). The truck percentages were further broken down
by axle type per the WSP recommended truck mix: 2-4-Axle = 44.1%; 5+-Axle = 55.9%.
The Applicant will implement a VMT Reduction Program (as shown in Mitigation Measure TRA-
1), that includes the following reduction measures:
Implement a ridesharing program,
Provide preferential parking for rideshares,
Provide opportunities for telecommuting,
Implement alternative work hour programs and
Construct on-site bicycle racks and associated facilities.
The proposed measures would result in the following range of reductions:
Implement a ridesharing program and provide preferential parking for rideshares: 0-8%
Provide opportunities for telecommuting/ alternative work hour programs: Not Quantified
Construct on-site bicycle racks, lockers, and shower rooms: 0-4.4%
V. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH
ARE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that, for each of the following significant effects identified in the
Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and further finds
19
that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels. The potentially significant
effects and mitigation measures are stated fully in the Final EIR and each of the mitigation
measures have been imposed on the project and are enforceable pursuant to the MMRP, and project
conditions of approval. These findings are explained below and are supported by substantial
evidence in the record of proceedings.
A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
i. Substantial 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The proposed project site will result in potentially significant impacts related to species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species and sensitive natural communities. These species
are identified on pages 4.3-9 – 4.3-13 of the DEIR/RDEIR and include Glandular ditaxis, ribbed
cryptantha, flat-seeded surge, Coachella Valley milk vetch, white bracketed spineflower, slender
cottonheads, Little San Bernardino Mountains, Coachella giant sand treader cricket, Coachella
Valley Jerusalem cricket, Casey’s June beetle, Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, desert tortoise,
flat-tailed horned lizard, LeConte’s thrasher, loggerhead shrike, burrowing owl, and Palm Spring
ground squirrel.
a) Mitigation Measures
To avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species,
the following mitigation measure are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the
MMRP:
BIO-1: Per the 2012, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, a burrowing owl clearance survey
shall be performed by a qualified biologist 14 to 30 days prior to any site
disturbance (grubbing, grading, and construction). The pre-construction
survey is required to use accepted protocol (CDFW Staff Report). A final
clearance survey must be conducted 24 hours prior to ground disturbance.
If owls are found to be present during the breeding season (February 15
through September 15), a qualified biologist will prepare a plan and submit
it to CDFW for review and approval prior to establishing a buffer area (a no
disturbance zone) around the active burrow. When it is determined that all
young owls have permanently left the burrow (fledged), the buffer area may
be abandoned, and the adult owls captured and relocated, if approved under
the plan. If the presence of any burrowing owl is confirmed in
preconstruction surveys, regardless of season, a qualified biologist shall
prepare a plan for avoidance or relocation and submit it to the City for
review and approval. No construction activity shall be permitted until the
measures contained in the approved plan have been completed.
BIO-3: The project applicant will pay the Local Development Mitigation Fee
(LDMF). The payment of this fee will mitigate impact to species on the
20
project site that are covered under the CVMSHCP to a less than significant
level.
b) Finding Related to Substantial 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 the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that project-related impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special
status species are mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by
the City and are enforceable through the MMRP and project conditions of approval.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A burrowing owl was observed five times during the field surveys and one active burrow with one
owl was found within the site boundaries. The entire site is considered suitable burrowing owl
habitat with friable soil and rodent burrows that could be expanded in size by the owls. Expanded
rodent burrows are used as shelter and for nesting by the owls. No active nests were found during
the survey days. Due to the presence of burrowing owls on the project site, there would be a
potentially significant impact if not addressed (see DEIR/RDEIR p. 4.3-12). This impact is
addressed in Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires clearance surveys for
the burrowing owl not less than 14 days prior to site disturbance and then again 24 hours prior to
site disturbance. If the presence of any burrowing owl is confirmed in preconstruction surveys,
regardless of season, a qualified biologist shall prepare a plan for avoidance or relocation and
submit it to the CDFW for review and approval. No construction activity shall be permitted until
the measures contained in the approved plan have been completed.
The Palm Springs ground squirrel is considered a state Species of Special Concern. In the past, it
was considered a candidate species for listing by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service.
Although the species was not detected on the project site, burrows were detected within the site
boundaries and therefore the species could likely occur on or near the site. The species is covered
under the CVMSHCP. The Coachella Valley milk vetch is also a covered species under the
CVMSHCP. Mitigation for impacts to the species is accomplished through payment of a Local
Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) to CVAG. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires the project
applicant to pay the LDMF, which will mitigate impacts to the Palm Springs Ground Squirrel and
Coachella Valley milk vetch to less than significant levels.
Overall, impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species are mitigated to less than
significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-3.
21
ii. Substantial Adverse Effects on 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
Site
The project’s vacant and undeveloped condition may provide suitable habitat for wildlife species
due to the existing bushes and trees on and adjacent to the site, which have the potential to harbor
migratory birds. If construction was to occur while nesting birds were present on or adjacent to the
site, it would violate the MBTA and CDFW Section 3503. Therefore, potential impacts on nesting
birds are considered a significant adverse effect, and mitigation is required to reduce the impact to
nesting birds to less than significant levels.
a) Mitigation Measure
To avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts to nesting birds, the following mitigation
measure are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:
BIO-2: For any grading or other site disturbance or tree or vegetation removal
occurring during the nesting season between February 1st and August 31st,
a qualified biologist shall conduct at least one nesting bird survey, and more
if deemed necessary by the consulting biologist, 24 hours prior to initiation
of project-related ground disturbing activities. If nesting birds are present,
no work shall be permitted near the nest until the young birds have fledged.
While there is no established protocol for nest avoidance, when consulted,
the CDFW generally recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for
birds-of-prey, and 100 – 300 feet for songbirds.
b) Finding Related to Impacts to Movement of Wildlife Species or with
Wildlife Corridors
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that, for each of the significant effects to the
movement of fish or wildlife species described above and further discussed in the Final EIR,
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and
further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through
implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, as recommended in the Final EIR, which has been
adopted by the City and is enforceable through the MMRP and project conditions of approval.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated on page 4.3-13 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project’s vacant and undeveloped condition
may provide suitable habitat for wildlife species. However, the project’s adjacency to the Indian
Canyon Drive roadway and existing industrial and commercial businesses does not present ideal
conditions for wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites. There are bushes and trees on and
adjacent to the site that have the potential to harbor migratory birds. Construction of the project
could adversely affect nesting birds if construction was to occur while they are present or adjacent
to the project site. If construction was to occur while nesting birds were present on or adjacent to
22
the site, it would violate the MBTA and CDFW Section 3503. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-2 would require pre-construction nesting bird survey, which would identify whether
nesting birds exist onsite.
iii. Conflict with the Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other Approved, Local, Regional,
or State Habitat Conservation Plan
The project lies within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) which outlines policies for conservation habitats and natural
communities and is implemented for this property by the City of Palm Springs. Therefore,
development of the project could conflict with the provisions of the CVMSHCP if mitigation is
not implemented.
a) Mitigation Measures
To avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts to the provisions of an adopted habitat
conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved, local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan, the following mitigation measure are hereby adopted and will be
implemented consistent with the MMRP:
BIO-3: The project applicant will pay the Local Development Mitigation Fee
(LDMF). The payment of this fee will mitigate impact to species on the
project site that are covered under the CVMSHCP to a less than significant
level.
b) Finding Related to Consistency with Local Policies or Applicable Habitat
Conservation Plans
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that, the consistency with local policies or
applicable habitat conservation plans described above and further discussed in the Final EIR,
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and
further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through
implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, as recommended in the Final EIR, which has been
adopted by the City and is enforceable through the MMRP and project conditions of approval.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The project lies within the boundary of the CVMSHCP; however, the site lies outside the Plan’s
designated conservation areas (see DEIR/RDEIR p. 4.3-14). The CVMSHCP requires the project
to pay the CVMSHCP mitigation fee to mitigate the loss of habitat for covered species in the
Coachella Valley (as required by Mitigation Measure BIO-3). Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires
the applicant’s payment of a LDMF to CVAG. The payment of the fee will contribute to the
preservation of species by purchasing conservation land elsewhere in the Coachella Valley which
will be preserved in perpetuity to protect the species.
23
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, project-specific and cumulative effects on
biological resources will be less than significant.
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES
i. Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource
Implementation of the proposed project will result in potentially significant impacts to
archaeological resources, because prehistoric ceramic sherds and isolated prehistoric artifacts are
located near the project site. Construction of the project will involve ground-disturbing activities
with the potential to unearth or adversely impact previously unidentified archaeological resources.
a) Mitigation Measures
To avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources, the following
mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:
CUL-1: Prior to ground disturbance (including clearing, grubbing, etc.) the
applicant/developer will retain a qualified archaeological monitor and an
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian (ACBCI) Tribal monitor to be
present during all ground disturbing activities. If cultural materials are
discovered during grading or excavation, the construction contractor shall
cease all earthmoving activity within and around the immediate discovery
area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of
the find. An archaeological monitoring plan will be developed and
implemented to ensure that any unanticipated discoveries made during
project-related ground-disturbing activities are properly treated. The
archaeologist, in consultation with ACBCI, shall be consulted to reduce or
terminate monitoring when it is indicated by field conditions and as
appropriate.
b) Finding Related Adverse Changes in the Significance of an Archaeological
Resource
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that, for the significant effects on
archaeological resources described above and further discussed in the Draft/Final EIR, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that
all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of
Mitigation Measure CUL-1, as recommended in the Final EIR, which has been adopted by the City
and is enforceable through the MMRP and project conditions of approval.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to impact the identified archeological
resources described in the DEIR/RDEIR (see DEIR/RDEIR p. 4.4-11), and the potential exists for
impacts to unknown cultural resources during project grading. These potentially significant
24
impacts to archaeological resources will be mitigated to below a level of significance through
implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1. CUL-1 requires that archaeological monitoring be
implemented to ensure that any unanticipated discoveries made during project-related ground
disturbance activities are properly treated. Monitoring prior to ground disturbance (including
clearing, grubbing, etc.), as required in CUL-1, would determine whether archaeological resources
are located onsite. Protocols if cultural materials are discovered include stopping all earthmoving
activity (within and around the immediate discovery area) until a qualified archaeologist can assess
the find to determine whether it is significant. Moreover, the development of an archaeological
monitoring plan will ensure that any unanticipated discoveries made during project-related ground-
disturbing activities are properly treated. The implementation of the monitoring and archaeological
monitoring plan will ensure that archaeological resources are not impacts. Impacts are reduced to
less than significant levels with CUL-1.
Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1, project-specific and cumulative
effects on cultural resources will be less than significant (see DEIR/RDEIR, at pp. 4.4-11 – 4.4-
12).
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
i. Directly or Indirectly Cause Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, Including
the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
The project site is located approximately 0.3 miles south of the San Andreas Fault, Banning
Branch. The Geotechnical Investigation found that due to the nature of the soils on the project site
and to the multiple active faults in the project’s vicinity, the site has been subjected to past ground
shaking, and seismic shaking is expected during the design life of the proposed project.
Implementation of the proposed project has the potential for significant adverse effects associated
with strong seismic ground shaking.
a) Mitigation Measures
To avoid or substantially reduce potential adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground
shaking, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent
with the MMRP:
GEO-1 The project shall comply with all the grading and excavation codes of the
County of Riverside and shall be in compliance with all applicable
provisions of the 2022 California Building Code (2022 CBC). The project
shall also be in accordance with the project-specific Geotechnical
Investigation for the submittal of grading and building plans.
GEO-2 Clearing operations shall include the removal of any trash, debris,
vegetation, and similar deleterious materials including the root balls of any
trees. Voids created by the removal shall be backfilled as well as the removal
and replacement of surficial artificial and compressible soil materials with
engineered fill. Any buried deleterious materials encountered within the site
due to past site usage may need to be removed by hand (e.g., root pickers)
during grading operations.
25
GEO-3 Any existing undocumented fill and near surface native soils are considered
unsuitable for support of proposed structures and shall be removed to
underlying competent alluvial materials as approved by the project
geotechnical consultant. The estimated depth of removal is recommended to
be approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface in proposed
building areas. Consideration shall be given to locally deepening the
excavation at the location of tree roots or proposed subterranean features (if
any) in order to provide a uniform depth of compacted fill in all areas. Soil
removals could be locally deeper depending upon the actual exposed
conditions encountered during grading. At a minimum, the over-excavation
shall extend a distance beyond the perimeter of the structure equal to the
depth of the over-excavation. The actual depths and horizontal limits of
removals and over-excavations shall be evaluated upon availability of the
site grading plan and during grading on the basis of observations and testing
performed by the project geotechnical consultant. Excavated soils, if free of
deleterious materials, are considered acceptable for use as compacted fill.
GEO-4 Prior to placing engineered fill, the exposed bottom surfaces in the removal
areas shall be approved by a representative of project geotechnical
consultant. The exposed bottom(s) shall be scarified to a minimum depth of
12 inches, moisture-conditioned or air-dried to achieve approximately two
percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted with a heavy
construction equipment prior to placement of fill. Minimum compaction of
the upper 12 inches of the removal bottom shall meet or exceed 90 percent
relative compaction. The laboratory maximum dry density, the standard for
determining relative compaction, and optimum moisture content for each
change in soil type shall be determined in accordance with Test Method
ASTM D 1557.
GEO-5 If remedial grading is necessary immediately adjacent to the property
boundaries, a geotechnical consultant must prepare a plan addressing issues
including: temporary backcut slopes shall generally be restricted to a slope
ratio of 1:1 (h:v) or flatter to protect adjacent offsite improvements
(including pavement, sidewalks, walls, buried utilities, etc.). Depending on
the actual horizontal extent of necessary remedial grading, a wedge of
unsuitable soil may remain in place along the site perimeter that will extend
into the site. Any new perimeter site improvements that are anticipated to be
within this zone may need to be designed and constructed with deepened
and/or strengthened foundation systems designed to withstand relative
movement that is likely to result from settlement of these likely compressible
surficial soils. Alternately, the remedial grading adjacent to the site
boundaries may be accomplished by the slot-cutting method. More specific
recommendations may be appropriate once the rough grading plan is
available for review.
26
GEO-6 All fill materials shall be placed in approximately 6- to 8-inch-thick loose
lifts, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve a minimum moisture
content at least 2 percent above the optimum moisture condition, and then
compacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. The
laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each
change in soil type shall be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557.
GEO-7 Prior to the start of earthwork, a meeting shall be held at the site with the
owner’s representative, contractor, and geotechnical consultant to discuss
the work schedule and geotechnical aspects of the grading. Earthwork,
which in this instance will generally entail removal and re-compaction of
the near surface soils, shall be accomplished under full-time observation
and testing by the geotechnical consultant. A representative of the project
geotechnical consultant shall be present onsite during all earthwork
operations to document placement and compaction of fills, as well as to
document compliance with the other recommendations presented herein.
Additionally, the project geotechnical consultant shall provide observation
and testing services based on scheduling determined during the pre-
earthwork meeting during final clearing and grubbing operations to
document compliance with the above recommendations. In addition, shall
unusual or adverse soil conditions or buried structures be encountered
during grading that are not described herein, these conditions shall be
brought to the immediate attention of the project geotechnical consultant for
corrective recommendations.
GEO-8 Footings:
a) Exterior continuous footings supporting one- and two-story light-weight
construction shall be founded at a minimum depth of 15 inches below the
lowest adjacent final grade. For concrete tilt up structures, continuous
footings shall be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches. Interior
continuous footings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches
below the top of the adjacent finish floor slabs.
b) In accordance with Table 1809.7 of 2022 CBC, all continuous footings
shall have minimum widths of 12 inches for one- and two-story
construction. Petra recommends all continuous footings shall be
reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom.
c) A minimum 12-inch-wide grade beam founded at the same depth as
adjacent footings shall be provided across openings such as large doors
or bay windows. The grade beam shall be reinforced in a similar manner
as provided above.
d) Interior isolated pad footings, if required, shall be a minimum of 24
inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the
bottoms of the adjacent floor slabs. Pad footings shall be reinforced with
27
No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, placed
near the bottoms of the footings.
e) Exterior isolated pad footings intended for support of roof overhangs
such as patio covers and similar construction shall be a minimum of 24
inches square, and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the
lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings shall be reinforced with No.
4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, placed near
the bottoms of the footings. Exterior isolated pad footings may need to
be connected to adjacent pad and/or continuous footings via tie beams at
the discretion of the project structural engineer.
f) The minimum footing dimensions and reinforcement recommended
herein may be modified (increased or decreased subject to the constraints
of Chapter 18 of the 2022 CBC) by the structural engineer responsible
for foundation design based on calculations, engineering experience, and
judgment.
GEO-9 Building Floor Slabs:
a) For office areas, and areas with light floor loading, concrete floor slabs
shall be a minimum 4 inches thick and reinforced with a minimum No. 3
bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways. For
warehouse floors the slabs shall be a minimum of 5 inches thick and
reinforced with a minimum No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches
on centers, both ways. All slab reinforcement shall be supported on
concrete chairs or brick to ensure the desired placement near mid-depth.
b) Slab dimension, reinforcement type, size and spacing need to account for
internal concrete forces (e.g., thermal, shrinkage and expansion) as well
as external forces (e.g., applied loads), as deemed necessary.
c) Moisture sensitive concrete floor slabs and areas to receive moisture
sensitive floor covering shall be underlain with a moisture vapor retarder
consisting of a minimum 10-mil-thick polyethylene or polyolefin
membrane that meets the minimum requirements of ASTM E96 and
ASTM E1745 for vapor retarders (such as Husky Yellow Guard®,
Stego® Wrap, or equivalent). All laps within the membrane shall be
sealed, and at least 2 inches of clean sand shall be placed over the
membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete. To reduce the
potential for punctures, the membrane shall be placed on a pad surface
that has been graded smooth without any sharp protrusions. If a smooth
surface cannot be achieved by grading, consideration shall be given to
lowering the pad finished grade an additional inch and then placing a 1-
28
inch-thick leveling course of sand across the pad surface prior to the
placement of the membrane.
d) Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below building and auxiliary
area floor slabs shall be moisture conditioned to achieve a moisture
content that is at least 1.2 times the optimum moisture content. This
moisture shall penetrate to a depth of approximately 12 inches into the
subgrade.
e) The modulus of subgrade reaction for design of load bearing elements
depends on the size of the element and soil-structure interaction. As a
first level of approximation, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 125
pounds per cubic inch may be assumed for floor slab design.
f) The minimum dimensions and reinforcement recommended herein for
building floor slabs may be modified (increased or decreased) by the
structural engineer responsible for foundation design based on
calculations, engineering experience, and judgment.
b) Finding Related Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk
of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that, for each of the significant effects relating
to seismic-related ground shaking, described above and further discussed in the Draft/Final EIR,
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and
further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through
implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-9, as recommended in the Final EIR,
which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the MMRP and project
conditions of approval.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The geotechnical investigation completed by Petra Geosciences, Inc. and included in the
DEIR/RDEIR appendices (Appendix G) concluded that with implementation of Mitigation
Measures GEO-1 through GEO-9, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would
be less than significant (see DEIR/RDEIR p. 4.6-12 – 4.6-13). Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires
that the project comply with all the grading and excavation codes and be in compliance with all
applicable provisions of the 2022 CBC. Compliance with the 2022 CBC would ensure exterior and
interior components of the building, like high-staking shelving, would be secure during an
earthquake. The proposed development would be constructed in a manner that reduces the risk of
seismic hazards consistent with Title 24, California Code of Regulations. Site work would be
conducted in accordance with the project-specific geotechnical and soils analyses required with
the submittal of grading and building plans. Foundation and structural design of the proposed
project would reduce exposure of people or structures to adverse effects to the greatest extent
29
possible with implementation of the recommendations from the project’s Geotechnical
Investigation.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 requires clearing operations to include the removal of any trash, debris,
vegetation, and similar deleterious materials including the root balls of any trees. Voids created by
these removals shall be backfilled. The removal and replacement of surficial artificial and
compressible soil materials with engineered fill is also required. Any buried deleterious materials
encountered within the site due to past site usage may need to be removed by hand (i.e., root
pickers) during grading operations. Removing deleterious materials and replacing soils with
engineered fill will create an evenly compacted and level surface for construction ensuring that the
soil and foundational integrity of the site provides secure and stable soil conditions, should strong
seismic shaking occur.
Mitigation Measure GEO-3 requires the removal of existing undocumented fill and near surface
native soils that are considered unsuitable for support of proposed structures. Unsuitable soils shall
be removed to underlying competent alluvial materials. The estimated depth of removal is
recommended to be approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface in proposed building
areas. The actual depths and horizontal limits of removals and over-excavations would be
determined with review of the final site grading plan and during grading on the basis of
observations and testing performed by the project geotechnical consultant. Excavated soils, if free
of deleterious materials, are considered acceptable for use as compacted fill to ensure secure and
stable soil conditions. Mitigation Measure GEO-3 improves soil composition by creating even and
uniform conditions for construction.
Furthermore, prior to placing engineered fill, the project geotechnical consultant shall approve the
exposed bottom surfaces in the removal areas to ensure they are scarified to a minimum depth of
12 inches, moisture-conditioned or air-dried to achieve approximately 2 percent above optimum
moisture content, as required by Mitigation Measure GEO-4 (page 4.6-13 of DEIR/RDEIR). The
approval of the exposed bottom surfaces will ensure that the foundation for the fill material is
secure. The geotechnical consultant will also ensure slopes and fill materials are designed and
constructed with deepened and/or strengthened foundation systems designed to withstand relative
movement that is likely to result from settlement of these likely compressible surficial soils, as
required in GEO-5 (pages 4.6-13 of DEIR/RDEIR). All fill materials shall be placed in incremental
layers, each measuring approximately 6- to 8-inches in thickness. Before placement, similar to the
scarified surfaces discussed above, the fill materials must be watered or air-dried as necessary to
achieve a minimum moisture content of at least 2 percent above the optimum moisture condition,
and then compacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, are required by
Mitigation Measure GEO-6. These procedures are required to ensure the structural integrity of the
site, rendering it capable of accommodating the proposed construction in a secure and stable
manner, thus reducing impacts to less than significant levels.
A geotechnical consultant shall be present onsite during all earthwork operations to document
placement and compaction of fills, as well as provide observation and testing services based on
scheduling determined during the pre-earthwork meeting during final clearing and grubbing
operations, as stated in Mitigation Measure GEO-7. The presence of the geotechnical consultant
onsite will ensure optimal soil conditions (as listed in GEO-4 through GEO-6 above) are present
onsite, as well as provide corrective recommendations if adverse soil conditions or buried
30
structures are encountered during grading. GEO-7 mitigates the potential of adverse soil conditions
onsite.
Mitigation Measure GEO-8 requires standards for footings throughout the project to ensure that
the weight of the project is equally distributed across the entire structure, ensuring the project does
not sink or become unstable due to the quality of the soil on the project site. Mitigation Measure
GEO-9 requires standards for floor slabs throughout the project to ensure that the building is
properly stabilized and can properly support the load of the walls, beams, and foundations.
Overall, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 to GEO-9, impacts of strong
seismic ground shaking will be reduced to less than significant levels.
ii. Result in Soil Erosion or Loss of Top Soil
The project site is subject to potential windborne, waterborne, and human-caused erosion. Project
development has the potential to cause significant adverse erosion effects, including the generation
of fugitive dust.
a) Mitigation Measures
To avoid or substantially reduce potential adverse effects associated with erosion, the following
mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:
GEO-10 Positive surface drainage systems consisting of a combination of sloped
concrete flatwork/asphalt pavement, sheet flow gradients, swales, and
surface area drains (where needed) shall be provided around the building and
within any planter areas to collect and direct all surface waters to an
appropriate drainage facility as determined by the project civil engineer. The
ground surfaces of planter and landscape areas that are located within 10 feet
of building foundations shall be sloped at a minimum gradient of 5 percent
away from the foundations and towards the nearest area drains. The ground
surface of planter and landscape areas that are located more than 10 feet away
from building foundations may be sloped at a minimum gradient of 2 percent
away from the foundations and towards the nearest area drains.
Concrete flatwork surfaces that are located within 10 feet of building
foundations shall be inclined at a minimum gradient of one percent away
from the building foundations and towards the nearest area drains. Concrete
flatwork surfaces that are located more than 10 feet away from building
foundations may be sloped at a minimum gradient of 1 percent towards the
nearest area drains. Surface waters shall not be allowed to collect or pond
against building foundations and within the level areas of the site. All
drainage devices shall be properly maintained throughout the lifetime of the
development. Future changes to site improvements, or planting and watering
practices, shall not be allowed to cause over-saturation of site soils adjacent
to the structures.
31
b) Finding Related to Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that, for each of the significant effects relating
to erosion described above and further discussed in the Draft/Final EIR, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such
significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such
effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation
measure GEO-10, as recommended in the Final EIR, which has been adopted by the City and is
enforceable through the MMRP and project conditions of approval.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated on page 4.6-14 of the DEIR/RDEIR, construction of the project would involve ground
disturbing activities, such as the clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation, and grading of the
site, increasing the potential of soil erosion at the time of development. In order to reduce the effect
of windborne erosion at the project site and at the offsite construction location, the project will be
required to implement the Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (PM10 Plan)
requirement for a Fugitive Dust Control Plan. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan is required under Palm
Springs Municipal Code Section 8.50.022. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan requires the
implementation of best available control measures (BACM) such as the use of perimeter fencing,
applying adhesive dust suppressant, or watering the project site. The project property will be
required to implement the BACMs for on- and off-site improvements within the project-specific
Fugitive Dust Control Plan during construction of the project site.
In addition to the Fugitive Dust Control Plan, the project will be required to prepare and implement
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce the potential of waterborne erosion
during construction (as required by Construction General Permit No. 99-08-DWQ). The SWPPP
includes a list of the best management practices (BMPs) that would be implemented to prevent
soil erosion that could contaminate nearby water resources. The implementation of a SWPPP for
the project site would reduce soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during construction resulting from
stormwater (see DEIR/RDEIR p. 4.6-14).
Operation of the project would introduce impervious, paved areas throughout the property. The
impervious surfaces would reduce the potential for erosion during operation by stabilizing the
ground surface and minimizing the amount of exposed soil. These features would establish
stabilized surfaces and onsite maintenance at the project site, thereby decreasing the likelihood of
onsite windborne and waterborne erosion during project operation. Mitigation Measure GEO-10
requires positive surface drainage systems consisting of a combination of sloped concrete
flatwork/asphalt pavement, sheet flow gradients, swales, and surface area drains (where needed)
around the building and within any planter areas to collect and direct all surface waters to an
appropriate drainage facility as determined by the project civil engineer. Impacts are reduced to
less than significant levels because GEO-10 ensures waterborne erosion does not occur onsite.
32
iii. Located on an Unstable Geologic Unit Resulting in Potential for On-Site or
Off-site Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction or Collapse
The native materials on the project site consist primarily of topsoil, colluvium, and alluvium. The
overall density of the alluvial soils encountered in borings on the project site (medium dense to
dense) is at a reduced risk of subsidence because they are dense and consolidated, and as a result
less subject to subsidence. The project site is underlain with undocumented, artificial fill and
compressible soils. Such materials consist of surficial topsoil/colluvium/alluvium and are not
considered suitable for support of fill or structural loads in their current state. Thus, resulting in a
potentially significant impact if not removed.
a) Mitigation Measures
To avoid or substantially reduce potential adverse effects associated with development on an
unstable geologic unit or expansive soil, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted
and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:
GEO-2 Clearing operations shall include the removal of any trash, debris,
vegetation, and similar deleterious materials including the root balls of any
trees. Voids created by the removal shall be backfilled as well as the removal
and replacement of surficial artificial and compressible soil materials with
engineered fill. Any buried deleterious materials encountered within the site
due to past site usage may need to be removed by hand (e.g., root pickers)
during grading operations.
GEO-3 Any existing undocumented fill and near surface native soils are considered
unsuitable for support of proposed structures and shall be removed to
underlying competent alluvial materials as approved by the project
geotechnical consultant. The estimated depth of removal is recommended to
be approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface in proposed
building areas. Consideration shall be given to locally deepening the
excavation at the location of tree roots or proposed subterranean features (if
any) in order to provide a uniform depth of compacted fill in all areas. Soil
removals could be locally deeper depending upon the actual exposed
conditions encountered during grading. At a minimum, the over-excavation
shall extend a distance beyond the perimeter of the structure equal to the
depth of the over-excavation. The actual depths and horizontal limits of
removals and over-excavations shall be evaluated upon availability of the
site grading plan and during grading on the basis of observations and testing
performed by the project geotechnical consultant. Excavated soils, if free of
deleterious materials, are considered acceptable for use as compacted fill.
GEO-4 Prior to placing engineered fill, the exposed bottom surfaces in the removal
areas shall be approved by a representative of project geotechnical
consultant. The exposed bottom(s) shall be scarified to a minimum depth of
12 inches, moisture-conditioned or air-dried to achieve approximately two
33
percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted with a heavy
construction equipment prior to placement of fill. Minimum compaction of
the upper 12 inches of the removal bottom shall meet or exceed 90 percent
relative compaction. The laboratory maximum dry density, the standard for
determining relative compaction, and optimum moisture content for each
change in soil type shall be determined in accordance with Test Method
ASTM D 1557.
GEO-5 If remedial grading is necessary immediately adjacent to the property
boundaries, a geotechnical consultant must prepare a plan addressing issues
including: temporary backcut slopes shall generally be restricted to a slope
ratio of 1:1 (h:v) or flatter to protect adjacent offsite improvements
(including pavement, sidewalks, walls, buried utilities, etc.). Depending on
the actual horizontal extent of necessary remedial grading, a wedge of
unsuitable soil may remain in place along the site perimeter that will extend
into the site. Any new perimeter site improvements that are anticipated to be
within this zone may need to be designed and constructed with deepened
and/or strengthened foundation systems designed to withstand relative
movement that is likely to result from settlement of these likely compressible
surficial soils. Alternately, the remedial grading adjacent to the site
boundaries may be accomplished by the slot-cutting method. More specific
recommendations may be appropriate once the rough grading plan is
available for review.
GEO-6 All fill materials shall be placed in approximately 6- to 8-inch-thick loose
lifts, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve a minimum moisture
content at least 2 percent above the optimum moisture condition, and then
compacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. The
laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each
change in soil type shall be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557.
GEO-7 Prior to the start of earthwork, a meeting shall be held at the site with the
owner’s representative, contractor, and geotechnical consultant to discuss
the work schedule and geotechnical aspects of the grading. Earthwork,
which in this instance will generally entail removal and re-compaction of
the near surface soils, shall be accomplished under full-time observation
and testing by the geotechnical consultant. A representative of the project
geotechnical consultant shall be present onsite during all earthwork
operations to document placement and compaction of fills, as well as to
document compliance with the other recommendations presented herein.
Additionally, the project geotechnical consultant shall provide observation
and testing services based on scheduling determined during the pre-
earthwork meeting during final clearing and grubbing operations to
document compliance with the above recommendations. In addition, shall
unusual or adverse soil conditions or buried structures be encountered
during grading that are not described herein, these conditions shall be
34
brought to the immediate attention of the project geotechnical consultant for
corrective recommendations.
GEO-8 Footings:
g) Exterior continuous footings supporting one- and two-story light-weight
construction shall be founded at a minimum depth of 15 inches below the
lowest adjacent final grade. For concrete tilt up structures, continuous
footings shall be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches. Interior
continuous footings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches
below the top of the adjacent finish floor slabs.
h) In accordance with Table 1809.7 of 2022 CBC, all continuous footings
shall have minimum widths of 12 inches for one- and two-story
construction. Petra recommends all continuous footings shall be
reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom.
i) A minimum 12-inch-wide grade beam founded at the same depth as
adjacent footings shall be provided across openings such as large doors
or bay windows. The grade beam shall be reinforced in a similar manner
as provided above.
j) Interior isolated pad footings, if required, shall be a minimum of 24
inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the
bottoms of the adjacent floor slabs. Pad footings shall be reinforced with
No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, placed
near the bottoms of the footings.
k) Exterior isolated pad footings intended for support of roof overhangs
such as patio covers and similar construction shall be a minimum of 24
inches square, and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the
lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings shall be reinforced with No.
4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, placed near
the bottoms of the footings. Exterior isolated pad footings may need to
be connected to adjacent pad and/or continuous footings via tie beams at
the discretion of the project structural engineer.
l) The minimum footing dimensions and reinforcement recommended
herein may be modified (increased or decreased subject to the constraints
of Chapter 18 of the 2022 CBC) by the structural engineer responsible
for foundation design based on calculations, engineering experience, and
judgment.
GEO-9 Building Floor Slabs:
g) For office areas, and areas with light floor loading, concrete floor slabs
shall be a minimum 4 inches thick and reinforced with a minimum No. 3
35
bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways. For
warehouse floors the slabs shall be a minimum of 5 inches thick and
reinforced with a minimum No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches
on centers, both ways. All slab reinforcement shall be supported on
concrete chairs or brick to ensure the desired placement near mid-depth.
h) Slab dimension, reinforcement type, size and spacing need to account for
internal concrete forces (e.g., thermal, shrinkage and expansion) as well
as external forces (e.g., applied loads), as deemed necessary.
i) Moisture sensitive concrete floor slabs and areas to receive moisture
sensitive floor covering shall be underlain with a moisture vapor retarder
consisting of a minimum 10-mil-thick polyethylene or polyolefin
membrane that meets the minimum requirements of ASTM E96 and
ASTM E1745 for vapor retarders (such as Husky Yellow Guard®,
Stego® Wrap, or equivalent). All laps within the membrane shall be
sealed, and at least 2 inches of clean sand shall be placed over the
membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete. To reduce the
potential for punctures, the membrane shall be placed on a pad surface
that has been graded smooth without any sharp protrusions. If a smooth
surface cannot be achieved by grading, consideration shall be given to
lowering the pad finished grade an additional inch and then placing a 1-
inch-thick leveling course of sand across the pad surface prior to the
placement of the membrane.
j) Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below building and auxiliary
area floor slabs shall be moisture conditioned to achieve a moisture
content that is at least 1.2 times the optimum moisture content. This
moisture shall penetrate to a depth of approximately 12 inches into the
subgrade.
k) The modulus of subgrade reaction for design of load bearing elements
depends on the size of the element and soil-structure interaction. As a
first level of approximation, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 125
pounds per cubic inch may be assumed for floor slab design.
l) The minimum dimensions and reinforcement recommended herein for
building floor slabs may be modified (increased or decreased) by the
structural engineer responsible for foundation design based on
calculations, engineering experience, and judgment.
36
b) Finding Regarding On-Site or Off-site Lateral Spreading, Subsidence,
Liquefaction or Collapse
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that, for each of the significant effects relating
to unstable soil conditions described above and further discussed in the Draft/Final EIR, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that
all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of
Mitigation Measures GEO-2 through GEO-9, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been
adopted by the City and are enforceable through the MMRP and project conditions of approval.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Liquefaction: As stated on page 4.6-16 of the DEIR/RDEIR, no groundwater was encountered to
a maximum depth of 66 feet below ground surface during the subsurface exploration of the site
conducted during the Geotechnical Investigation. Additionally, the medium dense to dense nature
of the unconsolidated young alluvial fan materials encountered at depth during field exploration
do not provide conditions for liquefaction and subsequent effects, such as lateral spread, to occur,
since shallow groundwater and loose unconsolidated soils are required for liquefaction and
subsequent effects to occur.
Landslides and Rockfalls: As stated on page 4.6-17 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project site and
surrounding area is defined by relatively flat land, and the project is not located near the local
mountain ranges. The closest slope to the project is Garnet Hill (approximately 0.7 miles southeast
of the project). Therefore, landslides and rockfalls are not anticipated to occur at the site.
Ground Subsidence: Excessive groundwater withdrawal typically results in subsidence. Per the
Geotechnical Investigation, there are no signs (i.e., discernable features, ground fissures, linearity
of depressions, radial directed drainages, etc.) of subsidence or hydro-consolidation at or near the
site. Additionally, due to the absence of a clay layer in the groundwater basin hydrogeology, land
subsidence is less likely to occur and the potential is considered low (page 4.6-17 of the
DEIR/RDEIR). Overdraft (excessive withdrawal) from the basin that underlie the project site is
monitored by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and CVWD. CVWD, DWA and
MSWD implement conversion projects (including reclamation facilities, and recycled water
programs) to recharge the basins. MSWD also requires conservation measures to reduce potential
overdraft of the basin (page 4.6-17 and 4.6-18 of DEIR/RDEIR). With the existing geological
conditions of the site and surrounding, and the involvement of water agencies, subsidence is not
expected to occur at the project site.
Collapse: Soil collapse occurs in recently deposited sediments that accumulate in an arid or semi-
arid environment. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is underlain with
undocumented, artificial fill and compressible soils. Such materials consist of surficial
topsoil/colluvium/alluvium and are not considered suitable for support of fill or structural loads in
their current state because they can lead to collapse (page 4.6-18 of DEIR/RDEIR). These soils,
along with debris, vegetation, undocumented fill soil, and loose soil in the existing soil shall be
37
removed from the site, and the project shall implement Mitigation Measures GEO-2 through GEO-
9.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 requires clearing operations to include the removal of any trash, debris,
vegetation, and similar deleterious materials including the root balls of any trees. Voids created by
these removals shall be backfilled. The removal and replacement of surficial artificial and
compressible soil materials with engineered fill is also required. Any buried deleterious materials
encountered within the site due to past site usage may need to be removed by hand (i.e., root
pickers) during grading operations. Removing deleterious materials and replacing soils with
engineered fill will create an evenly compacted and level surface for construction ensuring that the
soil and foundational integrity of the site provides secure and stable soil conditions, should strong
seismic shaking occur.
Mitigation Measure GEO-3 requires the removal of existing undocumented fill and near surface
native soils that are considered unsuitable for support of proposed structures. Unsuitable soils shall
be removed to underlying competent alluvial materials. The estimated depth of removal is
recommended to be approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface in proposed building
areas. The actual depths and horizontal limits of removals and over-excavations would be
determined with review of the final site grading plan and during grading on the basis of
observations and testing performed by the project geotechnical consultant. Excavated soils, if free
of deleterious materials, are considered acceptable for use as compacted fill to ensure secure and
stable soil conditions. Mitigation Measure GEO-3 improves soil composition by creating even and
uniform conditions for construction.
Furthermore, prior to placing engineered fill, the project geotechnical consultant shall approve the
exposed bottom surfaces in the removal areas to ensure they are scarified to a minimum depth of
12 inches, moisture-conditioned or air-dried to achieve approximately 2 percent above optimum
moisture content, as required by Mitigation Measure GEO-4 (page 4.6-13 of DEIR/RDEIR). The
approval of the exposed bottom surfaces will ensure that the foundation for the fill material is
secure. The geotechnical consultant will also ensure slopes and fill materials are designed and
constructed with deepened and/or strengthened foundation systems designed to withstand relative
movement that is likely to result from settlement of these likely compressible surficial soils, as
required in GEO-5 (pages 4.6-13 of DEIR/RDEIR). All fill materials shall be placed in incremental
layers, each measuring approximately 6- to 8-inches in thickness. Before placement, similar to the
scarified surfaces discussed above, the fill materials must be watered or air-dried as necessary to
achieve a minimum moisture content of at least 2 percent above the optimum moisture condition,
and then compacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, as required by
Mitigation Measure GEO-6. These procedures are required to ensure the structural integrity of the
site, rendering it capable of accommodating the proposed construction in a secure and stable
manner, thus reducing impacts to less than significant levels.
A geotechnical consultant must be present onsite during all earthwork operations to document
placement and compaction of fills, as well as provide observation and testing services based on
scheduling determined during the pre-earthwork meeting during final clearing and grubbing
operations, as stated in Mitigation Measure GEO-7. The presence of the geotechnical consultant
onsite will ensure optimal soil conditions (as listed in GEO-4 through GEO-6 above) are present
onsite, as well as provide corrective recommendations if adverse soil conditions or buried
38
structures are encountered during grading. GEO-7 mitigates the potential of adverse soil conditions
onsite.
Mitigation Measure GEO-8 requires standards for footings throughout the project to ensure that
the weight of the project is equally distributed across the entire structure, ensuring the project does
not sink or become unstable due to the quality of the soil on the project site. Mitigation Measure
GEO-9 requires standards for floor slabs throughout the project to ensure that the building is
properly stabilized and can properly support the load of the walls, beams, and foundations.
Overall, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-2 to GEO-9, impacts of strong
seismic ground shaking will be reduced to less than significant levels.
iv. Located on Expansive Soil
Based on available data referred to in the Geotechnical Investigation, including the non-plastic,
granular nature of the soils encountered in the subsurface exploration, near surface soils are
considered very low in expansion potential (Expansion Index less than 20) (see DEIR p. 4.6-19).
a) Mitigation Measures
To avoid or substantially reduce potential adverse effects associated with development on an
unstable geologic unit or expansive soil, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted
and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:
GEO-11 If imported soils are required to complete the planned grading, these soils
shall consist of clean materials devoid of rock exceeding a maximum
dimension of 4 inches, organics, trash, and other deleterious materials. To
avoid making revisions to the foundation design, imported soils shall also be
granular and exhibit a very low expansion potential (Expansion Index 0-20).
Prospective import soils shall be observed at the source, tested and approved
by the geotechnical consultant prior to importing the soils to the site. It is
recommended that the project environmental consultant shall also be notified
so that they can confirm the suitability of the proposed import material from
an environmental standpoint. Additional sampling and testing shall be
performed during site grading for determining actual expansion potential of
the supporting building pad soils.
b) Finding Regarding Expansive Soils
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that, for each of the significant effects relating
to development on expansive soil described above and further discussed in the Draft/Final EIR,
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and
further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through
implementation of Mitigation MeasureGEO-11, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have
been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the MMRP and project conditions of
approval.
39
Facts in Support of Finding:
Based on available data referred to in the Geotechnical Investigation, including the non-plastic,
granular nature of the soils encountered in the subsurface exploration, near surface soils are
considered very low in expansion potential (Expansion Index less than 20). Therefore, imported
soils shall be observed at the source, tested, and approved by a geotechnical consultant prior to
importing the soils to the site. Additional sampling and testing shall be performed during site
grading for determining actual expansion potential of the supporting building pad soils. This is
required in Mitigation Measure GEO-11. If imported fill is required, the material shall be of a non-
expansive nature and shall meet the criteria outlined within the Geotechnical Investigation. Testing
the expansion potential of the soil will ensure that the onsite soils do not have high expansion
potential. The project and offsite construction for the project shall comply with the
recommendations established within the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation to ensure the
foundational safety of the project site. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-11,
expansive soils would not occur onsite (as ensured by sampling and testing), and the impact would
be less than significant.
v. Impacts to a Unique Paleontological Resource, Site or Unique Geologic
Feature
The Riverside County General Plan EIR designates the City as a low sensitivity area for
paleontological resources. The project site primarily consists of alluvial sands, which are recent
deposits and not conducive to the preservation of paleontological resources. However, deeper
Pleistocene-age sediments and formations have a higher potential for the presence of fossils. If
grading plans require that project related excavations go deeper than ten feet, Pleistocene- age soils
could occur, and paleontological resources could be uncovered. This would represent a potentially
significant impact.
a) Mitigation Measures
To avoid or substantially reduce potential adverse effects on a unique paleontological resource,
site or geologic feature, the following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be
implemented consistent with the MMRP:
GEO-12 If grading plans show that project related excavations go deeper than ten
(10) feet, a qualified paleontological monitor shall be retained by the site
developer(s) to check for fossils. Should construction/development
activities uncover paleontological resources, work will be halted in that area
and moved to other parts of the project site and the monitor shall determine
the significance of these resources. The paleontologist shall have authority
to divert grading away from exposed fossils temporarily in order to recover
the fossil specimens. If the find is determined to be significant, avoidance
or other appropriate measures shall be implemented as recommended by the
monitor.
GEO-13 All fossils and associated data recovered during the paleontological
monitoring shall be reposted in a public museum or other approved curation
40
facility based upon the specific resource recovered and recommendations
from the paleontological consultant.
b) Finding Regarding Unique Paleontological Resource, Site or Unique
Geologic Feature
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that, for the significant effects relating to
paleontological resources described above and further discussed in the Draft/Final EIR, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that
all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of
mitigation measures GEO-12 and GEO-13, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been
adopted by the City and are enforceable through the MMRP and project conditions of approval.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Although the project site is designated as a low sensitivity area for paleontological resources,
fossils may occur onsite at greater depths. Therefore, the presence of a qualified paleontological
monitor during excavations of 10 feet or deeper is required by Mitigation Measure GEO-12. The
qualified paleontological monitor will check for fossils during these excavations. If discovered,
construction in the area shall stop so that the paleontological monitor can recover the fossil
specimen and assess the significance of the resource. Mitigation Measure GEO-12 ensures that
paleontological resources are not impacted by excavation activities onsite that occur at depths
greater than 10 feet (where fossils may occur). If fossils are recovered during these activities, they
shall be reposted in a public museum or other approved curation facility, as required by Mitigation
Measure GEO-13. The preservation of the discovered resource (as directed by the paleontological
consultant) will ensure that the project’s impact to paleontological resources is less than
significant.
D. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
i. Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation Adopted for the
Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Applicable plans, policies and regulations include the 2022 Scoping Plan, County of Riverside
Climate Action Plan (CAP), and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020-
2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS).
Conflicts with these plans would have a potentially significant impact.
a) Mitigation Measures
To mitigate potential impacts concerning applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted to
reduce GHG emissions, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be
implemented consistent with the MMRP:
41
GHG-1: The project shall implement Screening Table Measures providing for a
minimum 100 points per the County Screening Tables. The City shall verify
incorporation of the identified Screening Table Measures within the project
building plans and site designs prior to the issuance of building permit(s).
The City shall verify implementation of the identified Screening Table
Measures prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy.
b) Finding Related to Conflicts with Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation
Adopted to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project would not conflict with
applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions described
above and further discussed in the Draft/Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental
effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less
than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1, as recommended
in the Final EIR, which has been adopted by the City and is enforceable through the MMRP and
project conditions of approval.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the
2022 Scoping Plan. The project would be required to comply with applicable current and future
regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan. Some of the current
transportation sector policies the project will comply with (through vehicle manufacturer
compliance) include: Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets,
Zero Emission Forklifts, the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-
Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Off-Road
Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program,
Amendments to the In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, carbon pricing through the
Cap-and-Trade Program, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. As such, the project would be
consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan (see DEIR p. 4.7-16).
The City’s currently approved CAP does not provide criteria to evaluate proposed private
development. Therefore, the City of Palm Springs has used the County of Riverside CAP Update
and associated methodology in the evaluation of this project. Because the County of Riverside
CAP Update addresses GHG emissions reductions and is consistent with the requirements of AB
32, SB 32, and international efforts to reduce GHG emissions, compliance with the CAP Update
fulfills the description of mitigation found in the State CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to Mitigation
Measure GHG-1, the project will implement Screening Table Measures providing for a minimum
100 points per the County Screening Tables. Since Mitigation Measure GHG‐1 requires a
minimum of 100 points, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the project would be
consistent with the CAP Update.
SCAG is responsible for developing long-range transportation plans and sustainable strategies for
the region in accordance with federal and state law and planning requirements. The Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) would meet the applicable
42
2035 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction target for automobiles and light trucks of a 19
percent per capita reduction by 2035 relative to 2005 levels.
The project applicant proposes to develop a two-story industrial building of approximately
739,360-square-feet within the City of Palm Springs’s Industrial land use designation. The project
would not involve new residential development introducing a direct population growth. The
Population and Housing Section found that the project could generate approximately 718 jobs, but
it is reasonable to assume that the new jobs could be filled by existing residents of the City and
Coachella Valley region. Therefore, there would not be a substantial growth in population and the
project would be consistent with the City and regional population growth projections (see DEIR
p. 4.7-16 and 4.7-17).
E. TRANSPORTATION
i. Substantially Increase Hazards Due to Geometric Design Features or
Incompatible Uses
The two major streets accessing the site will be Indian Canyon Drive along the project’s eastern
boundary and 19th Avenue along the project’s southern boundary. Development of the proposed
project could potentially result in temporary traffic flow impacts along the surrounding rights-of-
way, resulting in significant impacts if not mitigated.
a) Mitigation Measures
To mitigate potential effects relating to traffic hazards, the following mitigation measure is hereby
adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:
TRA-2: Traffic Control Plan: Prior to construction of any project related
improvements, including offsite utilities and/ or issuance of a grading
permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the City of Palm Springs
for review and approval detailed construction traffic management plans,
including street closure information, detour plans, haul routes, and staging
plans as necessary for any off-site work that would encroach on public right-
of-way. The construction traffic management plans shall include the
following elements, as appropriate:
Provisions for temporary traffic control during all construction activities
adjacent to public right-of-way to improve traffic flow on public
roadways (e.g., flag person);
Construction-related vehicles shall not park on surrounding public
streets;
Provision of safety precautions for pedestrians and bicyclists through
such measures as alternate routing and protection barriers;
Schedule construction-related deliveries to reduce travel during peak
travel periods;
Obtain the required permits for truck haul routes from the City of Desert
Hot Springs prior to the issuance of any permit for the project; and
43
Obtain a Caltrans transportation permit for use of oversized transport
vehicles on Caltrans facilities.
Outline adequate measures to ensure emergency vehicle access during
all aspects of the project’s construction, including, but not limited to,
the use of flagmen during partial closures to streets surrounding the
project site to facilitate the traffic flow until construction is complete.
Include the implementation of security measures during construction in
areas that are accessible to the general public to help reduce any
increased demand on law enforcement services, including fencing
construction areas, providing security lighting, and providing security
personnel to patrol construction sites.
b) Finding Regarding Hazards Due to Geometric Design Features or
Incompatible Uses
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that, for each of the significant effects relating
to traffic and transportation hazards described above and further discussed in the Final EIR,
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and
further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through
implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2, as recommended in the Final EIR, which has been
adopted by the City and is enforceable through the MMRP, and project conditions of approval.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Temporary impacts may occur during the construction of infrastructure improvements serving the
project, including connection to a MSWD sewer line in 19th Avenue, approximately 600 feet east
of the subject property. The project proposes to connect to the existing 16-inch water main located
in 19th Avenue adjacent to the southern boundary. Construction of the project’s on- and off-site
infrastructure improvements could cause short-term impacts related to traffic flows as a result of
temporary lane closures. To minimize potential temporary traffic flow impacts during
construction, a detailed construction traffic management plan(s) must be prepared and submitted
to the City of Palm Springs (TRA-2). Plans shall include street closure information, detour plans,
haul routes, and staging plans as necessary for any off-site work that would encroach on public
right-of-way Mitigation Measure TRA-2 would substantially reduce the temporary short-term
construction related traffic impacts to a less than significant level.
ii. Result in Inadequate Emergency Access
The project site is currently undeveloped. Construction and operation of the project may result in
the need for emergency responders and employees to access the facility. Inadequate emergency
access to the project would be a significant impact.
44
a) Mitigation Measures
To mitigate potential impacts concerning inadequate emergency access, the following mitigation
measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:
TRA-2: Traffic Control Plan: Prior to construction of any project related
improvements, including offsite utilities and/ or issuance of a grading
permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit the City of Palm Springs for
review and approval detailed construction traffic management plans,
including street closure information, detour plans, haul routes, and staging
plans as necessary for any off-site work that would encroach on public right-
of-way. The construction traffic management plans shall include the
following elements, as appropriate:
Provisions for temporary traffic control during all construction activities
adjacent to public right-of-way to improve traffic flow on public
roadways (e.g., flag person);
Construction-related vehicles shall not park on surrounding public
streets;
Provision of safety precautions for pedestrians and bicyclists through
such measures as alternate routing and protection barriers;
Schedule construction-related deliveries to reduce travel during peak
travel periods;
Obtain the required permits for truck haul routes from the County of
Riverside and the City of Desert Hot Springs prior to the issuance of any
permit for the project; and
Obtain a Caltrans transportation permit for use of oversized transport
vehicles on Caltrans facilities.
Outline adequate measures to ensure emergency vehicle access during
all aspects of the project’s construction, including, but not limited to,
the use of flagmen during partial closures to streets surrounding the
project site to facilitate the traffic flow until construction is complete.
Include the implementation of security measures during construction in
areas that are accessible to the general public to help reduce any
increased demand on law enforcement services, including fencing
construction areas, providing security lighting, and providing security
personnel to patrol construction sites.
b) Finding Related to Inadequate Emergency Access
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that, for each of the significant effects relating
to inadequate emergency access described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
45
lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that
all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of
Mitigation Measure TRA-2, as recommended in the Final EIR, which has been adopted by the City
and is enforceable through the MMRP, and project conditions of approval.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Project construction will ensure adequate access at all times and that complete and adequate public
facilities and services are in place and available for the emergency responders and employees to
the facility. This includes fire department approved emergency roadway design and facilities
including fire hydrants. Per the General Plan Safety Element, the project is not located on any of
the four main points of roadway access (lifelines) to the City. Mitigation Measure TRA-2 Traffic
Control Plan will ensure that streets remain accessible for emergency purposes because the Traffic
Control Plan requires detailed construction management plans, including street closure
information, detour plans, haul routes, and staging plans as necessary for any off-site work that
would encroach on the public right-of-way. The Traffic Control Plan will provide the City and
emergency services with the necessary project-related traffic information. TRA-2 also requires the
project to obtain the permits required for truck haul routes, and the use of Caltrans facilities. With
implementation of the mitigation measure and standard conditions, including roadway design
review and approval, impacts associated with the emergency access would be less than significant.
F. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
i. Impacts to Significant Tribal Cultural Resources
The proposed project could have a potentially significant impact on Tribal Cultural Resources
within or near the project site Although the Sacred Lands File search by the NAHC produced
negative results for Native American cultural resources in the general vicinity, the ACBCI has
indicated that the project area may be sensitive for buried archaeological resources. These are
considered significant adverse impacts.
a) Mitigation Measures
To mitigate potential project specific and cumulative effects relating to Tribal Cultural Resources,
the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the
MMRP:
CUL-1: Prior to ground disturbance (including clearing, grubbing, etc.) the
applicant/developer will retain a qualified archaeological monitor and an
ACBCI Tribal monitor to be present during all ground disturbing activities.
If cultural materials are discovered during grading or excavation, the
construction contractor shall cease all earthmoving activity within and
around the immediate discovery area until a qualified archaeologist can
assess the nature and significance of the find. An archaeological monitoring
plan will be developed and implemented to ensure that any unanticipated
discoveries made during project-related ground-disturbing activities are
properly treated. The archaeologist, in consultation with ACBCI, shall be
46
consulted to reduce or terminate monitoring when it is indicated by field
conditions and as appropriate.
b) Finding Regarding Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that, for each of the significant effects relating
to Tribal Cultural Resources described above and further discussed in the Draft/Final EIR, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that
all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of
Mitigation Measure CUL-1, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the
City and are enforceable through the MMRP, and project conditions of approval.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The City of Palm Springs completed Tribal consultation as required under AB 52. The ACBCI
requested that a cultural resource monitor from the Tribe and an archaeologist that meets the
Secretary of Interior’s standards be present during ground-disturbing activities related to the
project in order to assure that buried resources are not damaged if they are unearthed by grading
activities. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires that archaeological monitoring be implemented to
ensure that any unanticipated discoveries made during project-related ground disturbance activities
are properly treated. This measure is acceptable to the ACBCI and would reduce their concerns
regarding the project’s impacts to Tribal resources to less than significant levels. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 the ACBCI concluded the AB52 consultation
efforts in their written letter dated December 1, 2023 (see DEIR p 4.14-5 and 4.14-6). Significant
adverse effects to this resource are avoided through mitigation measure CUL-1 and impacts to
Tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.
Additionally, as stated on page 4.14-6 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project will connect to existing 12-
inch sewer lines approximately 650 feet east of the project, along 19th Avenue. Mitigation
Measure CUL-1 will apply to these improvements as will the project site, to assure that impacts to
tribal resources remain less than significant.
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
The Final EIR also determined, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the following
impacts associated with the project are less than significant and no mitigation is required. The City
hereby adopts the findings, analysis, and conclusions regarding these potential impacts set forth in
the Final EIR and incorporates the same herein by this reference.
A. AESTHETICS
i. Effects on a Scenic Vista
The mountains surrounding the City of Palm Springs include the San Jacinto Mountains on the
west, the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south, and more distantly, the Little San Bernardino
47
Mountains to the north. The surrounding mountains contribute to the scenic vista observed in Palm
Springs and near the project site. The project is located on vacant and undeveloped land. The
vacant condition of the site does not obstruct views of scenic vistas.
From the project property, the San Jacinto Mountains to the southwest are largely visible, without
major interruptions. From viewpoint locations along Indian Canyon Drive, the toe of slope to the
peak of the Mountain is visible. From the project site, the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south are
interrupted by existing buildings, landscaping, infrastructure and topography. However,
depending on viewpoint location (i.e., northern part of the property versus southern part of the
property), the mid-range and peak views can be observed from the project. The San Gorgonio
Mountains to the northwest, and the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the north are also distant
and visible from the project property. Similar to the views of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa
Mountains, base views of the San Gorgonio Mountains and Little San Bernardino Mountains, are
obstructed by existing infrastructure. However, mid-range and peak views of these mountains are
visible from the project site. See Exhibits 4.1-1 through 4.1-10 in the DEIR and Exhibits 4.1-1
through 4.1-5 and 4.1-8 through 4.1-12 in the RDEIR for the existing conditions from public
viewsheds (i.e., public rights-of-way). The impacts are less than significant because the project’s
building height and proposed setbacks do not result in the obstruction of scenic views from public
rights-of-way north and east of the project, or from private properties surrounding the project.
a) Finding Regarding Scenic Vistas
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that, the project fits with the industrial
character of this portion of the City, and through compliance with the Palm Springs Municipal
Code and applicable City requirements (as a standard condition), the project’s effects relating to
the scenic vistas will be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The findings of the analysis determined that the project would not result in significant impacts to
the scenic vistas due to the proposed building setbacks and building height restrictions. The
proposed building will be 50-feet in height, and set back approximately 152 to 156 feet from the
proposed sidewalk along Indian Canyon Drive. The project will block midrange and baseline
views of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains from pedestrians and motorists traveling
southbound on Indian Canyon Drive. Similarly, the project will block midrange and baseline views
of the San Bernardino and San Gorgonio Mountains from pedestrians and motorists traveling
northbound on Indian Canyon Drive. The proposed 50-foot high building will block these views
for a distance of approximately 800 feet (i.e., the building length along Indian Canyon Drive).
These obstructed views would be similar to those observed along Indian Canyon Drive, south of
19th Avenue, where existing commercial and industrial buildings are located adjacent to the right-
of-way. The setback will reduce the scale of the building by placing it further away from the right-
of-way, therefore, reducing the building mass viewed by the motorists. The setbacks will also
allow the peaks of the mountains to be visible along the right-of-way. It should also be noted that
it will take approximately 16 seconds for motorists traveling along Indian Canyon Drive to pass
the project site (using distance / speed (55 mph) = time). Finally, unobstructed views of the Little
San Bernardino Mountains to the north, and Santa Rosa Mountains to the south will remain visible,
48
due to the orientation of the project along Indian Canyon Drive. Therefore, impacts from Indian
Canyon Drive will be less than significant.
19th Avenue extends a distance of approximately 1,300 feet along the project’s southern frontage.
The proposed project building frontage extends approximately 1,000 feet along 19th Avenue. The
building will be set back approximately 266-312 feet from the property boundary. From the
segment of 19th Avenue adjacent to the project site, views of the Little San Bernardino Mountains
to the north and northeast, and San Gorgonio Mountain to the northwest are largely unobstructed.
The Santa Rosa Mountains to the south and San Jacinto Mountains to the southwest are obstructed
by existing buildings and landscaping. However, depending on viewpoint location, mid-range and
peak views of these mountains can be observed along 19th Avenue. Development of the project
will not further obstruct views of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains since the project is
located north of 19th Avenue. Development of the proposed project will partially obstruct views of
the San Gorgonio Mountains and Little San Bernardino Mountains when observed from 19th
Avenue. However, the project proposes an approximately 266-foot and 312-foot setback from the
proposed building to the proposed sidewalk along 19th Avenue which will reduce the scale of the
building by placing it further away from the right-of-way, reducing the mass viewed by the
motorists.
The project property does not currently obstruct views of the landforms oriented north of the
project site, due to the site’s vacant and undeveloped condition. Development of the proposed
project would result in new obstructions to the midrange and baseline views of the San Gorgonio
and Little San Bernardino Mountains northwest and north of the project (respectively) from
pedestrians and motorists traveling along 19th Avenue. The proposed 50-foot high building will
block these views for a distance of approximately 1,000 feet. The building will be set back
approximately 266-312 feet from the southern property boundary. This setback will reduce the
scale of the building by placing it further away from the right-of-way, reducing the building mass
viewed by the motorists. The setbacks will also allow the peaks of the mountains to be visible
along the right-of-way. The interruption of the views will be brief for passing vehicles traveling
along 19th Avenue, and impacts will be less than significant.
Additionally, the project’s impacts to surrounding properties will be less than significant because
the setbacks from building frontage to the eastern and southern properties are increased compared
to the setbacks from Indian Canyon Drive and 19th Avenue. As discussed on pages 4.1-23 to 4.1-
25 of the RDEIR, the properties surrounding the project primarily consist of vacant land, and
developed and developing industrial and commercial businesses. Building setbacks from the
western and northern properties will also be compliant with the Palm Springs Municipal Code.
These setbacks will reduce the scale of the building by placing it further away from the property
line, therefore reducing impacts viewed by the surrounding properties. The setbacks will also allow
the peaks of the mountains to be visible from the surrounding properties.
49
ii. Conflict with Applicable Zoning and Other Regulations Governing Scenic
Quality
The project is located within the City’s Industrial land use designation and Manufacturing (M-2)
zoning designation. The project is located within an urbanized area (per California Code of
Regulations, Section 15387).
a) Finding Regarding Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not conflict with applicable
zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. The project is in compliance with the Palm
Springs Municipal Code and applicable City requirements, the project’s effects relating to the
scenic quality will be less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 92.14.1.00 through 92.17.1.05 establishes the standards
and guidelines for properties within the City’s Manufacturing (M-2) zoning designation. Per
Section 92.17.1.03, Property Development Standards, building heights within M-2 zones shall not
be greater than 30 feet. However, an exception applies to areas bounded by 18th Avenue on the
north, Indian Canyon Drive on the east, and 19th Avenue to the south, where buildings over 40
feet in height are permitted (Section 92.17.1.03(C)(2)(d)). Section 92.17.1.03 (C)(2)(d) does not
establish a maximum building height for this area. Thus, the project’s building height of 50 feet
complies with the development standards in the City’s Municipal Code.
The Municipal Code establishes setback requirements for M-2 zones, and requires a minimum
setback of 25 feet from a building to any property line. The project’s setback from Indian Canyon
Drive to the project’s building varies from approximately 152 feet to approximately 156 feet
(building to property line). The building setback from 19th Avenue varies from 266 feet to 312
feet (building to property line). The building setbacks from the northern property line and western
property line are 196 to 258 feet, and 62 feet to 67 feet, respectively. The proposed building
setbacks are compliant with the zoning code established in the Palm Springs Municipal Code. The
project is also compliant with the City’s standards for lot size (exceeding the minimum lot area of
40,000 square feet, minimum lot width and depth of 200 feet), and landscape design established
in Section 8.60.060 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. Additionally, as discussed on page 4.1-
27 of the RDEIR, the project will be cohesive and complementary to the adjacent land uses by
incorporating improvements such as landscaping and fencing along the perimeter of the project.
The proposed project will include materials such as concrete in neutral beige, browns, and
dark/olive green, metal painted white, anodized aluminum storefront windows, and stone accents.
The natural colors of the proposed buildings will complement the existing landscape and the
proposed landscaping (see Exhibits 4.1-13 and 4.1-14 in RDEIR). Therefore, the project will result
in less than significant impacts to the scenic quality.
iii. Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare
The project site does not currently have existing sources of lighting. Presently, existing sources of
fixed nighttime lighting in the project vicinity can be attributed to the existing industrial and
50
commercial businesses located south and east of the project. Additional lighting in industrial areas
typically consists of overhead/downward-orienting lamp posts in parking areas, low-intensity,
wall-mounted lighting fixtures at building entrances, illuminated signage, and lamp posts along
pedestrian pathways. Development of the project will introduce additional light to the area.
a) Finding Regarding Substantial Light or Glare
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not create a new source of
substantial light or glare. Thus, the project’s effects relating to the light and glare will be less than
significant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
During the period of construction, the project is expected to utilize temporary light fixtures as a
standard measure of nighttime construction site safety. These sources of light are generally
downward-oriented, and some are only activated by motion. The temporary construction perimeter
fencing (with wind fabric) is expected to visually screen the temporary light fixtures, therefore
preventing temporary light spillage effects. The temporary nature of construction lighting will
allow for adjustments to ensure that illumination is properly distributed without affecting adjoining
areas.
During operation, the project will provide lighting for security purposes. The project will
illuminate the parking areas, entrances, signs, and walkways, via downward-oriented post-
mounted and wall-mounted fixtures located throughout the project. The downward-oriented
fixtures are designed to not only provide light on the project site, but also to reduce the amount of
light emitted towards adjacent properties. The light fixtures proposed at the project site will comply
with the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code. Lighting is required to consist of full cutoff
luminaries shielded or constructed so that all of the light rays emitted by the fixture are projected
below the lowest point on the fixture in compliance with the lighting requirements in Section
93.21.00.
Per the project-specific photometric plan, the project light fixtures would emit less than 0.5 foot-
candles onto the adjacent properties. Section 93.21.00(B)(1) of the Municipal Code establishes
lighting standards for parking lots and area LED lighting. According to the project photometric
plan, the average light varies from 0.04 Fc to 4.72 Fc (east lot). Additionally, the project complies
with the 4:1 average-to-minimum uniformity ratio and 16:1 maximum to minimum uniformity
ratio established by the City (see RDEIR page 4.1-31). The project will not result in excessive light
spillage on surrounding properties, as the light fixtures will include shielding features. The project
is compliant with the Municipal Code, and would have less than significant light impacts.
Building materials such as painted concrete, white metal trim, stone accents, and anodized
aluminum storefront windows are proposed to be utilized for the project exterior. The concrete
will be painted in neutral colors including beiges, light and dark browns, and dark/olive green
accents. The building color will conform to a range of lighter tones to reduce heat gain and be
compatible with the desert landscape, therefore, avoiding unnatural and bright building facades
and preventing daytime glare. Glare from project structures would be less than significant. See
DEIR p. 4.1-27 to 4.1-29, RDEIR p. 4.1-30 to 4.1-32, and Appendix B (photometric plan).
51
B. AIR QUALITY
i. Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan
Air quality plans applicable to the proposed project include SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP) and the 2003 CV PM10 SIP, and SCAG’s adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.
The construction and operational emissions from the project will not exceed the applicable
SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds. The project also will not exceed the
construction and operational threshold within the LST methodology and measures.
a) Findings Regarding Air Quality Plans
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of applicable air quality plans, and accordingly, result in less than significant. No
mitigation measures are necessary. The Planning Commission further finds that the project will
not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the
DEIR/RDEIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The project site is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) and is subject to SCAQMD’s
2022 AQMP and the 2003 CV PM10 SIP. These air quality plans are applicable to the project site.
During construction the project applicant will implement a fugitive dust control plan with the
additional criteria for being located within the designated Coachella Valley Blowsand Zone.
Therefore, construction of the project is not expected to conflict with the applicable regulations
and mitigation measures set forth in the 2003 CV PM10 SIP or the AQMP. Additionally, the
project emissions would not exceed or cause the exceedance of the applicable regional significance
thresholds or LST thresholds (see Tables 4.2-3 and 4.2-5 in DEIR/RDEIR p. 4.2-25 and 4.2-27).
Therefore, construction emission associated with the project will not conflict with either the
AQMP or the CV PM10 SIP and a less than significant impact is expected.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and
Section 12.3 of the 1993 CEQA Handbook.
Consistency Criterion 1 analyzes whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or
severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the
timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the
AQMP. Regarding construction of the site, the project emissions would not exceed or cause the
exceedance of the applicable regional significance thresholds or LST thresholds (see Tables 4.2-3
and 4.2-5) and will not conflict with either the AQMP or the CV PM10 SIP and a less than
significant impact is expected. Regarding operation, the project emissions would not exceed the
applicable regional and localized significance thresholds for operational activity, would not have
the potential to result in a significant impact with respect to this criterion and the project would be
consistent with the AQMP (see Tables 4.2-3 and 4.2.7 on p. 4.2-25 and 4.2-27 of DEIR/RDEIR).
Thus, the project is determined to be consistent with Criterion 1.
52
Consistency Criterion 2 assesses whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP
based on the years of project build-out phase. During construction, development of the site to its
maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during
construction activities. The project construction emissions would not exceed the applicable
regional significance thresholds or LST thresholds, therefore, a less than significant impact would
result. The project site is designated for “Industrial” uses (per the City General Plan), and zoned
for “Manufacturing (M-2).” The project is consistent with the site’s land use and zoning
designation. Since the project’s proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan and as the
project’s construction and operational-source air pollutant emissions would not exceed the regional
or localized significance thresholds, the project is consistent with the second criterion.
The project emissions during operation would not exceed the applicable regional and localized
significance thresholds for operational activity, would not have the potential to result in a
significant impact with respect to this criterion and the project would be consistent with the AQMP
(see Tables 4.2-3 and 4.2-7 in DEIR/RDEIR p. 4.2-25 and 4.2-27).
Moreover, the proposed project is consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations.
Therefore, the project is consistent with the AQMP, because development consistent with the
growth projections in City of Palm Springs General Plan is considered to be consistent with the
AQMP (see DEIR/RDEIR p. 4.2-23).
The proposed project would be developed in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations
contained in the applicable plans.
ii. Result in Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant
Construction activities associated with the project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX,
CO, PM10, and PM2.5 from various stages of construction activities, including site preparation,
grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Operational emissions assumed
operations would occur 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
a) Findings Regarding Cumulatively Considerable Net Increases of Any
Criteria Pollutant
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not result in cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, and accordingly, impacts will be less than
significant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Project-related construction emissions will not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by
the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant (see Table 4.2-3 in DEIR p. 4.2-25).
Therefore, impacts associated with construction will be less than significant.
Project operational activities would not exceed the thresholds of significance established by the
SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant (see Table 4.2-4 in DEIR p. 4.2-26). As such,
operational impacts would be less than significant.
53
Moreover, the project does not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed
SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, it would not cause a
cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the air basin that
the project is located in is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a
significant, adverse cumulative air quality impact.
iii. Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of substantial
pollutant concentrations, or a cancer health risk. In order to analyze the impacts, the Air Quality
Report measured emissions during construction (site preparation and grading) and operation and
compared them to SCAQMD thresholds, and the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) measured air
pollutants and associated health risks (such as cancer risks).
a) Findings Regarding Substantial Pollutant Concentrations
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and accordingly, impacts will be less than
significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. The Planning Commission further finds that the
project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in
the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Table 4.2-5 in the DEIR shows that localized construction-source emissions associated with the
project during site preparation and grading would not exceed SCAQMD’s threshold (see DEIR p.
4.2-27).
Operational emissions generally include on-site sources (area, energy, mobile, and on-site cargo
handling equipment). The emissions shown on Table 4.2-6 in the DEIR represent all on-site
project-related stationary (area) sources and mobile sources. It shows that the project operations
will not exceed the localized thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for the
applicable criteria pollutants. A separate CalEEMod run for operational LSTs was prepared for the
0.35-mile on-site travel distance. As shown in Table 4.2-7, emissions resulting from the project
operation will not exceed the localized thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for
any criteria pollutant. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for localized project-related
operational-source emissions (see DEIR p. 4.2-27).
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to project construction-source DPM emissions is
a residence at 17725 Covey Street, approximately 2,054 feet northeast of the project site with a
private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the project site. This home would experience the
highest concentrations of DPM during project construction due to meteorological conditions at the
site. At this location, as shown in Table 4.2-8 of the DEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk
is estimated at 0.09 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10
in one million. The Table also shows that non-cancer risks at this location were estimated to be
<0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled
receptors are at a greater distance, they would experience lower concentrations of DPM during
54
project construction, and would be exposed to lower emissions and less risk than the home on
Covey Street. The project will have less than significant impacts related to human health or cancer
risk.
The residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to project operational-source DPM
emissions is a home approximately 3,028 feet northeast of the project site at 17364 N. Indian
Canyon Drive. This location is distinguished from the land use with the greatest potential exposure
to project construction-source DPM emissions because it does not include a private outdoor living
area facing the project site. At this location, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to
project operational-source DPM emissions is estimated at 0.08 in one million, which is less than
the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer
risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of
1.0. Because all other residences are located at a greater distance, they would experience lower
concentrations of DPM during project operation, and would be exposed to lower emissions and
less risk than the home on Indian Canyon Drive. The project will not cause a significant human
health or cancer risk to residents in the area as a result of project operational activity.
The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to project operational-source
DPM emissions are workers at an existing business approximately 81 feet south of the project site.
At this location, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is 0.09 in one million which is less
than the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. Maximum non-cancer risks at this same
location were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold
of 1.0. Because all other workers in the area are located at a greater distance than this business,
and DPM dissipates with distance from the source, all other worker receptors in the vicinity of the
project would be exposed to lower emissions and therefore less risk. As such, the project will not
cause a significant human health or cancer risk impact to workers in the area.
A one-quarter mile radius, or 1,320 feet, is commonly utilized for identifying sensitive receptors,
such as schools, that may be impacted by a proposed project. There are no schools within ¼ mile
of the project site. The nearest school is Vista Del Monte Elementary School, which is located
approximately 3.75 miles (19,980 feet) southeast of the project site. Because there is no reasonable
potential that TAC emissions would cause significant health impacts at distances of more than ¼
mile from the air pollution source, there would be no significant impacts that would occur to any
schools in the vicinity of the project.
An existing residence at 17725 Covey Street, located approximately 2,054 feet northeast of the
project site, serves as the land use with the greatest potential exposure to construction-source and
operational-source DPM emissions from the proposed project. This residence includes a private
outdoor living area (backyard) facing the project site. The maximum incremental cancer risk
attributable to construction-source and operational-source DPM emissions from the proposed
project to this location were estimated at 0.13 in one million, which is less than the threshold of
10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would
not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the project will not cause a significant human
health or cancer risk to the nearest indicated residence. Since the exposure, and resultant impact
of DPM decreases substantially with distance, all other potential residential receptors would
experience lower concentrations of DPM during project construction and operation and therefore
would incur a lower risk than what is identified for this location.
55
The proposed project involves construction and operational emission levels for all criteria
pollutants occurring below SCAQMD’s Air Quality Significance Thresholds and therefore are
found to have a less than significant impact on regional ambient air quality. Since the SCAQMD
thresholds and related efforts were established to meet the health-based NAAQS and CAAQS for
criteria pollutants as part of the emission reduction strategy to attain regional healthy levels of air
quality, the numeric SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds would result in less than
significant impacts on health effects.
Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the
result of project construction and operational activities, and impacts will be less than significant.
iv. Result in Other Emissions (i.e., objectionable odors)
Potential odor sources associated with the proposed project may result from construction
equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction
activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed
project’s (long-term operational) uses.
a) Findings Regarding Localized Air Quality Impacts and Odors
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not result in other
emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and
accordingly, impacts will be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. The
Planning Commission further finds that the project’s odor related impacts will be less than
significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. The Planning Commission further finds that
the project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed
in the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors.
Potential odor sources associated with the proposed project may result from construction
equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction
activities and the temporary storage of refuse associated with the proposed project’s (long-term
operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from
construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in
nature and would cease upon completion of construction. The nearest sensitive receptors are
residences located at 17725 Covey Street and 17364 N. Indian Canyon Drive, approximately 2,054
feet and 3,028 feet northeast of the project site, respectively. Impacts are thus considered less than
significant.
The Municipal Code requires that project-generated refuse be stored in designated trash enclosures
and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations. The
proposed project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent
occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed project
construction and operations would be less than significant.
56
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
i. Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources
The City has not adopted any ordinances regarding tree preservation. The project site mainly
consists of Sonoran creosote bush scrub habitat. The Draft EIR addresses project consistency with
local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources at page 4.3-14 of the Draft EIR.
a) Findings Regarding Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting
Biological Resources
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not conflict with local
policies or ordinances adopted to protect biological resources or any adopted habitat conservation
plan, and therefore impacts are less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
As discussed at page 4.3-14 of the Draft EIR, no trees are located on the project site under existing
conditions. The City has no other policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, outside
of its participation in the CVMSHCP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance, and no impact would occur.
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
i. Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource
Historical period resources refer to the built environment, such as buildings and structures over 45
years in age that may be eligible to be included in the National Register of Historic Places, the
California Register of Historical Resources, the California Historical Resources Inventory, or local
inventories. There are no historical-period resources on the project site.
a) Findings Regarding the Project’s Impact to Historical Resources
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not result in a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resources. Therefore, impacts are less than
significant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As discussed on page 4.4-10 of the DEIR/RDEIR, during the field survey, two isolates were
recorded within the combined 58-acre survey area. The first isolate (ISO 1) was discovered in the
38-acre project area, near the eastern boundary. ISO 1 is an amber-glass bottle base with an Owens-
Illinois Glass Company manufacturer’s mark from the 1970’s. The second isolate (ISO-2) is
archaeological in nature. The historic isolate is not eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources (CRHR) because it fails to meet any of the four criteria to be eligible for
listing in the CRHR: The artifacts lack associations with events that have made a significant
57
contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage (Criterion 1); cannot
be shown to be associated with lives and persons important to our past (Criterion 2); do not embody
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 (Criterion 3); and are
unlikely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion 4).
ii. Disturb Any Human Remains
No human remains were found or are known to occur on the project site or are anticipated to be
discovered during project construction.
a) Findings Regarding the Project’s Disturbance of Any Human Remains
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not disturb any human
remains, and therefore impacts are less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
It is possible that human remains could be uncovered during construction activities. Pursuant to
the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, in the event of discovery of any human
remains on the project site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any
nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains, until the County Coroner has
examined the remains. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American or has reason
to believe that they are those of Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24-
hours, and the NAHC will be responsible for identifying the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) and
contacting them for ongoing consultation and resolution. The project will be subject to these
requirements of law during all construction and excavation activities. Compliance with the
California Health and Safety Code will ensure that should there be a discovery of any human
remains during project construction activities, impacts would be less than significant.
E. ENERGY
i. Result In Potentially Significant Environmental Impact Due To Wasteful,
Inefficient Or Unnecessary Consumption Of Energy Resources, During
Project Construction Or Operation
The project involves construction activities and will consume energy resources, primarily in the
form of petroleum and electricity. However, there are no unusual project characteristics or
construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy
intensive than is used for comparable construction activities, or that would violate current
emissions standards (DEIR, at p. 4.5-15 – 4.5-19.
The project would increase demand for energy in the project area during construction and operation
of the project, including electricity and petroleum, and is located within the service area of
Southern California Edison (SCE).
58
a) Findings Regarding Wasteful, Inefficient or Unnecessary Consumption of
Energy Resources
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that compliance with existing state, regional,
and City regulations, plans, and programs, in the DEIR/DEIR, would ensure that the project does
not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and
therefore, project impacts related to energy resources will be less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The project would consume a total of 453,310 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, 98,374 gallons
of diesel fuel, and 64,768 gallons of gasoline during the construction of the project. The estimated
construction electricity usage represents approximately 12.3 percent of the project’s estimated
annual operational demand, which would be within the supply and infrastructure service
capabilities of SCE. Construction of the project would not result in the wasteful and unnecessary
consumption of energy. Therefore, since construction activities will only consume approximately
12.3 percent of project operations electricity consumption, project construction electricity use will
result in less than significant impacts (see operational discussion below). No natural gas would be
consumed during construction of the project. Finally, the equipment used for project construction
would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards, implementing idling
restrictions and the use of newer engines and equipment, which would result in less fuel
combustion and energy consumption. The construction of the project would therefore not result in
inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
The proposed project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted
energy efficiency standards, which are based on the California Title 24 energy efficiency
standards. Title 24 standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to
the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building, as described under
Regulatory Setting above. Title 24 standards are widely regarded as the most advanced energy
efficiency standards, would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating,
and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation.
The project is expected to generate demand for approximately 3,673,072 kilo-Watt hours (kWh)
of annual electricity use for the entire project at build-out. According to the CEC’s Demand
Analysis Office, SCE estimates that electricity consumption within SCE’s planning area will be
approximately 129,000 GWh (which is 129,000,000 MWh) annually by 2030. Based on the
project’s estimated annual electrical consumption of 3,673,072 kWh, the project would account
for approximately 0.003 percent of SCE’s total estimated demand in 2030. Based on SCE’s review
of the project, with the project’s connection to SCE’s infrastructure, it is anticipated that SCE’s
existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to support the
project’s demand and would not result in a significant increase in energy demand. While the project
would result in a long-term increase in demand for electricity, the project would be required to
comply with Title 24 and CALGreen requirements related to energy efficiency. Impacts will be
less than significant.
59
The project’s operational consumption of natural gas will include the use of exterior cargo
handling equipment involving up to four (4) 200 horsepower (hp), natural gas-powered cargo
handling equipment – port tractors conservatively operating at 4 hours a day for 365 days of the
year. Project on-site equipment would consume an estimated 13,926 gallons of natural gas, which
is equivalent to 1,273,560.6 kBTU and 1,236,466.6 cf of natural gas. The California Energy and
Electric Utilities estimates natural gas consumption within SoCalGas’s planning area will be
approximately 2.31 million cf per day in 2030. On-site cargo handling equipment used during
operation of the project would consume approximately 0.15 percent of the 2030 forecasted
consumption in SoCalGas’s planning area. Therefore, the project will result in less than significant
impacts relating to the wasteful use of natural gas.
The project would result in a net total of 14,261,090 miles driven annually, and fuel consumption
of 862,311 gallons. Average fuel economies of vehicles accessing the project site can be expected
to improve as older, less fuel-efficient vehicles are removed from circulation, and in response to
fuel economy and emissions standards imposed on newer vehicles entering the circulation system.
Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and State regulatory actions, and related
transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen
cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per miles driven associated with the
vehicle (via automobile, heavy truck, etc.). The location of the project within 0.3 miles of an
Interstate 10 interchange also tends to reduce the miles driven by all vehicle classes accessing the
site within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands.
California’s Senate Bill 350 was established in 2015 to reduce petroleum use by 50 percent by the
year 2030, compared to 2015 consumption. This is achieved through advancement of technology,
which includes the use of plug-in hybrid and zero emission vehicles in California. Operation of
the project is therefore expected to use decreasing amounts of petroleum over time. Petroleum
consumption associated with the project operation would not be considered excessive or wasteful,
and impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Conflict or Obstruct a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy
Efficiency
The project is subject to CALGreen Building Codes and Title 24 codes and standards, as well as
the City of Palm Springs’s General Plan goals and policies for reducing energy consumption. As
a result, the project is required to incorporate energy efficient design features that result in
substantial reductions in energy consumption and GHG emissions, including the measures
described below and in the Draft EIR. Additionally, the project will incorporate rooftop solar
panels and will not preclude the use of renewable energy resources
a) Findings Regarding Consistency with State or Local Plans for Renewable
Energy or Energy Efficiency
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that compliance with existing state, regional,
and City regulations, plans, and programs, in the Draft EIR, would ensure that the project is
consistent with all applicable state and local plans for energy efficiency, and therefore, project
impacts related to energy resources will be less than significant.
60
Facts in Support of Finding:
The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency (i.e., AB 1493 and CARB standards). The equipment used for project construction
would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards as a common industry
standard and project condition of approval. Construction contractors would be required to comply
with applicable CARB regulation regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of diesel off-
road construction equipment. Compliance with anti-idling and emissions regulations would result
in a more efficient use of construction-related energy and the minimization or elimination of
wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy.
The project will be required to meet the standards of Title 24. Title 24 standards include a broad
set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing systems in a building. For example, the Title 24 Lighting Power Density requirements
define the maximum wattage of lighting that can be used in a building based on its square footage.
Title 24 standards also require the installation of bicycle parking, EV charging stations, and water
conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings. The project will also install rooftop photovoltaic panels
to produce 30 percent of project power.
The project is compliant with Policy RC8.3 of the Recreation, Open Space and Conservation
Element of the Palm Springs General Plan, which supports the incorporation of energy efficiency
and conservation practices in land use, transportation demand management, subdivision, and
building design. The Community Design Element of the General Plan outlines policies and
programs to reduce energy consumption in the City, including energy conservation in lighting and
the compliance of Title 24 outdoor lighting zone standards (Policy CD11.7), the implementation
of energy-efficient and green building practices that are appropriate to the desert climate (CD29.1),
and the installation of drought-tolerant landscaping, seasonally and locationally appropriate tree
plantings, and natural drainage systems to conserve water resources (CD29.4). As stated above,
the project will comply with Title 24 codes and standards and proposes drought-tolerant
landscaping and water conservation methods.
The proposed project will implement all State and local requirements, and be constructed to the
most current Building Code standards. As demonstrated above, the proposed project would not
conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
i. Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or Environment Due to Routine
Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials, or 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
The project proposes the development and operation of a fulfillment center. The project will use
oils, fuels, and other potentially flammable substances and materials in connection with
construction activities. Operation of the proposed project would involve the use of materials
61
common to commercial or industrial developments that are labeled hazardous (e.g., solvents and
commercial cleaners, petroleum products, and pesticides, fertilizers, and other landscape
maintenance materials).
a) Finding Regarding Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials,
Create Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that compliance with existing federal, state,
regional, and City regulations will ensure impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials, create accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials, and
the project’s construction and operations, will be less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Construction activities are expected to involve the temporary management and use of oils, fuels
and other potentially flammable substances that power and lubricate construction equipment.
Construction contractors must adhere to federal, State, and local regulations when disposing of
construction waste. Designated controlled areas on the site would be temporarily located in staging
areas typically placed close to where development is occurring at that time. Best management
practices (BMPs) are required during construction activities in the Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for proper material delivery and storage; material use; and spill
prevention and control. These temporary measures outline the required physical improvements and
procedures to prevent impacts of pollutants and hazardous materials to workers and the
environment during construction. The contractor would also be required to implement BMPs to
ensure that impacts are minimized and that any minor spills are immediately and properly
remediated (see Draft EIR, at pp. 4.8-12 to 4.8-13).
Operation of the project would involve the use of materials common to commercial or industrial
developments that are labeled hazardous (e.g., solvents and commercial cleaners, petroleum
products, and pesticides, fertilizers, and other landscape maintenance materials). State and local
agencies regulate facilities that use, store, and transport hazardous materials. Should the project
store 55 (or more) gallons of liquid, 500 (or more) pounds of a solid, or 200 (or more) cubic feet
of compressed gas, the site shall prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP), as
required by Chapter 6.95 of the California HSC and enforced by the Riverside County Department
of Environmental Health (DEH). The implementation of the HMBP and its compliance with
federal, State, and regional regulatory standards would ensure impacts related to the storage and
the risk of accidental releases of hazardous materials associated with the project are less than
significant.
The California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program was designed to prevent
accidental release of hazardous substances, minimize damage if releases occur, and satisfy
community right-to-know laws. The CalARP programs and implementing regulations (Title 19,
Division 2, Chapter 4.5 of the CCR) require businesses that handle more than a threshold quantity
of regulated substances to develop a risk management plan (RMP). The tenant would be required
to comply with the CalARP program to prevent the accidental release of hazardous substances
during use (see Draft EIR, at pp. 4.8-13 to 4.8-17).
62
As discussed on page 4.8-16 of the DEIR/RDEIR, offsite improvements include the project’s
connection to existing sewer and water infrastructure. Sewer connections would occur on 19th
Avenue from an existing 6-inch sewer line approximately 650 feet east of the project in 19th
Avenue. The project would extend the sewer line to connect to the project. Connection to the sewer
lines would occur underground within the existing rights-of-way. Domestic water would connect
to an existing 12-inch water main on 19th Avenue located within the right-of-way. The operation
of off-site sewer and water lines are not anticipated to result in the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials. The potential for release of hazardous materials into the
environment associated with construction of these lines would be subject to the same construction
regulations described for the project. Therefore, the use of hazardous materials associated with the
off-site improvements would result in less than significant impacts.
ii. Effect on an Emergency Response Plan
Project implementation will not interfere with the critical facilities, emergency transportation and
circulation, or emergency preparedness coordination as set forth in the Safety Element of the Palm
Springs General Plan, the City’s Emergency Operations Plan, or Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
(DEIR/RDEIR, at pp. 4.8-17 – 4.8-18). Prior to construction, both the Fire Department and Police
Department will review each sub-area plan as it is brought forward, to ensure safety measures are
addressed, including emergency access, and project impacts will be less than significant
(DEIR/RDEIR, at p. 4.8-18).
a) Finding Regarding Effect on an Emergency Response Plan
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that compliance with existing federal, state,
regional, and City regulations will ensure impacts related to potential effects on emergency
response plans will be less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Project implementation will not interfere with the critical facilities, emergency transportation and
circulation, or emergency preparedness coordination as set forth in the Safety Element of the Palm
Springs General Plan, the City’s Emergency Operations Plan, or Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
(DEIR/RDEIR, at pp. 4.8-17 – 4.8-18). Prior to construction, both the Fire Department and Police
Department will review plans, to ensure safety measures are addressed during project construction
and operation, including emergency access, and project impacts will be less than significant
(DEIR/RDEIR, at p. 4.8-18).
G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
i. Compliance with Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
Construction and operation of the proposed project could result in impacts to water quality or waste
discharge compared to the existing vacant conditions of the project. The proposed grading and
construction activities necessary to implement the project have the potential to result in temporary
instances of localized erosion and sedimentation, if the construction conditions are not controlled.
During the period of construction, compliance with waste discharge requirements will be achieved
63
through the permit registration and coverage process under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, known as the Construction General Permit (2022
CGP), applicable to any construction or demolition that results in a land disturbance equal to or
greater than one acre, and South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Rule 403
and 403.1 and the City’s Fugitive Dust Control Ordinance. During the life of the project, proposed
retention basins and drainage systems would comply with water quality standards and waste
discharge requirements, which will be met through compliance with the NPDES permit program
for post-construction conditions, (i.e., Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for both
construction and long-term maintenance).
a) Findings Regarding Compliance with Water Quality Standards or Waste
Discharge Requirements
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant
adverse effects relating to hydrology and water quality, including causing any violations of water
quality standards or discharge requirements. Finally, the Planning Commission finds that the
project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in
the DEIR/RDEIR.
Facts Supporting Findings:
During the construction phase, compliance with water quality and waste discharge requirements
will be achieved through the permit registration and coverage process under the NPDES General
Permit identified above. This will require development and implementation of a project-specific
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes a strategy of BMPs such as the the
implementation of storm drain inlet protection, perimeter and onsite runoff control (i.e., linear
sediment barriers), and waste management and material storage protocols that prevent pollution
from leaving the site (see DEIR/RDEIR, at p. 4.9-12).
The project will also be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s
(SCAQMD) Rule 403 and 403.1 and the City’s Fugitive Dust Control Ordinance during
construction. Implementation of Fugitive Dust Control Plans require soil stabilization practices
aimed at preventing sediment erosion and track-out. The concurrent implementation of the
required SWPPP and Dust Control Plan will establish measures to prevent potential construction-
related impacts to surface water quality, including instances of erosion and siltation, at the site and
its surroundings.
During the life of the project, the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements will
be met through compliance with the NPDES permit identified above, including developing and
implementing a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) demonstrating site
design and source controls that prevent pollutant runoff and meet 100 percent of the Low Impact
Development (LID) Site Design requirements, including the use of retention basins on-site. The
project WQMP addresses post construction stormwater runoff quantity and quality requirements
by implementing proposed storm drain and infiltration facilities with a mandated operation and
maintenance program to meet the LID Site Design criteria. Retention facilities will consist of
surface basins and underground systems. The basin facilities will be stabilized with approved
64
landscaping. The overall maintenance of the private storm drain and retention systems will be
covered by the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) section of the Final WQMP and subject to a
site-specific Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Agreement (WQMP Agreement) with the
City of Palm Springs. The O&M section of the WQMP describes the implementation, inspection,
maintenance and frequency guidelines for measures which could include education for property
owners and operators; activity restrictions; common area landscape management and efficient
landscape design; common area litter control; contractor/employee training; common area catch
basin inspection; street sweeping of private streets and parking lots; storm drain system stenciling
and signage; trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollutant introduction. The WQMP
Agreement establishes the owner or operator’s responsibility to maintain the said facilities in
accordance with the approved WQMP, also allowing for City entry for inspection and enforcement
as necessary. The WQMP Agreement is signed by the owner/operator and City representatives
before recordation against the property.
Implementation of the SWPPP, Fugitive Dust Control Plan, and WQMP ensures the water quality
is maintained, and waste is not discharged from the site. In summary, during construction and
operation, the proposed development will be required to comply with CWA, NPDES, state, and
local regulations to prevent violations or impacts to surface water quality standards and waste
discharge requirements. Impacts are less than significant.
ii. Effect on Groundwater Supplies or Interference with Groundwater Recharge
Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) provides domestic water service to the project area. The
project will rely on groundwater resources as a source of domestic and construction water supplies.
The project site is underlain by the Garnet Hill Subarea of the Indio Subbasin, but water services
by MSWD to the site are sourced from the Mission Creek Subbasin, which is described as an
unconfined aquifer with a saturated thickness of 1,200 feet or more and an estimated total storage
capacity of 2.6 million AF.
The project also has the potential to alter existing drainage and infiltration and groundwater
quality.
A Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV) for the project was
prepared for and approved by MSWD on November 20, 2023. The project’s total water demand is
projected to be 118.37 AFY, per the WSA/WSV (see DEIR p. 4.9-15). As demonstrated in the
WSA/WSV, the project will not significantly impact groundwater supplies, because the MSWD
has sufficient supplies to serve the project, and is implementing groundwater recharge programs
in conjunction with CVWD.
The project is not located near any designated groundwater recharge facility. The nearest facility
is approximately 1.25 miles to the southwest (Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment site).
a) Findings Regarding Effect on Groundwater Supplies and Recharge
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant
adverse effects relating to hydrology and water quality, including affecting groundwater recharge
65
or quality. Finally, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any new or
substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the DEIR/RDEIR.
Facts Supporting Findings:
The proposed project will implement project-specific water efficiency and conservation measures
to assure the most efficient use of water resources and reduce impacts to groundwater supplies.
The analysis and commitment to such measures is based in part on the WSA/WSV (Appendix M
of the RDEIR), summarized as follows:
To the greatest extent practicable, native plant materials and other drought-tolerant plants shall be
used in all non-turf areas of Project landscaping. Turf and other water-intensive landscaped areas
shall be kept to the minimum necessary and consistent with the functional and aesthetic needs of
the Project, while providing soil stability to resist erosion.
The landscaping and irrigation plans and irrigation system shall comply with all City ordinances
and MSWD’s Water Efficient Landscaping Guidelines relating to water efficiency, and irrigation
shall be an automatic system with an irrigation timer and two drop or bubbler heads per tree to
produce deep root irrigation.
In the event recycled water becomes available to the Project, the potential use of tertiary treated
water will be reviewed to determine feasibility of its use for on-site landscaped areas to reduce the
use of groundwater for irrigation.
The DEIR relies on the scope of the approved WSA/WSV, including the associated verification
procedures to support the findings.
Moreover, operational source controls established in the project specific WQMP will protect
existing natural groundwater from project-related urban runoff. Source control measures reduce
the potential for urban runoff and pollutants from coming into contact with one another. Measures
include activity schedules, restricting certain practices, pavement sweeping, facility maintenance,
detection and elimination of illicit connections/illicit discharges, and other activities that will be
applicable during the life of the project. As a part of the WQMP and engineering design, the
proposed storm drain inlets connected to retention facilities will be equipped with filter systems
designed to capture trash, debris, and hydrocarbons prior to entering the respective retention
facilities. Additional required control measures include:
1) Storm drain inlet stenciling and signage at each storm drain inlet with a brief statement
prohibiting dumping of improper non-stormwater materials into the storm drain system.
2) Landscape and irrigation system design involving water efficient fixtures and associated
maintenance to prevent nuisance runoff.
3) Retention basin slope protection via routine inspection and maintenance of the facility
groundcover.
4) Properly maintained trash enclosures and bins to prevent improper handling and disposal in
common areas.
66
These will be applicable during the life of the project. Therefore, the project is not expected to
violate or interfere with groundwater quality, and less than significant impacts are anticipated.
The project is not located near any designated groundwater recharge facility. The nearest facility
is approximately 1.25 miles to the southwest (Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment site).
The project site does not have an existing surface drainage pattern connected to the replenishment
facility.
Therefore, the project location would not occupy, encroach, or otherwise interfere with the
function or capacity of the existing conveyance or infiltration pond infrastructure of the
Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility.
The proposed project would convert the site from a pervious to a mostly impervious condition
through the introduction of structures, hardscape, and asphalt cover. The proposed private storm
drain system will capture, convey and infiltrate the entire project runoff volume resulting from the
most conservative 100-year storm event, in accordance with the City’s Engineering Standards.
Infiltration is a form of on-site recharge that is favored over an urban runoff discharge condition.
As a result, the project location and stormwater management will not interfere with the local or
regional groundwater recharge trends. Less than significant impacts are anticipated pertaining to
interference with groundwater recharge.
iii. Result in Erosion or Siltation On- or Off-Site
The site is not in a FEMA-designated special flood hazard area. Within the project area, the
proposed land use will result in an increase in impervious land cover through the introduction of
structures, hardscape and streets conservatively making up about 90 percent of the site. However,
as described above, the City’s engineering standards require that the project incorporate on-site
drainage infrastructure to intercept, convey, and retain stormwater runoff resulting from the 100-
year storm event. These standard requirements assure that erosion and siltation on and off-site are
controlled and do not significantly impact downstream properties.
a) Findings Regarding Erosion or Siltation On- or Off-Site
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant
adverse effects relating to hydrology and water quality, including erosion or siltation on- or off-
site. Finally, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any new or substantially
more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the DEIR/RDEIR.
Facts Supporting Findings:
Within the project area, the proposed land uses will result in an increase in impervious land cover
through the introduction of structures, hardscape and streets conservatively making up about 90
percent of the site. However, the City’s engineering standards require that the project incorporate
on-site infrastructure to intercept, convey, and retain stormwater runoff resulting from the 100-
year storm event. The retention basins will include energy dissipation, which provides effective
erosion control, as required by the City’s Engineering Standards. Each component of the storm
drain system that comes into operation will be subject to maintenance measures during the life of
67
the project to ensure effectiveness. The on-site pervious areas of the project will be stabilized in
accordance with approved landscaping plans which will limit erosion and siltation.
The approved WQMP will prevent the release of runoff on site and onto neighboring properties
during a 100 year storm and will prevent off-site siltation and erosion impacts through energy
dissipation, which slows and disperses runoff before it enters the retention facilities (consisting of
surface basins and underground systems). Only runoff in excess of the controlling 100-year storm
event will be allowed to overflow into the surrounding streets in a manner consistent with the
existing drainage patterns. All on-site impervious and pervious land cover resulting from project
implementation, including the storm drain system and retention facilities, will be subject to
approved and monitored operation and maintenance during the life of the project, as mandated by
a Final WQMP agreement that will be required of this project prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Therefore, less than significant impacts are expected pertaining to substantial erosion or siltation,
on- or off-site.
iv. Result in On- or Off-site Flooding
Based on FEMA FIRM Panel 06065C0895G, (August 28, 2008), the entire project site is located
within Zone X, corresponding to areas subject to the 0.2 percent annual chance for flood hazard.
The designation of Zone X is not considered a SFHA or floodway. Furthermore, this flood zone is
considered to be a moderate-to-low risk area where flood insurance is available, but not mandatory.
The Preliminary Hydrology Report has calculated that the stormwater runoff volume resulting
from the worst-case 100-year storm event for the project would be approximately 297,329 cubic
feet. That runoff will be carried to adequately sized on-site retention facilities, which will be
privately maintained. The proposed retention facilities will contain the entirety of the controlling
100-year, 24-hour storm event, therefore adequately meeting or exceeding the City of Palm
Springs stormwater retention ordinance. As a result, the project will not result in off-site discharges
of urban runoff, within the design condition, capable of causing on- or off-site flooding.
a) Findings Regarding On- or Off-Site Flooding
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant
adverse effects relating to hydrology and water quality, including on- or off-site flooding. Finally,
the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any new or substantially more severe
impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the DEIR/REIR.
Facts Supporting Findings:
The Preliminary Hydrology Report has calculated that the stormwater runoff volume resulting
from the worst-case 100-year storm event for the project area in a developed condition would be
approximately 297,329 cubic feet. As a result, the combined retention capacity provided by the
project is sized at approximately 297,419 cubic feet. The retention capacity is distributed among a
system of facilities, rather than a single location, in order to prevent concentrated flows and
volumes, while facilitating the management effectiveness of these facilities after construction. The
final volume and provided retention capacity will be subject to final review and approval by the
City prior to project implementation. The retention of storm flows on-site results in a self-
contained system, which protects surrounding streets from storm flows. Since there are no existing
68
storm water facilities in the area, the on-site retention is necessary, and no impact to City or
regional storm water facilities will occur. As a standard requirement, the project is obligated to
meet the City of Palm Spring’s requirements by demonstrating that the incremental increase in
runoff due to development can be adequately retained on-site. The project provides facilities to
retain the entirety of the controlling 100-year, 24-hour storm event, therefore adequately meeting
or exceeding the City of Palm Springs stormwater retention ordinance. As a result, the project will
not result in on- or off-site flooding. Only runoff quantities resulting from a larger magnitude
storm, such as a force majeure or natural disaster event beyond the City’s engineering standards,
would be allowed to be conveyed off-site.
The proposed storm drainage and flood control improvements are not expected to substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or
off-site, resulting in less than significant impacts.
v. Create Runoff Which Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or Planned
Stormwater Drainage Systems
The undeveloped project property is located outside of the Palm Springs Master Drainage Plan
project area. The site and immediate surroundings lack formal storm drainage infrastructure. There
are no planned facilities to which the project could connect. Therefore, the project has been
designed to retain its storm flows on-site, via on-site storm drain facilities to capture and retain the
entire runoff volume resulting from the developed condition from the 100-year storm event.
a) Findings Regarding Runoff
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant
adverse effects relating to hydrology and water quality, including creating runoff exceeding
capacity of the drainage systems. Finally, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not
have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the
DEIR/RDEIR.
Facts Supporting Findings:
No public drainage systems occur in the area of the proposed project. The project has been
designed to retain its storm flows on-site, via on-site storm drain facilities to capture and retain the
entire runoff volume resulting from the developed condition from the 100-year storm event. The
method of retention will be a combination of surface basins and underground storage, which are
commonly used approaches implemented throughout the City. This approach is required by the
City when public drainage facilities do not exist, and will require approval by the City Engineer.
The proposed on-site retention system capacity, with free board as a required form of safety factor,
is sized to contain the project’s stormwater runoff resulting from the worst-case 100-year storm
event.
The project will provide the required on-site storm drainage system with on-site retention to meet
the City’s engineering standards, in the absence of public drainage facilities in the area. The on-
69
site retention facilities will prevent the project from discharging uncontrolled storm flows onto
surrounding properties.
Based on the proposed storm drain design, the project will not result in stormwater runoff
conditions which would 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. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
vi. Impede or Redirect Flood Flows
The elevation gradient in the project vicinity results in a prevailing north-to-south drainage pattern.
The USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Map for Desert Hot Springs, published in 2021, does not
display any geologic or hydrologic features on the project site. Moreover, the existing soils on the
project site and neighboring land to the north are classified as being part of hydrologic soil group
A with high infiltration capacity and low runoff potential. These soils consist of deep, well drained
sands or gravelly sands and have a high rate of water transmission. Flood flows are not known to
be present on or around the project site. However, the project will create impervious surfaces,
therefore, development of the project will create new flood flows.
a) Findings Regarding Impeding or Redirecting Flood Flows
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant
adverse effects relating to hydrology and water quality, including impeding or redirecting flood
flows. Finally, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any new or
substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the DEIR/RDEIR.
Facts Supporting Findings:
Based on preliminary engineering plans, the westerly and northerly project boundaries of the
project will be improved with a retaining wall with fencing on top. The retaining wall will control
the differential between the project’s finished elevation that will be relatively lower than the
undeveloped neighboring land to the west and north. The proposed retaining wall is required to
provide a lip or height difference in relation to the adjoining land to prevent potential sheet flow
from freely draining over the retaining wall. As described on page 4.9-19 of the RDEIR, off-site
sheet flow that is not infiltrated on the adjoining properties will interface with a controlled retaining
wall condition to be conveyed easterly along the north edge and southerly along the west edge.
Within the project site, the preliminary grading and hydrology plans have established the exterior
gradients and cross-gradients with a range of approximately 0.3 to 5 percent on finished surfaces
to conform with circulation, drainage, and accessibility parameters. The prevailing gradient will
be approximately 1.3 percent in the developed condition, which is equivalent and consistent to the
existing undeveloped slope. On-site runoff will be conveyed toward inlets connected to retention
facilities for each of the two drainage areas. At the south end, which represents the lowest
elevation, the proposed linear retention basin north of 19th Avenue will have a depth of 3 feet,
including freeboard, 3-to-1 side slopes, and a flat basin bottom (no cross gradient) to prevent a
concentrated overflow condition after the capacity is exceeded. As a result, the developed
70
condition will not result in a concentrated runoff discharge condition capable of impacting
downstream streets and properties.
Surrounding vacant areas subject to future development will be expected to include the required
drainage controls for the respective land uses, independent of the proposed project. Less than
significant impacts are anticipated.
vii. In Flood Hazard, Tsunami, or Seiche Zones, Risk Release of Pollutants Due to
Project Inundation
Based on the most current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM Panel
06065C0895G, the entire project site is located within Zone X, corresponding to areas subject to
the 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard. The designation of Zone X is not considered a SFHA
or floodway. Therefore, it is not likely that the project would be impacted by flooding hazards.
Additionally, the project is not located near coastal areas, or areas mapped as a seiche zone by the
California Department of Conservation or U.S. Geological Survey.
a) Findings Regarding Risk Release of Pollutants Due to Project Inundation
in Flood Hazard, Tsunami, or Seiche Zones
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant
adverse effects relating to hydrology and water quality, including the risk release of pollutants due
to project inundation. Finally, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any
new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the DEIR/RDEIR.
Facts Supporting Findings:
As previously stated, the entire project site is located within Zone X, corresponding to areas subject
to the 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard. The designation of Zone X is not considered a SFHA
or floodway. No impact will occur.
The project is located approximately 67 miles from the nearest coastal areas and therefore is not
prone to tsunami hazards. No impacts will occur.
A seiche is primarily defined by free or standing wave oscillations on the surface of water, the
causes of which may be wind, atmospheric changes, or seismic activity. The project site is not
located in a seiche zone mapped by the California Department of Conservation or U.S. Geological
Survey, nor is it located near a large body of water that would pose an unmapped risk. The
proposed retention basins include the required free board to protect on-site structures and facilities.
Less than significant impacts will occur.
Due to the BMPs incorporated into the project design through the WQMP and the site’s location
outside a flood zone, the proposed facilities are not expected to result in any pollutant release in
the event of inundation. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
71
viii. Consistency with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater
Management Plan
As discussed on page 4.9-20 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project proponent is required to implement
a project-specific WQMP to comply with the most current standards of the Whitewater River
Region Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff, Whitewater River Watershed MS4
Permit. The WQMP includes guidelines for facility maintenance and other operations aimed at
complying with local surface water quality requirements. Project implementation is not expected
to conflict with the Indio Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan from the aspect of
on-site stormwater capture, retention, and source controls for groundwater quality.
Analysis of the volume of water available in the aquifer, Colorado River contract supply, water
rights and water supply contracts determined whether there would be sufficient water supplies to
meet the demands of the proposed project. This analysis is provided in the project-specific
WSA/WSV. The WSA/WSV also determined that there are water supplies for future demands of
the project, plus all forecasted demands in the next 20 years.
a) Findings Regarding Consistency with Water Quality Control Plan and
Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant
adverse effects relating to hydrology and water quality, including conflicting with any water
control plan. Finally, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any new or
substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the DEIR/RDEIR.
Facts Supporting Findings:
As discussed on page 4.9-20 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project proponent is required to implement
a project-specific WQMP to comply with the most current standards of the Whitewater River
Region Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff, Whitewater River Watershed MS4
Permit. The WQMP, as described above, includes guidelines for facility maintenance and other
operations aimed at complying with local surface water quality requirements. The WQMP will
document the source controls, and treatment controls with a required operation and maintenance
program to comply with water quality objectives. Moreover, the project’s stormwater retention
facilities will ensure that urban runoff is recharged into the ground via infiltration.
The findings of the WSA/WSV determined that there will be sufficient water supplies to meet the
demands of the proposed project, and future demands of the project, plus all forecasted demands
in the next 20 years. This is based on the volume of water available in the aquifer, Colorado River
contract supply, water rights and water supply contracts. The groundwater basin has a storage
capacity of approximately 28.8 million AF, simulating the benefit of a very large reservoir and is
capable of meeting the water demands of the Coachella Valley for extended normal and drought
periods. As such, project implementation is not expected to conflict with the Indio Subbasin
Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan from the aspect of on-site stormwater capture,
retention, and source controls for groundwater quality.
72
H. NOISE
i. Generation of Noise
The Draft/Final EIR analyzed the potential impacts of noise created by the proposed project during
short-term construction activities, traffic generated by the project, and long-term operational
activities. Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools,
concrete mixers, and portable generators. Noise generated by the construction equipment operating
simultaneously can reach high levels when combined. The number and mix of construction
equipment are expected to occur in the following stages: Site Preparation; Grading; Building
Construction; Paving; and Architectural Coating.
As described on page 4.10-15 of the DEIR/RDEIR the construction noise analysis was prepared
using reference noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads to describe the typical
construction activity noise levels for each stage of project construction. Noise levels generated by
heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 68 dBA to more than 80 dBA when
measured at 50 feet. However, these noise levels diminish with distance from the construction site
at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 80 dBA measured at 50
feet from the noise source to the receiver would be reduced to 74 dBA at 100 feet from the source
to the receiver and would be further reduced to 68 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receiver.
To evaluate whether the project will generate potentially significant temporary construction noise
levels at off-site sensitive receiver locations, the construction-related noise level threshold adopted
from the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual and described above was
used. Based on that criterion, a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq is a
reasonable threshold for noise sensitive residential land uses.
The on-site project-related noise sources are expected to include roof-top air conditioning units,
loading dock activity, gate opening activity, truck movements, parking lot activity, and trash
enclosure activity. To estimate the project operational noise impacts, reference noise level
measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected
with the development of the proposed project. The Noise Study (Appendix K of the DEIR) assumes
the project would be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week and that the on-site noise
sources would occur at the same time. However, the sources of noise activity will likely vary
throughout the day.
Traffic generated by the operation of the proposed project will increase the traffic noise levels in
surrounding off-site areas. To quantify the traffic noise increases on the surrounding off-site areas,
the changes in traffic noise levels on 13 roadway segments surrounding the project site were
calculated based on the change in the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes.
73
a) Noise contours were used to assess the project’s incremental 24-hour
CNEL traffic-related noise impacts at receiving land uses adjacent to these
roadway segments. The noise contours are measured from the center of the
roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise levels
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project’s impacts relating to the
generation of noise will be less than significant.
Facts in Support of Findings:
As analyzed on pages 4.10-21 through 4.10-29 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project will generate
short-term construction noise and long-term increases in traffic noise and operational noise. The
construction noise levels are expected to range from 35.7 to 47.1 dBA Leq, and the highest
construction levels are expected to range from 43.5 to 47.1 dBA Leq at the nearest noise-sensitive
receiver locations. The lower construction noise levels perceived by the nearest noise-sensitive
receiver is due to their distance from the project, which is 2,054 feet to 3,327 from the project (to
the northeast and north). Noise does not exceed the 80 dBA Leq threshold, therefore, impacts are
less than significant. Additionally, the City of Palm Springs established construction hours of
operation to lessen the impacts of construction noise within Municipal Code Section 8.04.220.
Per page 4.10-22 of the DEIR/RDEIR, noise level increases of 5 dBA are readily perceptible, 3
dBA and 1.5 dBA are barely perceptible, depending on the underlying without project noise levels
for noise sensitive uses (per Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON)). When analyzing
the difference between the existing ambient noise levels and the construction noise levels (when
observed from the sensitive receivers), the increase in noise would be 0 and 1 dB, which is not
perceptible to the human ear (see Table 4.10-15 of the DEIR/RDEIR). The increase to the ambient
noise level will be less than significant.
With the project, CNEL traffic noise levels observed at the sensitive receiver locations are
expected to range from 48.3 to 73.8 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation
features such as noise barriers or topography (page 4.10-25 of the DEIR). The noise level increases
attributable to the project will range from less than 0.1 to 2.6 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance
criteria for off-site traffic noise (see Table 4.10-17 in DEIR /RDEIR), land uses adjacent to the
study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts associated
with traffic generated by project-related traffic noise because the project-related noise level
increases does not exceed the 3.0 limit established by FICON. Additionally, the surrounding uses
are considered non-sensitive, as they include similar operations as the proposed project.
The project operational noise levels during the daytime hours are expected to range from 37.2 to
40.8 dBA Leq. The project operational noise levels during the evening hours are expected to range
from 40.2 to 43.9 dBA Leq; and the project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours are
expected to range from 38.0 to 41.6 dBA Leq. (page 4.10-26 of the DEIR) The project-only
operational noise levels were evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of
Palm Springs exterior noise level standards. Stationary source noise levels will be lower than the
City’s Municipal Code maximum allowed noise levels for sensitive receptors at all times of the
74
day (page 4.10-27 of the DEIR). Therefore, operational noise impacts are considered less than
significant at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations.
The project will generate an unmitigated daytime operational noise level increase ranging from
0.0 to 0.1 dBA Leq at nearby off-site receiver locations. The project will generate an unmitigated
evening operational noise level increase ranging from 0.0 to 0.2 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver
locations. The project will generate an unmitigated nighttime operational noise level increase
ranging from 0.2 to 1.9 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. The project-related operational
noise level increases will be less than 3 to 5 increase criteria thresholds established by FICON
(1992) (see Table 4.10-9 in DEIR/RDEIR). Therefore, the project operational noise level increases
are considered less than significant at all receiver locations.
ii. Generation of Ground Borne Vibration
The Draft/Final EIR analyzed the potential impacts of vibration created by the proposed project.
Potential ground-borne vibration is associated with vehicular traffic and construction activities.
a) Finding Regarding Ground Borne Vibration
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project’s impacts relating to the
generation of ground borne vibration will be less than significant.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The DEIR/RDEIR analyzed the potential impacts of vibration created by the proposed project.
Potential ground-borne vibration is associated with vehicular traffic and construction activities. At
distances ranging from 2,054 to 3,327 feet (i.e., closest noise-sensitive receivers) from primary
construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to be less than 0.01
PPV (in/sec) and will not exceed City of Palm Springs vibration threshold of 0.30 PPV (in/sec) as
established in Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual at any sensitive receiver
location. The construction vibration analysis shows that the unmitigated project-related vibration
impacts will be less than significant during the construction activities at the project (see
DEIR/RDEIR p. 4.10-29 to 4.10-30).
The project proposes the 24-hour operation of the warehouse facility, which involves trucks
traveling to and from the project site from the Interstate 10 freeway (south). Ground-borne
vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a
vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and
distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are
construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth,
the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible.
Project trucks are anticipated to travel along Indian Canyon Drive from Interstate 10 to the south.
The trucks are not anticipated to travel northbound on Indian Canyon Drive, past the sensitive
receivers. As stated above, the sensitive receivers are located at distances ranging from 2,054 to
3,327 feet from the project site. At this distance, the sensitive receivers will not be impacted by
the trucks traveling along Indian Canyon Drive because a truck would generate 62 VdB and up to
75
72 VdB (if traveling over a bump) when observed 50 feet from the source. These vibration levels
are lower than the 75 VdB distinctly perceptible level. Additionally, vibration decreases the further
you are from the site (page 4.10-30 DEIR/RDEIR). Impacts will be less than significant.
I. POPULATION AND HOUSING
i. Induce Direct or Indirect Unplanned Growth
The Draft/Final EIR analyzed the potential impacts of the direct and indirect growth induced by
the proposed project. Direct population growth occurs from the development of new residential
units. Indirect population growth could result from the creation of new jobs or the removal of
barriers to growth. The proposed project has the potential to induce both direct and indirect
population growth by providing up to 718 new jobs.
a) Findings Regarding Induced Growth
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project’s impacts relating to project-
related direct and indirect growth will be less than significant.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Employment and Population: According to the General Plan Land Use Element, the Land Use Plan
for the City of Palm Springs includes enough capacity for employment to increase from
approximately 28,000 jobs in 2020 to almost 60,000 jobs at the City’s build out. Although the
Land Use Plan can accommodate significant growth, SCAG anticipates approximately 41,000 jobs
in Palm Springs by 2035 according to the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).
Employment growth resulting from project implementation would result in less than significant
impacts because the increase is anticipated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and
SCAG’s RTP/SCS. Employees from the Coachella Valley would be within commuting distance
and would not generate a need for housing. Therefore, there would not be a substantial increase in
population and impacts would be less than significant (DEIR p. 4.11-7). However, it can also be
assumed that all 718 employees would be relocating from outside of Palm Springs to the City. If
this were to occur, the project’s 718 employees would increase the population of the City by
approximately 1,270 residents based on the 2023 Department of Finance persons per household
for the City. This is an increase of approximately 2.9 percent to the City’s 2023 population of
94,950, and still below the projected City’s buildout and SCAG’s 2045 population forecasts of
61,600 people. Although buildout and full occupancy of the project could potentially result in a
2.9 percent population increase of the current City population, per SCAG, this increase is
consistent with City and regional growth projections. Therefore, the project would not result in a
substantial unanticipated population increase in the City. Impacts would be less than significant.
Housing: According to the Revised Draft Housing Element (September 2023), Palm Springs had
36,012 housing units as of 2020. The City has recently approved applications for housing units
that total 2,262 single-family and condominium units. The operation of the project would result in
approximately 718 employees, which could result in the need for housing for employees relocating
76
to the City. Future employees would likely be existing residents of Palm Springs or other cities
within the Coachella Valley, but the City’s10 percent vacancy rate and approved 2,262 dwelling
units would contribute to the housing availability for new households created by the project’s
employees, which would total 718 if all employees were new householders in the City. Therefore,
the housing demand created by the project’s new employees can be accommodated in existing and
proposed units, and would not generate an additional demand for housing. (page 4.11-8 of the
DEIR) Additionally, implementation of the project will result in an increase in population and
housing that is consistent with the projected growth for the City. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Infrastructure: No new extensions of roads will be associated with the project. The project will
connect to existing water, sewer, and electrical lines. The project’s proposed connection to the
existing infrastructure will provide the necessary utilities for the proposed project.
Existing 12-inch sewer lines are located approximately 650 feet east of the project in 19th Avenue.
The project will extend the sewer line to the project site with a proposed 8-inch line. The extension
of the sewer line could allow for future development within the surrounding area west and north
of the project, which is designated for industrial and commercial uses, per the Palm Springs and
Desert Hot Springs General Plans. MSWD plans for growth in their service area in the MSWD
Wastewater System Comprehensive Master Plan, which outlines major wastewater collection
system infrastructure, sewer lines, lift stations, and treatment plant improvements over a 20-year
period. The MSWD is developing a 1.5-million gallons per day wastewater treatment plant
located… to serve the project and surrounding lands. The treatment plant will increase the
District’s total wastewater treatment capacity and alleviate a portion of existing wastewater flows
currently going to the Horton Wastewater Treatment Plant.
According to the 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, MSWD’s long-
term water management planning ensures that adequate water supplies are available to meet
existing and future water needs within its service area. MSWD’s urban water demand was 8,269
acre-feet (AF) for 2020, and the projected urban water demand by 2025 is 8,996 and by 2045 is
17,494 AFY. Based on the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the proposed project, located in
Appendix M, the project is expected to have a total water demand of approximately 118.37 AFY.
As discussed on page 4.11-9 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project will be required to connect to existing
electrical infrastructure located along Indian Canyon Drive and 19th Avenue via an underground
system. The closest energy facility to the project site is the Indigo Energy Facility located
approximately 700 feet west of the project. Additional substations in the project area include
Garnet substation (0.60 miles south), Hugo Substation (0.65 miles southwest), and Devers
Substation (2 miles northwest). SCE operates and maintains these facilities. SCE plans for growth
within their service area by upgrading their electric infrastructure, as well as providing alternative
energy sources within its service area.
For electrical supply, the project would connect to existing lines located on the southwest corner
of Indian Canyon Drive and 19th Avenue, running underground along the established right of way.
Both water and sewer connections are available on 19th Avenue and Indian Canyon Drive, with
the sewer lines existing approximately 650 feet east of the project. The close proximity of the
77
utilities ensures that the project’s infrastructure development would not extend in a manner that
could stimulate unplanned growth. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
J. PUBLIC SERVICES
i. Impact Fire and Police Services
The Draft EIR analyzes the project’s potential effects relating to the provision of public services,
including fire protection and police protection (Draft EIR, at p. 4.12-7 – 4.12-8). The project will
add a structure and workers to the project site, which will cause incremental increases in the
demand for these public services.
a) Finding Regarding Impact to Fire and Police Services
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project’s impacts on public services,
including fire services and police services will be less than significant.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Development of the project may cause an incremental increase in demand for emergency services.
To reduce impact, the project would adhere to Policy SA 5.3 of the General Plan, which requires
the use of fire-resistant building materials and the incorporation of fire sprinklers, compliance with
CAL FIRE Fire Safe Regulations and Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structures
Regulations, the development of a Fire Protection Plan, adherence to the CBC and California Fire
Code, and ensuring adequate access for emergency vehicles. Along with implementing the
requirements of Policy SA 5.3, the project would also be reviewed by City and Fire Department
to ensure that the project plans meet the fire protection requirements.
The implementation of a fire suppression system is consistent with the General Plan Action SA
7.3 which requires all structures located beyond the response time of 5 minutes to build a fire
suppression system. The project will also comply with Policy SA 5.13 which requires all new
construction to use noncombustible roofing materials, Policy SA 8.6 which requires that all
buildings adhere to fire safety codes, and Policy SA 8.9 which requires the installation of fire
protection water systems, which include fire hydrants, fire sprinkler systems, and wet and dry on-
site standpipe systems. Additionally, the project will adhere to the California Fire Code. The
California Fire Code and the policies and action described above are City standards that are
required to be implemented. With the implementation of the City’s standard requirements, and the
Fire Department’s review of the project plans to ensure that the project would meet fire protection
requirements, the project’s impact on fire services would be less than significant.
The development would occur within an area of existing industrial and commercial uses, which is
already served by the Palm Springs Police Department; however, due to the service population
estimate, development of the project may cause an incremental increase in demand for police
services.
According to the DOF 2023 Population Estimates, there were 44,092 residents living in Palm
Springs. In the Palm Springs General Plan Safety Element, it was reported that there are 100
78
working officers for PSPD, approximately 2.3 officers per 1000 Palm Springs residents. Project
build-out could result in an additional 718 service population, which would result in a 2.23 officers
per 1,000 persons ratio, still exceeding the City’s standard of one officer to every 1,000 persons
(General Plan Action SA 7.1). Consistent with the General Plan’s Safety Element, the City also
evaluates the ability to provide proper police protection for new developments in the City to ensure
new development does not result in a reduction of law enforcement below acceptable levels (Policy
SA1.12 & Policy SA1.13). The project’s adherence to standard requirements will reduce impacts
to police services to less than significant levels.
Off-site improvements include water and sewer connections to the project site. Domestic water
would connect to the existing 12-inch water main on 19th Avenue located within the right-of-way.
Sanitary sewer connections to the site would occur on 19th Avenue from an existing 6-inch sewer
line approximately 650 feet east of Indian Canyon and 19th Avenue. Construction activities of the
off-site improvement may briefly impact emergency response times on 19th Avenue and Indian
Canyon Drive. Therefore, construction of the proposed offsite improvements would require the
implementation of Construction Traffic Control Plans (as required by Mitigation Measure TRA-
2). With the implementation of the Construction Traffic Control Plans, construction of the offsite
improvements would have less than significant impact on fire and police protection services and
would cease once construction of the offsite improvements are complete.
K. TRANSPORTATION
i. Consistency with an Applicable Plan or Policy Addressing the Circulation
System
The proposed project would add traffic to area roadways that could result in significant changes in
the level of service at area intersections and thus potentially conflict with a program plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, which is considered a potentially significant
adverse effect.
a) Finding Regarding Consistency with Applicable Plan or Policy Addressing
Circulation System
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project’s impacts on plans or policies
addressing circulation will be less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The project is anticipated to generate a total of 2,134 PCE vehicle trip-ends per day with 118 AM
(PCE) peak vehicle hour trips and 155 PM (PCE) peak hour vehicle trips. In order to assess whether
the project would significantly impact the roadway system, an analysis was conducted which
assumed that the project would be operational in 2024. The analysis assumes that the project would
build out adjacent roadways and traffic controls under opening year conditions, consistent with the
City of Palm Springs General Plan buildout intersection configurations.
The existing operations analysis indicates that 10 of the 11 existing study area intersections are
currently operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) during the peak hours. One intersection
79
(Indian Canyon Drive and 19th Avenue) is operating at LOS F during the evening peak hour,
which General Plan policy classifies as an unacceptable LOS. However, the addition of a traffic
signal at this intersection would result in acceptable conditions (see DEIR p. 4.13-18 to 4.13-25).
Table 4.13-9 includes the traffic signal that is currently proposed at this intersection to address
anticipated traffic delay expected with or without the project (see DEIR p. 4.13-20). The analysis
further showed that this deficient intersection remains when the project is added to local traffic
flows both under existing and opening year conditions (RDEIR page 4.13-22).
As shown in Table 4.13-13 of the DEIR, the Indian Canyon / 19th Avenue intersection operates at
an unacceptable LOS with or without the addition of the project in its opening year (see DEIR p.
4.13-24). All other study area intersections operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of the
project. According to communication with Travis Clark, Community Development Director of the
City of Desert Hot Springs on 10/28/2024, Project Viento has received approval of the Signal Plans
for the intersection of Indian Canyon Drive and 19th Avenue. The signal is required to be
operational prior to the opening of the Project Viento facility, which is currently under
construction. The estimated completion date is August 22, 2025. See Page 2-49 of the FEIR. Based
on this analysis, although the proposed project will contribute to unacceptable conditions at the
Indian Canyon/19th Avenue intersection, the failure of the intersection will occur regardless of the
project, will be mitigated by the construction of the signal in the immediate future, and the project’s
impact will be offset by the payment of an lieu fee equivalent to the project’s fair share of 7.9%,
see Table 4.13-14 (see DEIR p. 4.13-25), which the City will condition the project to contribute
as part of the Major Development Permit.
With the addition of a traffic signal and project trips, the intersection of Indian Canyon and 19th
Avenue operates at LOS A, consistent with City policy.
SunLine does not currently serve the project study area, therefore, there will be no impacts to
SunLine services or facilities and the project will not otherwise interfere with implementation of
SunLine transit network.
Sidewalks and bike lanes will be provided along Indian Canyon Drive. A sidewalk will be provided
along 19th Avenue adjacent to the project site. Project improvements will add to the existing
sidewalk and bicycle system in the area. As the area builds out, future projects will be required to
construct General Plan improvements to sidewalks and bicycle facilities and will provide future
connectivity to the surrounding area, consistent with General Plan policy. Therefore, the project
will not conflict with any City program, plan, ordinance or policy regarding multi-modal
transportation.
L. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
i. Require or Result in Construction of New or Expanded Facilities for Water,
Wastewater, Drainage or Utilities, the Construction of Which May Cause
Significant Environmental Effects
The Draft EIR analyzes the construction of new or expanded facilities for water, wastewater,
drainage, and utilities, and whether the construction of such facilities would have any significant
adverse effect. Water and wastewater facilities for the proposed project will be provided by
80
Mission Springs Water District via project constructed connections or laterals to existing lines
located in the local rights-of-way. There are no public storm water improvements in the area
surrounding the project and none will be added as part of the project. The site is within the SCE
service area for electric service. Existing overhead distribution power poles are located at the
southwest corner of Indian Canyon Drive and 19th Avenue. The project is located within Frontier’s
and Charter Communications’ service area for telecommunications.
a) Findings Regarding New and Expanded Facilities
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project’s impact concerning water
systems and supply will be less than significant. The Planning Commission finds that the new and
expanded utilities facilities to be constructed as part of the project, including connections to
existing water and sewer lines and electricity, will not have any significant adverse effects. Finally,
the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any new or substantially more severe
impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the DEIR/RDEIR.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Water: Water to the proposed project will be provided by Mission Springs Water District via
project constructed connections or laterals to existing 16-inch water main located in 19th Avenue.
A new private 8-inch water line will connect to the public 16-inch water main and provide water
to development. A 12-inch fire line is also proposed for the project’s fire hydrant and sprinkler
system. The infrastructure and design components for the project will be consistent with MSWD
requirements and the RUWMP (page 4.15-12 of DEIR/RDEIR). The project will be further
reviewed by City and MSWD staff to ensure compliance with all current and applicable water
requirements. No new off-site water facilities are required as a result of project development.
Wastewater: Offsite improvements will include connecting the proposed project to the existing 12-
inch sewer main located approximately 650 feet east of the project and within 19th Avenue. This
connection would occur in the existing 19th Avenue. A new 8-inch private sewer main will be
installed to connect to the off-site sewer main stub outs to serve the project site. Offsite
improvements are expected to have less than significant impacts since 19th Avenue is an existing
paved road disturbed by vehicle and pedestrian use. (page 4.15-12 of the DEIR)
Storm Water Drainage: There are no public storm water improvements in the area surrounding the
project. As a standard requirement, the project site design will incorporate stormwater
management to capture the controlling 100-year storm event volume.
The Preliminary Hydrology Report has calculated that the stormwater runoff volume resulting
from the worst-case 100-year storm event for the project area in a developed condition would be
approximately 297,329 cubic feet. As a result, the combined retention capacity provided by the
project is sized at approximately 297,419 cubic feet. The retention capacity is distributed among a
system of facilities, rather than a single location, in order to prevent concentrated flows and
volumes, while facilitating the management effectiveness of these facilities after construction. The
final volume and provided retention capacity will be subject to final review and approval by the
City prior to project implementation. The retention of storm flows on-site results in a self-
contained system, which protects surrounding streets from storm flows. Since there are no existing
81
storm water facilities in the area, the on-site retention is necessary, and no impact to City or
regional storm water facilities will occur. As a standard requirement, the project is obligated to
meet the City of Palm Spring’s requirements by demonstrating that the incremental increase in
runoff due to development can be adequately retained on-site. The project provides facilities to
retain the entirety of the controlling 100-year, 24-hour storm event, therefore adequately meeting
or exceeding the City of Palm Springs stormwater retention ordinance. As a result, the project will
not result in off-site discharges of urban runoff within the design condition. Only runoff quantities
resulting from a larger magnitude storm, such as a force majeure or natural disaster event beyond
the City’s engineering standards, would be allowed to be conveyed off-site. (page 4.15-12 of the
DEIR)
Electric Facilities: The site is within the SCE service area for electric service. Existing overhead
distribution power poles are located at the southwest corner of Indian Canyon Drive and 19th
Avenue. The project will be required to connect to the existing off-site SCE electrical infrastructure
to provide electricity to the site. Coordination with SCE will allow the project to extend electrical
facilities along existing, disturbed right-of-way to serve the site, and to comply with all
requirements of the utility provider during the project development.
Buildout of the project, related projects, and additional forecasted growth in SCE’s service area
would cumulatively increase the demand for electricity supplies and infrastructure capacity. SCE’s
planning area consumed approximately 103,045 GWh electricity in 2021. According to the CEC’s
Demand Analysis Office, SCE estimates that electricity consumption within SCE’s planning area
will be approximately 129,000 GWh (which is 129,000,000 MWh) annually by 2030. Based on
the project’s estimated annual electrical consumption of 3,673.072 MWh, the project would
account for approximately 0.003 percent of SCE’s total estimated demand in 2030. The closest
energy facility to the project site is the Indigo Energy Facility located approximately 700 feet west
of the project. Additional substations in the project area include Garnet substation (0.60 miles
south), Hugo Substation (0.65 miles southwest), and Devers Substation (2 miles northwest). SCE
operates and maintains these facilities. SCE is constantly upgrading and expanding their electricity
distribution networks to ensure capacity and reliability with the anticipated growth within their
service area. In recent years, the Devers Substation received upgrades to equipment to achieve
higher capacity.
A total of approximately 453,310 kWh of electricity is anticipated to be consumed during
construction. The electricity demand at any given time would vary throughout the construction
period based on construction activities being performed and would cease upon completion of
construction. The estimated construction electricity usage represents approximately 12.3 percent
of the project’s estimated annual operational demand.
The City implements plans to reduce electricity consumption by taking part in the Desert
Community Energy (DCE), which is the community-based, locally controlled electricity provider
serving Palm Springs. The DCE provides renewable power sources such as solar, wind, and
geothermal in addition to large hydroelectric (which is considered carbon free but not renewable)
to their service area. SCE has met or exceeded all Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements to
date, procuring renewable energy from diverse renewable sources (listed above). This standard
requires all California utilities to generate 60 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2030,
and 100 percent by 2045. SCE’s Pathway 2045 program will achieve carbon neutrality by
82
decarbonizing all sectors of the economy and will necessitate rigorous planning to keep energy
safe, reliable, and affordable. Eighty gigawatts (GW) of new utility-scale clean generation and 30
GW of utility-scale energy storage will be required in the next 25 years. Electrical impacts are
expected to be less than significant because the project will be required to comply with regional
and local conservation measures to ensure project-related energy consumption is not significant.
Energy codes established by the State will be implemented by the project to reduce energy
consumption and increase energy efficiency at the project site. (page 4.15-14 of the DEIR)
Natural Gas: At present there are 4-inch underground natural gas lines located approximately a
half-mile west, in 19th Avenue, provided by Southern California Gas Company. However, it is not
anticipated that the project will utilize natural gas, apart from the use of exterior cargo handling
equipment, which will be in operation up to four hours a day. Therefore, the project will not need
to connect to existing natural gas infrastructure.
The project’s operational consumption of natural gas will include the use of exterior cargo
handling equipment involving up to four (4) 200 horsepower (hp), natural gas-powered cargo
handling equipment – port tractors conservatively operating at 4 hours a day for 365 days of the
year. Project on-site equipment would consume an estimated 13,926 gallons of natural gas, which
is equivalent to 1,273,560.6 kBTU and 1,236,466.6 cf of natural gas. Natural gas is not anticipated
to be required during construction of the project.
Based on the 2018 California Gas Report, the California Energy and Electric Utilities estimates
natural gas consumption within SoCalGas’s planning area will be approximately 2,310 million cf
per day in 2030. The project would consume approximately 0.15 percent of the 2030 forecasted
consumption in SoCalGas’s planning area. Impacts to natural gas are less than significant and
would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities and
natural gas is located in the street adjacent to the project site. Additionally, the project would be
designed to comply with Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) regarding
energy consumption. (page 4.15-13 of the DEIR)
Telecommunication Facilities: The project is located within Frontier’s and Charter
Communications’ service area for telecommunications. The project will tie into the existing cable,
telecommunications lines located along Indian Canyon Drive. The project will not require or result
in the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities. (page 4.15-15
of the DEIR)
ii. Sufficiency of Water Supplies
Development of the project would result in an overall increase in water demand from the project
site during operation. Water consumed by the project was analyzed in the project specific
WSA/WSV (Appendix M). The analysis of water resources and water supply is based upon the
understanding of projected water supplies as developed by MSWD and used for the WSA/WSV,
including estimates of available groundwater. Based upon this analysis, the estimated total
domestic water demand for indoor and outdoor use is approximately 118.37 acre-feet per year
(AFY), or 2.99 acre-feet per acre. Water to the proposed project will be provided by Mission
Springs Water District via project constructed connections or laterals to existing lines located in
19th Avenue. The project proposes to connect to the existing 16-inch water main on 19th Avenue.
83
A new private 8-inch water line will connect to the public 16-inch water main and provide water
to development. These improvements are project-specific and will not require the construction of
regional facilities.
a) Findings Regarding Sufficiency of Water Supplies
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project’s impact concerning water
systems and supply will be less than significant. The Planning Commission finds that there are
sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and all reasonably foreseeable future
development, as well as all existing uses within the Mission Creek Subbasin, during normal, dry,
and multiple dry years, and further finds that the project’s impacts relating to water use are less
than significant. Finally, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any new or
substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the DEIR/RDEIR.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Based on the analysis in the WSA, the project’s total water demand will be 118.37 acre-feet per
year (AFY). MSWD’s long-term water management planning ensures that adequate water supplies
are available to meet existing and future water needs within its service area by assessing the
reliability of water sources over a 20-year planning horizon every 5-years through their UWMP.
As shown in Table 4.15-6 of the RDEIR, MSWD Projected Urban Water Supplies, MSWD’s
current urban water demand was 8,269 acre-feet (AF) for 2020, and the projected urban water
demand by 2025 is 8,996 and by 2045 is 17,494 AFY. This Project’s water demand of 118.37 AFY
accounts for approximately 1.32 percent of the total planned increase in demand of 8,996 AFY by
2025 and 0.68 percent of the total planned increases in demand of 17,494 AFY by 2045.
Based on the information, analysis, and findings documented in the WSA for the project, MSWD
has sufficient water supplies to meet the demands of the project, as well as future demands of the
project plus all forecasted demands in the next 20 years. CVWD and DWA are replenishing the
aquifer with Colorado River and State Water Project (SWP) Exchange water from Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (MWD). The Mission Creek Subbasin Management Area
contains two AOBs: the CVWD Mission Creek Subbasin Area of Benefit (AOB) and the DWA
Mission Creek Subbasin AOB. In calendar year (CY) 2022, total assessable production in the
management area was 13,751 acre-feet (AF), a decrease of 3 percent from 2021. The assessable
production in CVWD’s Mission Creek Subbasin AOB was 4,390 AF, which was approximately
32 percent of total production within the management area. Since 2003, groundwater levels have
risen and stabilized throughout the Mission Creek Subbasin, which is evidence that
implementation of the replenishment program has effectively abated historical overdraft.
The project will abide by MSWD Water Efficient Landscaping Guidelines. The intent of the
MSWD Landscape Guidelines is to comply with the State of California’s Water Conservation in
Landscaping Act.
The Uniform Building Code (Chapter 18.52) also establishes landscape regulations to provide for
the conservation and safeguard of water resources and ensure compliance with all state-mandated
water conservation regulations through the efficient use of water and appropriate use of plant
materials, and ensure the ongoing maintenance of landscape areas.
84
The project will be required to implement water conservation measures to reduce impacts to the
public water supply per existing requirements. Therefore, impacts to water supplies will be less
than significant.
iii. Wastewater Treatment System Capacity
MSWD provides wastewater service throughout the northern portion of the Coachella Valley and
is the provider of wastewater services to the project site. The District operates and manages the
Horton Wastewater Treatment Plan (HWWTP) and the Desert Crest Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The Horton WWTP has a capacity of 2.3 million gallons per day (MGD). The District is
constructing the MSWD Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RWRF) to meet increasing
wastewater demands. Located north of Interstate 10, near 20th Avenue and Little Morongo Road
in Desert Hot Springs, approximately 4.80 miles from the project site, the new facility will treat
an additional 1.5 million gallons of wastewater per day. The facility will also support the addition
of tertiary treatment in the future, providing recycled water to enhance the region's water
conservation efforts. The regional plant and conveyance line projects were expected to be
operational by the Fall of 2023. Although delayed, the plant is now open.
The proposed project is estimated to generate wastewater at 14,400 gallons per day (GPD) or 0.1
MGD. This is 6 percent of the HWWTP Plant’s capacity of 2.3 MGD. The project’s final
engineering plans will undergo additional review by the City of Palm Springs and Mission Springs
Water District to assure compliance with all current and applicable requirements. Therefore, the
project is not expected to exceed wastewater capacity and impacts are less than significant.
a) Findings Regarding Wastewater Treatment System Capacity
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project’s impact concerning
wastewater treatment system capacity will be less than significant. Finally, the Planning
Commission finds that the project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than
analyzed and disclosed in the DEIR/RDEIR.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The project is proposing a new 8-inch private sewer line that would collect flow from the
development and convey it to an existing 6-inch sewer main located 650 feet east in 19th Avenue.
Flows would then be delivered to the HWWTP. The proposed project is estimated to generate
wastewater at 14,400 GPD or 0.01 MDG, which is 6 percent of the HWWTP plant’s capacity of
2.3 MGD. Annual flows to the HWWTP in 2020 were 2,244 AFY, the proposed project’s 14,400
GPD is 16.13 AFY which is 7 percent of the HWWTP plant’s annual capacity.
The project’s final engineering plans will undergo additional review by the City of Palm Springs
and MSWD to assure compliance with all current and applicable requirements. As demonstrated
above, the project is not expected to exceed the City’s wastewater capacity demand and impacts
are less than significant (Draft EIR, at pg. 4.15-21).
85
iv. Generate Excess Solid Waste
The project is proposing the development of a 739,360 square foot fulfilment center with a building
footprint of 727,360 square feet allotted to warehouse uses, and 12,000 square feet for offices on
the second floor. Additional solid waste will be generated by the proposed project through
operation and employees. The project would generate an average of approximately 4.96 tons of
solid waste per day. This estimate does not account for any required solid waste reductions. Waste
from the project site will be sent to the Edom Hill Transfer station which can receive a maximum
of 3,500 tons per day, and currently processes over 1,900 tons per day. The project would
contribute less than significant impacts to the Edom Hill Transfer station’s capacity.
a) Findings Regarding Excess Solid Waste
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project’s impact concerning the
generation of excess solid waste will be less than significant. Finally, the Planning Commission
finds that the project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed
and disclosed in the DEIR/RDEIR.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The project would generate an average of approximately 4.96 tons per day. This estimate does not
account for any required solid waste reductions. Waste from the project site will be sent to the
Edom Hill Transfer station which can receive a maximum of 3,500 tons per day, and currently
processes over 1,900 tons per day. The project’s 4.96 tons of solid waste is less than 1 percent of
this transfers station’s daily capacity, and represents a less than 1% increase in daily processing.
The solid waste would then be transferred to one of the County’s permitted landfills.
The Lambs Canyon Landfill is the nearest landfill. This landfill has a permitted capacity of 5,000
tons per day and 319,242,950 cubic yards of remaining capacity with a closure date of 2032. The
solid waste generated by the project is less than one percent of the 5,000 tons per day at the Lambs
Canon landfill. Therefore, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity. (page
4.15-22 of the DEIR)
The project will be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to serve the project. Therefore,
impacts relative to solid waste are less than significant.
v. Comply with Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste
The project is required to comply with the mandatory recycling requirements of Assembly Bill
341 and the Cal Green requirement for a construction waste management plan that includes
diversion of at least 65% of construction and demolition materials from landfills, through recycling
and/or reuse (see DEIR, at p. 4.15-22). The project would generate an average of approximately
4.96 tons per day. This estimate does not account for any required solid waste reductions. Waste
from the project site will be sent to the Edom Hill Transfer station which can receive a maximum
of 3,500 tons per day, and currently processes over 1,900 tons per day. The project’s 4.96 tons of
solid waste is less than 1 percent of this transfers station’s daily capacity, and represents a less than
1% increase in daily processing. The project’s compliance with the mandatory recycling and
86
construction waste requirements listed above will ensure that the impacts to existing statutes and
regulations related to solid waste are less than significant.
a) Findings Regarding Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project’s impact concerning statutes
and regulations related to solid waste will be less than significant. Finally, the Planning
Commission finds that the project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than
analyzed and disclosed in the DEIR/RDEIR.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The project will comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies and guidelines. Palm
Springs Disposal abides by Assembly Bill 341 which requires that not less than 75% of solid waste
generated be reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. Businesses that generate 4-cubic
yards of solid waste or more must arrange for recycling services as required by Assembly Bill 341.
The City of Palm Springs Municipal Code (Chapter 6.04) enforces this policy. The project will be
required to arrange for PSDS collection of recycled material and supply and allow access to an
adequate number, size and location of collection containers for employees, contractors, tenants,
and customers. The California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) mandates that all new
building construction develop a waste management plan that includes diversion of at least 65% of
construction and demolition material from landfills, through recycling and/or reuse. There are no
impacts relative to applicable solid waste regulations because the project is required to, and will,
comply with all such regulations (Draft EIR, at pg. 4.15-22).
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT
The DEIR also determined, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the following impacts
associated with the project will have no impacts. The City hereby adopts the findings, analysis,
and conclusions regarding these potential impacts set forth in the Final EIR and incorporates the
same herein by this reference.
A. AESTHETICS
i. Affecting a Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway
The proposed project occurs north of 19th Avenue and west of Indian Canyon Drive. The project
site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The property does not contain any landmarks or scenic
resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings.
a) Finding Regarding Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not affect a scenic
roadway, or scenic resource. There are no scenic roadways, or scenic resources such as trees, rock
outcroppings or historic buildings.
87
Facts in Support of Finding:
A review of the California State Scenic Highway Program determined that the project site is not
located within a designated State Scenic Highway. State Route 62 is approximately 3 miles west
of the project site and is a State designated Scenic Highway. The project site is not visible from
SR 62. According to the Riverside County Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, the Interstate 10
freeway is a County Eligible Scenic Highway but is not officially designated. The Interstate 10
freeway is located approximately 0.32 miles south of the project. Therefore, the project will not
impact scenic resources in the Interstate 10 right of way. Additionally, the site is currently vacant
and undeveloped. The site is relatively level, with uniform sandy terrain and scattered vegetation.
Soil disturbance and vehicle tracks are indicative of recent activity onsite. The site does not contain
trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Therefore, the project will not affect these scenic
resources.
The project is not located adjacent to a State designated Scenic Highway or a Riverside County
Scenic Highway. There will be no impact to scenic resources on a scenic highway.
B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
i. 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
The project property is classified by the 2016 California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program (FMMP) as “Other Land”. Other Land is defined as land not included in any other
mapping category (i.e., Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance, Unique
Farmland, or Urban and Built-Up Land). Surrounding areas to the west, north, and east are also
designated as Other Land, while areas south of the project include a mix of both Other Land and
Urban and Built-Up Land. No areas within the City of Palm Springs are designated or zoned for
agricultural use. Therefore, implementation of the project would not involve changes that would
result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide
Importance to nonagricultural uses.
a) Finding Regarding the Conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland
or Farmland of Statewide Importance to Non-Agricultural Use
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated on page 6-2 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project site and surrounding areas to the west,
north, and east are designated as Other Land, while areas south of the project include a mix of both
Other Land and Urban and Built-Up Land. No areas within the City of Palm Springs are designated
or zoned for agricultural use. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Industrial
with Wind Energy Overlay. Therefore, implementation of the project would not involve changes
88
that would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide
Importance to nonagricultural uses.
ii. Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use or a Williamson Act
Contract
The zoning designation for the proposed project is Manufacturing (M-2). The proposed project is
compliant with the land use and zoning designations established by the City of Palm Springs. The
City of Palm Springs does not have agricultural zones within their boundaries.
a) Finding Regarding Conflicting with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use
or a Williamson Act Contract
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not conflict with the
existing zoning or lands designated for Williamson Act contracts.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated on page 6-2 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the zoning designation for the proposed project is
Manufacturing (M-2). The proposed project is compliant with the land use and zoning designations
established by the City of Palm Springs. According to the Williamson Act 2014 Status Report, no
portion of the project site is within or near a recognized Williamson Act Contract area. Neither the
project site nor any surrounding lands are designated or used for agricultural purposes. Agriculture
is not a land use defined in either the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. No impact to agricultural
resources will result from implementation of the project.
iii. Conflict with Existing Zoning for or Cause Rezoning of Forest Land,
Timberland, or Timberland Zoned Timberland Production
As stated on page 6-3 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project site is currently vacant and undeveloped.
Industrial with a Wind Energy Overlay are the property’s land use designations. Forest land,
timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production does not occur on the project site or
surrounding areas.
a) Finding Regarding Conflicting with Existing Zoning for or Cause
Rezoning of Forest Land, Timberland, or Timberland Zoned Timberland
Production
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not conflict with the
existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland
production.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Industrial with a Wind Energy Overlay are
the property’s land use designations. Forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland
89
Production does not occur on the project site or surrounding areas. The project would not result in
the loss of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland production.
iv. Result in the Loss of Forest Land or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest
Use
As stated on page 6-3 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project site is currently vacant and undeveloped.
Industrial with a Wind Energy Overlay are the property’s land use designations. Forest land does
not occur on the project site or surrounding areas.
a) Finding Regarding the Loss of Forest Land or Conversion of Forest Land
to Non-Forest Use
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not result in the loss of
forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Industrial with a Wind Energy Overlay are
the property’s land use designations. Forest land does not occur on the project site or surrounding
areas. The project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-
forest use (see page 6-3 of DEIR/RDEIR).
v. Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment Which, Due to Their
Location or Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Farmland, to Non-
Agricultural Use or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use
As stated on page 6-3 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project site is currently vacant and undeveloped.
Agricultural or forest land does not occur on the project site or surrounding areas.
a) Finding Regarding Changes in the Existing Environment Which, Due to
Their Location or Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Farmland, to
Non-Agricultural Use or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not result in changes in the
existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of
farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Agricultural or forest land does not occur on
the project site or surrounding areas. Therefore, the project would not result in changes in the
existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of
farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use (see page 6-3 of
DEIR/RDEIR). No impacts are expected.
90
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
i. 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
The site is vacant and undeveloped, and surrounded by developed and undeveloped properties.
Off-site improvements involve the project’s connection to existing sewer, water, and electricity
lines in the streets east and south of the project. There are no jurisdictional waters, and no lakes,
rivers, or streambeds within the limits of the proposed project or the proposed off-site
infrastructure.
a) Finding Regarding Having a Substantial Adverse Effect on Any Riparian
Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not 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 CDFW or USFWS.
Facts in Support of Finding:
There are no jurisdictional waters regulated pursuant to the CWA by the USACE or the RWQCB,
and no lakes, rivers, or streambeds regulated pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code by
the CDFW are present within the limits of the proposed project or the proposed off-site
infrastructure. Since significant wash vegetation, riparian vegetation, or other sensitive natural
communities (identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the CDFW or
US Fish and Wildlife Service) does not occur at the project site or within the existing rights-of-
way where off-site improvements will occur, the project will have no impacts on these resources.
ii. Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on State or Federally Protected Wetlands
(Including, But Not Limited to, March, Vernal Pool, Coastal, Etc.) Through
Direct Removal, Filling, Hydrological Interruption, or Other Means
The vacant and undeveloped project site does not contain federally protected wetlands, marshes or
other natural drainage features. No blue-line stream corridors (streams or dry washes) are shown
on U.S. Geological Survey maps for the project site and there are no botanical indicators of such
corridors.
a) Finding Regarding Having a Substantial Adverse Effect on State or
Federally Protected Wetlands
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have a substantial
adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands.
91
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated on pages 6-3 and 6-4 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the vacant and undeveloped project site does
not contain federally protected wetlands, marshes or other natural drainage features. As a result,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in the direct removal, filling or other
hydrological interruption to any of these resources. Off-site improvements involve the project’s
connection to existing sewer, water, and electricity lines in the streets east and south of the project.
The existing rights-of-way are developed and the project’s connection to off-site infrastructure
will not result in impacts to protected wetlands.
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
i. Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault
As stated on page 6-4 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the City of Palm Springs, similar to most of Southern
California, is susceptible to earthquakes due to the active faults that traverse the Coachella Valley.
The closest fault to the project property is the Banning Pass Fault, which lies approximately 0.25
miles north of the project, while the San Gorgonio Pass Fault is located approximately 4 miles
west of the project.
a) Finding Regarding the Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not result in the rupture of
a known fault.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Active faults are present along the northernmost reaches of the City, where the traces of the Garnet
Hill and Banning faults have been mapped. These faults have the potential to generate surface
rupture or ground deformation. The closest fault to the project property is the Banning Pass Fault,
which lies approximately 0.25 miles north of the project, while the San Gorgonio Pass Fault is
located approximately 4 miles west of the project. The Garnet Hill Fault is located approximately
1 mile south of the project; however, this fault is not considered an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault. According to Figure 6-1 in the Palm Springs General Plan (PSGP), neither the Banning Pass
Fault or San Gorgonio Pass Fault occurs on or adjacent to the project site. Due to the project’s
distance from the faults, rupture at the project site will not occur. No impacts are anticipated.
ii. Result in Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction
The northern and eastern areas of the City have a low possibility of being affected by liquefaction
due to the deep groundwater depths (greater than 50 feet). The Seismic Hazards Map (Figure 6-1)
of the PSGP indicates that the project site is located in an area with fine-grained granular sediments
susceptible to liquefaction but with groundwater depths greater than 50 feet.
92
a) Finding Regarding Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including
Liquefaction
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not result in seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated on pages 6-4 and 6-5 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the northern and eastern areas of the City
have a low possibility of being affected by liquefaction due to the deep groundwater depths (greater
than 50 feet). The Seismic Hazards Map (Figure 6-1) of the PSGP indicates that the project site is
located in an area with fine-grained granular sediments susceptible to liquefaction but with
groundwater depths greater than 50 feet. Due to the lack of shallow groundwater at and around the
project site, impacts of seismically-induced liquefaction at the project property and offsite
improvements are not expected to occur. No impacts are anticipated.
iii. Result in Seismic-Related Landslides
Secondary effects of seismic ground shaking, such as slope failures, rockfalls and landslides may
occur in the City, especially adjacent to and in elevated areas. Seismically induced landslides and
rockfalls can be expected primarily in the western and southern portion of the City, including areas
near the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains where the bedrock is intensely fractured or jointed.
The project site is not located in an area with high and moderate susceptibility of being impacted
by rockfalls and seismically induced landslides (PSGP Figure 6-2, Landslide Susceptibility).
a) Finding Regarding Seismic-Related Landslides
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not result in seismic-related
landslides.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated on page 6-5 of the DEIR/RDEIR, seismically-induced rockfalls and landslides are not
anticipated to impact the proposed project as the project site and proposed offsite improvements
are located on relatively flat land. Additionally, the project and offsite infrastructure are not located
adjacent to a mountain or hillside area. Therefore, seismically-induced rockfalls and landslides
will have no impact on the project.
iv. 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
Mission Springs Water District provides sewer services to the residents and businesses around the
project property. The project site is not currently connected to sewer infrastructure. The project
will connect to an existing 6-inch sewer line a half-mile east of the project in 19th Avenue.
93
a) Finding Regarding Soils Incapable of Adequately Supporting the Use of
Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will have no impact on soils
relating to septic systems.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated on page 6-5 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project will connect to an existing 6-inch sewer
line a half-mile east of the project in 19th Avenue. No septic system is proposed. Therefore, no
impacts are expected.
E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
i. Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous
Materials, Substances, or Waste Within One-Quarter Mile an Existing or
Proposed School
As stated on page 6-5 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project site is not located within a quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school. The closest school to the project site is Two Bunch Palms
Elementary School, located approximately 2.95 miles northeast of the project site.
a) Finding Regarding the Emission of Hazardous Emissions or the Handling
of Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste
Within One-Quarter Mile an Existing or Proposed School
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not emit hazards emissions
or handle hazardous materials or waste within one-quarter mile of a school.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The closest school to the project site is Two Bunch Palms Elementary School, located
approximately 2.95 miles northeast of the project site. Due to the project’s distance from any
existing or proposed school, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within a one-quarter mile radius of a school.
No impacts to existing or proposed schools are anticipated.
ii. 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
As stated on page 6-6 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project is located within the City’s Industrial land
use and is surrounded by industrial buildings and commercial businesses to the south and east. The
project site is not a hazardous materials release site, and therefore, development of the site would
not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
94
a) Finding Regarding the Projects Location 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
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project is not located on a site that is
included on a list of hazardous material sites and would not create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Pursuant to the Cortese List Government Code 65962.5 and its subsections, record searches on the
project property were performed within GeoTracker, EnviroStor and the EPA Enforcement and
Compliance History Online (ECHO). The search of all three databases revealed that the project
site is not a hazardous materials release site, and therefore, development of the site would not
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impacts are anticipated.
iii. For A Project Located Within An Airport Land Use Plan Or, Where Such A
Plan Has Not Been Adopted, Within Two Miles Of A Public Airport Or Public
Use Airport, Would The Project Result In A Safety Hazard Or Excessive Noise
For People Residing Or Working In The Project Area
As stated on page 6-6 of the DEIR/RDEIR, The project is not located within an airport land use
plan or private airstrip. The Palm Springs International Airport is located approximately 5 miles
to the southeast and the Bermuda Dunes Airport is located approximately 18.60 miles southeast of
the project.
a) Finding Regarding a Project Located Within An Airport Land Use Plan
Or, Within Two Miles Of A Public Airport Or Public Use Airport, Would
The Project Result In A Safety Hazard Or Excessive Noise For People
Residing Or Working In The Project Area
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project is not located within an airport
land use plan or within two-miles of a public airport, and would not result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The project is not located within an airport land use plan or near a private airstrip. The Palm
Springs International Airport is located approximately 5 miles to the southeast and the Bermuda
Dunes Airport is located approximately 18.60 miles southeast of the project. As a result, the project
is located outside each of the airports’ influence and planning area. Due to the project’s distance
from the regional airports, no impacts are anticipated.
95
iv. Expose People or Structures, Either Directly or Indirectly, to a Significant
Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Wildland Fires
As stated on page 6-6 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project property, located at the northwest corner of
Indian Canyon Drive and 19th Avenue is currently vacant and undeveloped. The project is
surrounded by existing industrial and commercial facilities to the south and east, vacant land to
the north, and wind turbines to the west.
a) Finding Regarding the Exposure of People or Structures, Either Directly
or Indirectly, to a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving
Wildland Fires
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project would not expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Facts in Support of Finding:
According to Cal Fire’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, the project site is not located within or
near a moderate, high, or very high fire severity zone. The closest established fire severity zone to
the project is located approximately 3.20 miles northwest of the project along State Route 62.
Therefore, impacts of wildfires are not anticipated at the project site.
F. LAND USE AND PLANNING
i. Physically Divide an Established Community
As stated on page 6-7 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project property is currently vacant and
undeveloped. Existing industrial and commercial businesses are located south of 19th Avenue and
east of Indian Canyon Drive. The property north of the project is vacant, while the property west
of the project includes vacant property and wind turbines. The surrounding properties operate
separately from each other.
a) Finding Regarding Physically Divide an Established Community
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not physically divide an
established community.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The surrounding properties operate separately from each other. The project is proposing the
construction and operation of an industrial warehouse with associated parking, drive aisles, and
landscaping. Therefore, project implementation is not anticipated to divide an established
community. No impact is expected.
96
ii. 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
As stated on page 6-7 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project site’s General Plan land use is Industrial
with a Wind Energy Overlay (WEO).
The project’s zoning designation is Manufacturing (M-2). The M-2 Zone, per Section 92.17.1.00
in the Palm Springs Municipal Code, is intended to provide for the development of warehouse and
distribution centers, and industrial uses. The M-2 zone is consistent with the General Plan
Industrial land use designation.
a) Finding Regarding Causing 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
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated on page 6-8 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project proposes an approximately 739,360-square-
foot industrial warehouse. The proposed industrial warehouse is an allowed use in the City’s
Industrial land use and M-2 zoning designations. Wind Energy Overlay areas allow for the
development of Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) and clean energy uses within the
northern portion of the City. The WEO is applied at the property owner’s discretion, and assumes
that all lands under the overlay would result in only 15 percent of the entire acreage allotted to
industrial and regional business center land uses. The entire WEO extends from the edge of
Miralon, west of Windy Point, and up to Dillon Road. The proposed project’s use of the land as a
distribution facility will reduce the total lands available for WECS projects by only 38 acres.
Additionally, it is the intention of the City to concentrate the industrial and regional commercial
land uses in the area around the Interstate 10 freeway, Indian Canyon Drive, and Gene Autry Trail.
Therefore, the development of the proposed project will have no impact on the City’s ability to
reach its goal of implementing WECS projects within the WEO boundary.
The project will be consistent with the development standards provided by the City. The
Development Permit ensures that a proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, the
Zoning Code, and other adopted plans, regulations and policies of the City. The Development
Permit also ensures that the location, height, massing, and placement of the proposed development
is consistent with applicable standards.
Goal LU3 of the Palm Springs General Plan Land Use Element aims to attract and retain high-
quality industrial and business park developments. The following policies are relevant to the
project:
LU3.2: Promote opportunities for expansion and revitalization of industrial uses within the City.
97
LU3.3: Ensure operation of industrial uses is unobtrusive to surrounding areas and prohibit the
development of manufacturing uses that operate in a manner or use materials that may impose a
danger on adjacent uses or are harmful to the environment.
The project proposes the development of an industrial warehouse on approximately 38 acres at the
northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Indian Canyon Drive. The project will expand the industrial
uses within the City. Additionally, the industrial project will not be obtrusive to surrounding areas
since surrounding properties include industrial and commercial businesses.
The project is consistent with the Palm Spring General Plan land use designation and policies, as
well as zoning designation. Therefore, no impacts are expected.
G. MINERAL RESOURCES
i. 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
As stated on page 6-8 of the DEIR/RDEIR, mining activities have been seen in the Santa Rosa and
San Jacinto Mountains, along with the high desert areas since the late 1800s. Local agencies,
including the City of Palm Springs, utilize the existing information on mineral classifications for
land use and plan development and decision making.
According to the Palm Springs General Plan the project and its surroundings are located within
Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), which applies to areas containing mineral deposits where the
significance cannot be evaluated from available data.
a) Finding Regarding the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource
that would be of Value to the Region and the Residents of the State
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not 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.
Facts in Support of Finding:
According to the Palm Springs General Plan the project and its surroundings are located within
Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), which applies to areas containing mineral deposits where the
significance cannot be evaluated from available data. The project is located in an existing
service/manufacturing zone, surrounded by other manufacturing/commercial development which
is incompatible with mining operations; therefore, project implementation would not result in the
loss of any known mineral resources that are considered important to the Coachella Valley or
residents of California. No impacts are expected related to the loss of availability of known mineral
resources.
98
ii. Result in the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource Recovery Site
Delineated on a Local General Plan, Specific Plan, or Other Land Use Plan
As stated on page 6-8 of the DEIR/RDEIR, mineral resources that are known to exist in the
Coachella Valley region primarily consist of sand and gravel (aggregate) typically deposited along
and near local drainages. Aggregate material is deemed necessary to the local building industry as
a component of asphalt, concrete, road base, stucco and plaster. The project site is not recognized
as a mineral resource recovery site delineated in the County of Riverside General Plan, City of
Palm Springs General Plan or the resource maps prepared pursuant to SMARA.
a) Finding Regarding the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource
Recovery Site Delineated on a Local General Plan, Specific Plan, or Other
Land Use Plan
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated on page 6-9 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project site is not recognized as a mineral resource
recovery site delineated in the County of Riverside General Plan, City of Palm Springs General
Plan or the resource maps prepared pursuant to SMARA. No impacts are expected as a result of
project implementation.
H. NOISE
i. 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
As stated on page 6-8 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the closest airport to the project site is the Palm Springs
International Airport, located approximately 4.90 miles southeast of the project property. The
project site is located outside of the 70, 65 and 60 CNEL noise contours associated with the airport.
a) Finding Regarding the Exposure of People Residing Or Working In The
Project Area To Excessive Noise Levels from Airports or Private Airstrips
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not expose people residing
or working the project area to excessive airport noise.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The closest airport to the project site is the Palm Springs International Airport, located
approximately 4.90 miles southeast of the project property. The project site is located outside of
99
the 70, 65 and 60 CNEL noise contours associated with the airport. Furthermore, the Palm Springs
Airport Land Use Plan does not identify the project site as being located within its planning area.
No impacts are expected.
I. POPULATION AND HOUSING
i. Displace Substantial Numbers of Existing People or Housing, Necessitating the
Construction of Replacement Housing Elsewhere
As stated on page 6-9 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the proposed project will not displace existing housing,
affordable housing, or people because the site is currently vacant and undeveloped and does not
currently house anyone.
a) Finding Regarding Displacing Substantial Numbers of Existing People or
Housing, Necessitating the Construction of Replacement Housing
Elsewhere
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not displace a substantial
number of people or any existing housing.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The proposed project will not displace existing housing, affordable housing, or people because the
site is currently vacant and undeveloped and does not currently house anyone. No impacts are
expected.
J. PUBLIC SERVICES
i. Would The Project Result In Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated
With The Provision Of New Or Physically Altered Schools, Need For New Or
Physically Altered Schools, The Construction Of Which Could Cause
Significant Environmental Impacts, In Order To Maintain Acceptable Service
Ratios, Response Times Or Other Performance Objectives For Schools
The City of Palm Springs, including the project site, is served by the Palm Springs Unified School
District (PSUSD). The project proposes the development and operation of a 739,360-square-foot
industrial warehouse. In 2022, The project is not anticipated to generate a new population, as
employees needed to operate the project are anticipated to come from within the project region.
(Page 4.12-8 of the DEIR/RDEIR)
a) Finding Regarding Schools
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with schools.
100
Facts in Support of Finding:
The project proposes the development and operation of a 739,360-square-foot industrial
warehouse. The project is not anticipated to generate a new population, as employees needed to
operate the project are anticipated to come from within the project region due to the unemployment
rates throughout the Coachella Valley. Thus, the project would not result in a substantial increase
of population in the City during construction or operation of the project, creating a substantial
increase in school age children requiring public education.
Furthermore, Assembly Bill 2926 and Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) allow school districts to collect
“development fees” for all new construction for residential/commercial and industrial use. Monies
collected are used for construction and reconstruction of school facilities, and have been designed
to mitigate the impacts to school facilities. The project will be required to contribute to these fees
and there would be no impacts to schools.
ii. Would The Project Result In Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated
With The Provision Of New Of Physically Altered Parks, Need For New Or
Physically Altered Parks, The Construction Of Which Could Cause
Significant Environmental Impacts, In Order To Maintain Acceptable Service
Ratios, Response Times Or Other Performance Objectives For Parks
The City of Palm Springs provides public parks, open space and multi-city recreational facilities
with various amenities. The proposed fulfillment center project would not create additional
demand for public park facilities, nor result in the need to modify existing or construct new park
facilities because it is an industrial land use.
a) Finding Regarding Parks
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with parks.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated on page 6-10 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the proposed fulfillment center project would not
create additional demand for public park facilities, nor result in the need to modify existing or
construct new park facilities because it is an industrial land use. If the project’s employees are new
residents occupying new housing units in the City, those residential projects would contribute
Quimby fees or construct parks consistent with the City’s standard requirements. Therefore, the
project would have no impact on parks.
101
iii. Would The Project Result In Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated
With The Provision Of New Of 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: Other Facilities
The project will not result in substantial unplanned growth. The project will also pay development
impact fees to support the demand for fire and police services.
a) Finding Regarding Other Facilities
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with other facilities.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated on page 6-10 of the DEIR/RDEIR, no increase in demand for government services or
other public facilities is expected because the project will not result in substantial unplanned
growth. Additionally, the project will pay development impact fees to support the demand for fire
and police services. No impacts are anticipated.
K. RECREATION
i. 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
Palm Springs owns and maintains 156 acres of developed parkland, 160 acres of City-owned golf
courses open to the public, as well as miles of developed greenbelts along major accesses
throughout the city. Privately owned golf courses are also a part of Palm Springs’ recreational
uses, many of which are open to the public.
The project proposes to construct a 739,360-square-foot fulfillment center on approximately 38
acres of vacant land on the northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Indian Canyon Drive. No
residential land uses are proposed.
a) Finding Regarding the Project’s Increase Use Of Existing Neighborhood
And Regional Parks Or Other Recreational Facilities Such That
Substantial Physical Deterioration Of The Facility Would Occur Or Be
Accelerated
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
102
Facts in Support of Finding:
The project proposes to construct a 739,360-square-foot fulfillment center on approximately 38
acres of vacant land on the northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Indian Canyon Drive. No
residential land uses are proposed. The project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase
in population, since project-generated employees would likely be existing residents of the City or
the surrounding area. No impacts related to the increased use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks, or other recreational facilities are expected.
ii. 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
The project proposes to construct a 739,360-square-foot fulfillment center on approximately 38
acres of vacant land on the northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Indian Canyon Drive. No
residential land uses or recreational uses are proposed.
a) Finding Regarding the Project’s Inclusion of Recreational Facilities or
Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities that Might have an
Adverse Physical Effect on the Environment
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not include recreational
facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The project proposes to construct a 739,360-square-foot fulfillment center on approximately 38
acres of vacant land on the northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Indian Canyon Drive. No
residential land uses or recreational uses are proposed. The project is not anticipated to increase
the use of existing parks since the project is proposing an industrial warehouse, and the modest
increase in jobs created by the project is not expected to attract any meaningful increase in residents
to the City who would use the existing park facilities. No impact will occur.
L. WILDIFRE
i. Would the Project Substantially Impair an Adopted Emergency Response
Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
The approximately 38-acre project site is vacant and undeveloped land with scattered, low-lying
desert vegetation at the northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Indian Canyon Drive. The site is
surrounded by vacant and undeveloped land to the north, an industrial development to the east
(separated by Indian Canyon Drive), commercial businesses to the south (separated by 19th
Avenue), and vacant land and wind turbines to the west.
According to Cal Fire’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in State Responsibility Areas (SRA)
Map, the project is not located in an area classified as having a moderate, high or very high fire
103
hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). Additionally, the project property is not located in or near lands
classified as moderate, high, or very high FHSZ.
a) Finding Regarding Substantially Impair an Adopted Emergency Response
Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not substantially impair an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The approximately 38-acre project site is vacant and undeveloped land at the northwest corner of
19th Avenue and Indian Canyon Drive. The site is surrounded by vacant and undeveloped land to
the north, an industrial development to the east (separated by Indian Canyon Drive), commercial
businesses to the south (separated by 19th Avenue), and vacant land and wind turbines to the west.
Access to the project would occur on the existing rights-of-way, Indian Canyon Drive and 19th
Avenue. Therefore, the project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
ii. 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
According to Cal Fire’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in State Responsibility Areas (SRA)
Map, the project is not located in an area classified as having a moderate, high or very high fire
hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). Additionally, the project property is not located in or near lands
classified as moderate, high, or very high FHSZ. The closest designated area is located
approximately 3.20 miles northwest of the project and is classified as being a moderate FHSZ.
a) Finding Regarding Exacerbating Wildfire Risks, And Thereby Expose
Project Occupants To, Pollutant Concentrations From A Wildfire Or The
Uncontrolled Spread Of A Wildfire
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not exacerbate wildfire
risks, or expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated on page 6-12 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project site is n ot located near slopes or designated
fire hazard areas. The project is not located in or near an SRA, or in an area classified as a
VHFHSZ. Therefore, the project site is not expected to expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. No impacts are anticipated.
104
iii. Would The Project Require The Installation Or Maintenance Of Associated
Infrastructure (Such As Roads, Fuel Breaks, Emergency Water Resources,
Power Lines Or Other Utilities) That May Exacerbate Fire Risk Or That May
Result In Temporary Or Ongoing Impacts To The Environment
As stated on page 6-12 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project is not located in an area classified as
having a moderate, high or very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). Additionally, the
project property is not located in or near lands classified as moderate, high, or very high FHSZ.
The closest designated area is located approximately 3.20 miles northwest of the project and is
classified as being a moderate FHSZ.
a) Finding Regarding Requiring The Installation Or Maintenance Of
Associated Infrastructure (Such As Roads, Fuel Breaks, Emergency Water
Resources, Power Lines Or Other Utilities) That May Exacerbate Fire
Risk Or That May Result In Temporary Or Ongoing Impacts To The
Environment
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not require the installation
or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water resources,
power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The approximately 38-acre project site is vacant and undeveloped land at the northwest corner of
19th Avenue and Indian Canyon Drive. The site is surrounded by vacant and undeveloped land to
the north, an industrial development to the east (separated by Indian Canyon Drive), commercial
businesses to the south (separated by 19th Avenue), and vacant land and wind turbines to the west.
Due to the project’s distance from SRAs and areas designated as VHFHSZ, no impacts are
anticipated. Infrastructure associated with the project includes offsite improvements, including
connections to existing sewer, water, and electric connections. These facilities currently exist in
developed rights-of-way. The project’s connection to the infrastructure will not exacerbate fire
risks. No impacts are anticipated.
iv. Would The Project 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
According to Cal Fire’s FHSZ in SRA Map, the project is not located in an area classified as having
a moderate, high or VHFHSZ. Additionally, the project property is not located in or near lands
classified as moderate, high, or very high FHSZ. The closest designated area is located
approximately 3.20 miles northwest of the project and is classified as being a moderate FHSZ. The
project site is not located near slopes.
105
a) Finding Regarding the Exposure of 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
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project will not 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.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated on page 6-12 of the DEIR/RDEIR, the project property is not located in or near lands
classified as moderate, high, or very high FHSZ. The closest designated area is located
approximately 3.20 miles northwest of the project and is classified as being a moderate FHSZ.
Due to the project’s distance from SRAs and areas designated as VHFHSZ, no impacts are
anticipated. The project site is not located near slopes. Therefore, the project would not 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 as a result of a
wildfire. No impacts are anticipated.
VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15130) require a reasonable analysis of the significant
cumulative impacts of a proposed project. Cumulative impacts are defined by CEQA as “two or
more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or
increase other environmental impacts” (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). Currently there
are several projects with approved environmental documentation proposed to occur within or near
the project vicinity.
Consistent with CEQA’s requirements, the EIR for the Palm Springs Fulfillment Center includes
an analysis of cumulative impacts, which include the impacts of the Palm Springs Fulfillment
Center plus all other pending or approved projects within the affected area, and City buildout for
each resource. The geographic scope of the analysis includes the jurisdictions of the City of Palm
Springs and the City of Desert Hot Springs. Cumulative impacts were assessed using the summary
of projections method set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(B). The primary
document used to determine cumulative impacts was the City of Palm Springs General Plan.
The Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
A. AESTHETICS
The project proposes industrial uses that are typical in this area of the City. Furthermore, the
existing context of the surrounding area includes industrial and commercial buildings east and
south of the project. Other projects planned and permitted by the General Plan, would result in
similar outcomes compared to the project, since they would be required to comply with height
limitations included in the Municipal Code and the policies and programs of the General Plan.
Future development in the City would be required to abide by the standards of the Municipal Code.
106
Review of these projects for consistency with goals, policies and programs established in the
General Plan will occur as projects are proposed. As is the case with the project, cumulative
projects will preserve the views of the mid-range slopes and peaks of the surrounding mountains
through height limits and design features. As a City-wide visual resource, the cumulative impacts
associated with obstructed views of the surrounding mountain ranges are expected to increase over
time, but will remain less than significant with buildout of the General Plan, as the overall view of
the mountain ranges which surround it will remain visible throughout the City. Additionally, build
out of the cumulative projects are expected to have less than significant impacts on visual character
due to the impositions of these regulations.
Cumulative impacts associated with light and glare will result from further development of vacant
land as the City continues to build out. The same standards requiring limited lighting and
directional and screened lighting included in the Municipal Code will be applied to future projects.
The implementation of these standards and requirements is designed to minimize the impacts of
light and glare on adjacent properties and throughout the City.
Therefore, any aesthetic impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project will not
contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on the aesthetic resources in and around the City of
Palm Springs. See RDEIR page 4.1-32.
B. AIR QUALITY
As shown on page 4.2-8 of the RDEIR, the CAAQS designates the Coachella Valley as being in
nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 while the NAAQS designates the Valley as being in
nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5. Since the project does not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended
daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, it would also not cause a cumulatively considerable
increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment, and would not
be considered to have a significant, adverse cumulative air quality impact.
Moreover, as it relates to health risk, the project was found to not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds
for potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects that could result from sensitive
receptor exposure to TACs generated by the proposed project, including construction-related and
operational-related DPM as a result of heavy-duty diesel trucks accessing the site. Since
SCAQMD’s thresholds are used to determine potentially significant project-specific and
cumulatively considerable impacts, the project would not be considered to have a significant,
adverse cumulative health risk impact.
The proposed project will result in construction and operational emission levels for all criteria
pollutants below SCAQMD’s Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Since the SCAQMD
thresholds and related efforts were established to meet the health-based NAAQS and CAAQS for
criteria pollutants as part of the emission reduction strategy to attain regional healthy levels of air
quality, the project’s compliance with these thresholds, along with compliance by future projects
as they occur, would translate to cumulatively less than significant regional impacts on health
effects.
107
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The buildout of the City of Palm Springs pursuant to its adopted General Plan has the potential to
impact biological resources by reducing native habitat areas and directly affecting fauna and flora.
Continued urban growth and development in the City may be expected to result in displacement
and loss of habitat for wildlife species occurring on currently undeveloped or sparsely developed
lands. When considered in combination with other cumulative development within the City, there
is potential for adverse cumulative effects to biological resources. Environmental protection laws
and regulations have been applied with increasing rigor since the early 1970s and include the
California Endangered Species Act, Federal Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act, as
described in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the RDEIR.
The proposed project within the City would be required to comply with local, State, and federal
laws and policies and all applicable permitting requirements of the regulatory and oversight
agencies intended to address potential impacts on biological resources. Regulations and
requirements implemented by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be enforced by the City. The
requirements established by these agencies are designed to protect species, water bodies, and
habitats from the negative impacts associated with development.
Public agencies in the Coachella Valley have implemented the CVMSHCP specifically to address
the potential cumulative impacts of development on biological resources. The project site is
located within the boundaries of CVMSHCP but is not located within any conservation areas or
wildlife movement corridors or linkages. All projects on vacant lands are required to pay the
mitigation fee required under the CVMSHCP, thereby assuring that impacts to covered species are
cumulatively less than significant.
In addition, the project, and all future projects, are required to adhere to the requirements of the
MBTA and to protect burrowing owls if they occur on a project site. Both these requirements will
be applied to future projects as development occurs in the City and region. These standards,
requirements and mitigation measures are designed to reduce cumulative impacts to biological
resources to less than significant levels. Cumulative impacts resulting from the project and other
projects over time will therefore be less than significant.
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The build out of the General Plan area, including the proposed project site, has the potential to
cumulatively impact cultural resources due to overall loss of archaeological and historical artifacts
unique to the Coachella Valley. Development of other projects within the City and surrounding
area would also have the potential to result in impacts to cultural resources. Each development
project submitted to the City is required to comply with CEQA. If any potential impacts to
archaeological resources are determined, projects will be subject to the same standard
requirements, mitigation measures (as applicable), and compliance with federal and State law as
the proposed project. These requirements and mitigation measures are designed to reduce impacts
and preserve resources across the City and region. Although continued development has the
potential to cumulatively impact these resources, the continued application of City policies,
General Plan policies and programs, federal and State law, will assure that cumulative impacts
108
associated with cultural resources will be less than significant. See page 4.4-12 of the
DEIR/RDEIR.
E. ENERGY RESOURCES
Potential cumulative impacts on energy resources would result if the proposed project, in
combination with present and future projects (including General Plan buildout), would result in
the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. Growth within the City is anticipated to increase the
demand for electricity, natural gas, and transportation energy, as well as the need for energy
infrastructure, such as new or expanded facilities. Buildout of Palm Springs includes the
development and operation of vacant areas near the proposed project, which are largely vacant and
designated for industrial uses, regional businesses, and wind energy conversion systems (WECS).
Future projects, such as industrial or regional businesses within the City would contribute
incrementally to local increases in energy consumption. However, they would not result in
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy because, as with the proposed project, future
projects will implement Building Code requirements, including the installation of energy efficient
appliances and efficient water fixtures and zero-net-energy designs through the installation of PV
solar panels. Future projects would be subject to the California Building Code, including the
California Energy Code and CALGreen, an evolving set of energy efficiency standards for
residential and nonresidential buildings implemented to minimize the wasteful and inefficient use
of energy. Increased efficiency, both in construction materials and fixture design, will apply not
only to the proposed project, but to all projects developed in the City. Therefore, the project’s
contribution to cumulative impacts related to wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary use of
electricity would not be cumulatively considerable and, thus, would be less than significant.
Future development would also be subject to even more stringent requirements, such as the
objectives set in the CARB Scoping Plan (2022), which would result in less fuel combustion and
energy consumption to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The equipment used for project and
future project construction would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions
standards. Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable CARB
regulations regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of diesel off-road construction
equipment. Compliance with anti-idling and emissions regulations would result in a more efficient
use of construction-related energy and the minimization or elimination of wasteful or unnecessary
consumption of energy. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the proposed project on energy
resources are considered less than significant. See page 4.5-25 of the DEIR/RDEIR.
F. GEOLOGY
Potential cumulative impacts on geology and soils could result from projects that combine to create
geologic hazards, including unstable geologic conditions. Although most geology and soil hazards
associated with development projects in the surrounding area would be site specific, cumulative
growth in the project area would expose a greater number of people to geologic hazards. Due to
the localized nature of geology and soils, cumulative projects would address potential impacts on
a project-by-project basis, as potential geologic hazards and soil composition varies by site.
As discussed in Section 4.6 of the RDEIR, any potential site-specific impacts can be mitigated to
a less than significant level. Mitigation measures in the form of CBC compliance and
109
recommendations outlined in future project-specific Geotechnical Investigations address
geotechnical hazards associated with seismic ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction,
subsidence, loss of topsoil, and expansive or corrosive soils. As a part of the approval process
within the City of Palm Springs and surrounding area, other projects would be required to undergo
similar geotechnical review and investigation to ensure that the respective project would not result
in geotechnical hazards associated with seismic ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction,
subsidence, loss of top soil, and expansive or corrosive soils. Mitigation measures would be
applied as future projects are proposed surrounding the project site, and the project design and
construction of habitable structures must be per the recommendations of each project’s
Geotechnical Investigation Report as well as the latest UBC and CBC as required by the City
Engineer.
Buildout of the General Plan area has the potential to cumulatively impact paleontological
resources. Future projects will be subject to the same standard requirements, mitigation measures
(as applicable), and compliance with federal and State law as the proposed project to assure that
impacts are reduced. Overall, the proposed project and cumulative projects would not result in
significant cumulative impacts. See page 4.6-20 of the DEIR/RDEIR.
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG emissions are understood to be inherently cumulative in nature with global implications with
different lengths of time that they remain in the atmosphere and active GHGs. The statewide
climate change programs and GHG reduction strategies forming part of AB 32 and subsequent
climate change legislation, established a measurable regulatory standard for quantifying and
understanding potential GHG impacts resulting from land development activities, like the
proposed project. Through a series of press releases, CARB has provided updates on the attainment
progress toward the statewide GHG emission targets. Data for 2019 demonstrated that annual
emissions fell from 425 million metric tons in 2018 to 418 million metric tons in 2019, below the
431 million metric ton target. Moreover, annual per capita GHG emissions in California have
dropped from a 2001 peak of 14.0 metric tons per person to 10.5 metric tons per person in 2019, a
25 percent decrease and about half the national average for per capita emissions. The County of
Riverside CAP Update and associated methodology have been developed to comply with the
Statewide AB 32 goals.
Since mobile emissions generally represent a large portion of GHG emissions for new
development, the proposed project and other projects proposed in the future will contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts in the context of other large-scale projects in the Coachella
Valley region. See page 4.7-17 of the DEIR/RDEIR.
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous materials and risk of upset conditions are largely site-specific and would occur on a
case-by-case basis for each individual project, in conjunction with development proposals on these
properties. All developments in the City are required to evaluate potential threats to public, safety,
including those associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment
during construction and operation, emergency response, transport/use/disposal of hazardous
materials, and hazards to sensitive receptors (including schools). Similarly, all projects would be
110
required to analyze and properly mitigate any impacts to an evacuation plan if impacts are
identified.
The construction and operation of individual projects is regulated by local, State, and federal
standards on a project-by-project basis. For example, an individual project may be required to
implement a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) if the project uses or stores hazardous
materials greater than or equal to 55 gallons of a liquid substance, 500 pounds of a solid substance,
or 200 cubic feet of compressed gas. With the implementation of local, State, and federal
regulations for the proposed project and individual future projects, cumulative impacts would not
be significant. Adherence to federal, State, and regional regulatory standards would ensure impacts
related to the release of hazardous materials associated with the project and future projects would
remain less than significant. See page 4.8-19 of the DEIR/RDEIR.
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Project implementation will result in physical changes to the undeveloped project setting through
grading and permanent construction improvements with on-site storm drainage facilities designed
to serve the proposed development. The proposed project will be required to implement
stormwater management through the implementation of an NPDES permit and City engineering
standards. Water use will comply with MSWD and City efficiency requirements.
Cumulative impacts would occur when existing development, the proposed project and future
development allowed by the General Plan combine to create water quality and flooding hazards.
However, the City implements the same requirements for water quality management and on-site
retention for all projects, in order to prevent cumulative hydrology impacts. Therefore, because of
the standards implemented by the City, MSWD and other responsible agencies, cumulative
impacts associated with hydrology and water quality will remain less than significant for the
cumulative projects because all such projects would be subject to the City’s retention policy and
associated engineering requirements for stormwater management. As a result, project
implementation would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact pertaining to hydrology and
water quality.
J. NOISE
Buildout of Palm Springs would result in construction-related noise, which would lead to an
increase in ambient noise. However, construction activities will not occur on all undeveloped lands
at once, but will rather be distributed over years, are short-term and would not continue after
construction is complete. Construction-related ground-borne vibration would lead to a small
increase in vibrations, however, it would not create vibrations large enough to impact surrounding
uses. Future developments (including the proposed project) would be required to comply with
Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 8.04.220, which establishes hours of operation for
construction activities in order to lessen the impacts of construction noise. Cumulative impacts
from construction would be less than significant, would occur only during the permitted hours of
construction, and would stop once construction was complete.
According to Figure 8-3, Future Roadway Noise Contours, of the Palm Springs General Plan, the
segment of Indian Canyon Drive along the project’s eastern frontage is expected to be over 70
111
CNEL at General Plan build out. According to Figure 8-3, the project, and properties along Indian
Canyon Drive will experience 60 to over 70 CNEL noise contours from noise generated by vehicle
and truck traffic along the right-of-way. This is consistent with the anticipated traffic noise level
with the project, which, along Indian Canyon Drive will range from 72.3 to 73.8 CNEL (see Table
4.10-17 in the RDEIR).
The project is located within the City’s Industrial land use designation. Areas north and east of the
project are also designated Industrial, while areas south of the project are designated as Regional
Business Center. The areas south of the project, and along Indian Canyon Drive are developed.
Undeveloped areas north and west of the project will be located within the City’s Industrial land
use designation. These uses are required to meet City noise standards as established in the General
Plan as is the proposed project. Per Table 8-3, State of California Interior and Exterior Noise
Standards, establishes interior noise standards of 65 CNEL for manufacturing, warehousing,
wholesale, and utilities uses. There are no exterior noise standards for these uses. The proposed
project and future projects will be required to mitigate noise levels above the acceptable levels
established in the General Plan as they occur. The application of General Plan noise standards, and
the requirement that they mitigate their impacts if they increase noise levels above those standards
will assure that cumulative impacts related to noise are less than significant. See page 4.10-30 of
the DEIR/RDEIR.
K. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Buildout of the proposed project would result in potential induced growth within the City and
surrounding areas; however growth levels are anticipated by both the City and SCAG’s forecast.
The project’s growth is accounted for in the Palm Springs General Plan and the SCAG regional
plans since the project is located in an area designated for industrial development. The General
Plan and SCAG plans account for the undeveloped land use areas within the City, which would
result in employment opportunities in the area. The Updated Land Use Element states that the City
estimates 11,638,620 square feet of industrial development to occur during the City’s planning
period. The project’s 739,360 square foot industrial development accounts for approximately 6
percent of the predicted growth of industrial land uses in the City.
The City General Plan Housing Element for the 2021 to 2029 planning period proposes sufficient
housing to accommodate planned growth within the City, while reducing potential exceedances of
City and SCAG growth targets. Additionally, the Coachella Valley’s nine cities are required to
develop 31,125 housing units by 2029. The housing requirements for the Coachella Valley would
ensure that current and future residents will have increased opportunities to live in or move to the
Coachella Valley for employment. Therefore, the project and projects in the surrounding area will
not result in cumulatively considerable population, housing, and employment impacts. See page
4.11-10 of the DEIR/RDEIR.
L. PUBLIC SERVICES
Implementation of the project and other related projects in the area (associated with General Plan
buildout) would increase the demand for fire and police protection services over time. The
proposed project and future projects in the City would be required to implement all applicable fire
safety policies and requirements, such as the installation of fire hydrants providing adequate fire
112
flow, fire sprinkler systems, automatic fire suppression systems, wet and dry on-site standpipe
systems and developing a fire protection plan. Additionally, the proposed project and future
projects would also be subject to review by the fire and police departments to ensure access and
other safety measures are implemented at the site. The review of the projects also ensures that new
development does not result in significant pressure on police and fire facilities. Therefore, the
project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. See page 4.12-9 of the
DEIR/RDEIR.
M. TRANSPORTATION
The project is being developed in an area of the City and the region that is still urbanizing. Vacant
lands in Palm Springs and Desert Hot Springs are designated for industrial and commercial uses,
and will generate additional traffic on area roadways. However, these future projects will be
required to analyze their traffic impacts, and will be required to comply with the City’s policies
relating to level of service. The level of impact and mitigation measures, if required, will be
developed specific to these projects as they occur. Similar to the proposed project, future projects
will be required to pay DIF fees and contribute to intersection improvements to assure adequate
LOS at City intersections. As a result, and as a nalyzed in the General Plan EIR, area roadways will
operate at acceptable levels through build out of the General Plan, and the project and other
projects will not have cumulatively considerable impacts on traffic flow.
Consistent with City Guidelines, projects should also assess a project’s potential effect on citywide
VMT. Baseline and cumulative link-level boundary VMT per SP City-wide was calculated for
both No Project and With Project conditions. If an increase were to occur for the With Project
condition as compared to Without Project condition, then the impact would be considered
significant. As demonstrated on page 4.13-31 of the RDEIR, citywide VMT per SP was not found
to increase under cumulative conditions. As a result, cumulative VMT impacts were determined
to be less than significant. The proposed project’s baseline and cumulative VMT per Service
Population are greater than the City’s impact threshold, representing a significant impact.
Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure TRA-1 shall be
incorporated into the project to reduce impacts associated with VMT. The Applicant will
implement a VMT Reduction Program that includes the following operational measures:
Implement a ridesharing program and provide preferential parking for rideshares; provide
opportunities for telecommuting/alternative work hour programs; and construct on-site bicycle
racks, and associated facilities. Future projects would similarly be required to assess their baseline
and cumulative impacts, and mitigate those impacts. See page 4.13-31 of the DEIR/RDEIR.
N. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Build out of the General Plan area, including lands of the proposed project, has the potential to
cumulatively impact Tribal cultural resources. Development of other projects within the City and
surrounding area would also be subject to CEQA review and the same standard requirements,
mitigation measures (as applicable), and compliance with federal and State law as the proposed
project. Although continued development has the potential to cumulatively impact these
resources, the continued application of City policies, General Plan policies and programs, federal
and State law all will assure that cumulative impacts associated with Tribal cultural resources will
be less than significant. See page 4.14-6 of the DEIR/RDEIR.
113
O. UTILITIES
New and existing local development within the City and the surrounding project area have the
potential to result in cumulative impacts when combined with build-out of the City of Palm Springs
General Plan. Whether these conditions would result in cumulatively significant impacts is
described below.
Buildout of the Palm Springs General Plan could result in cumulatively significant impacts to
water supplies and infrastructure if not reviewed by the City and MSWD or DWA. Like the
proposed project, future development would be required to implement short-term and long-term
water conservation efforts to ensure the continued availability of this resource.
In 2004, the District adopted two major conservation policy statements: a water conservation
master plan and water efficient landscaping guidelines. The Water Conservation Master Plan
identifies several key areas in which the District will pursue more efficient water use practices,
namely: efficient landscaping guidelines; efficient landscaping requirements for new
development; and xeriscape demonstration garden; efficient landscaping incentives; conservation
education programs in schools, community and bimonthly billing information; tiered water pricing
that encourages conservation; updated water shortage ordinance; water audits for the largest users;
and rebates for water efficient plumbing fixtures. The District has a tiered rate structure for water
service within its service area. The tiered rate structure is intended to discourage high water use.
The District may also enact a drought surcharge, as required by Statewide drought measures.
Through the implementation of District water conservation ordinances and measures, total per-
capita District water use has significantly dropped from 308.1 GPCD in 2005 to 216.0 GPCD in
2010 to 172.1 GPCD in 2015 (a reduction of 44.1% since 2005). Residential per-capita District
water use has also significantly dropped from 189.8 GPCD in 2005 to 160.4 GPCD in 2010 to
121.1 GPCD in 2015 (a reduction of 36.2% since 2005). MSWD has surpassed the required 20%
reduction for 2020. Many of the water conservation measures already implemented and being
implemented by District customers such as turf removal, conversion to drought resistance
landscapes, turf replacement, conversion to more efficient irrigation systems and ET-based
irrigation controllers, retrofits to toilets and plumbing fixtures, implementation of weather-based
irrigation controllers, AMI meters, etc. will have permanent effects on water use (reduction) in the
future. As determined on page 4.15-19 of the RDEIR, MSWD has sufficient amounts of water to
serve its Planning Area based on current and future water use. MSWD has the ability to serve the
proposed project and as well as future development for the next 20-years. Therefore, the project’s
contribution to cumulative water impacts would have less than significant impacts.
The project would result in an increase to wastewater flows. The project is proposing a new 8-inch
private sewer line that would collect flow from the development and convey it to an existing 6-
inch sewer main located 650 feet east in 19th Avenue. Flows would then be delivered to the
HWWTP. The proposed project is estimated to generate wastewater at 14,400 GPD or 0.01 MDG,
which is 6 percent of the HWWTP plant’s capacity of 2.3 MGD. MSWD constructed the MSWD
Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RWRF) to meet increasing wastewater demand. The new
facility will treat an additional 1.5 million gallons of wastewater per day. In addition, the plant will
lessen flows at the District’s Alan L. Horton Wastewater Treatment Plant, extending the facility’s
114
operational life by as much as 10 years. Increased wastewater treatment capacity will support
future growth in Desert Hot Springs and the surrounding areas.
The development of expanded wastewater treatment services—as proposed by the RWRF within
the MSWD service area is considered a benefit to cumulative development in the future within the
District’s service area. The WVWRP addresses long-term projections of growth and capacity
needs within the MSWD service area. The District service area is anticipated to experience growth
that would occur concurrently with the District’s ability to serve new customers through the
expanded wastewater treatment services that would be created by the implementation of the
RWRF. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative wastewater impacts would have less
than significant impacts.
Buildout of the General Plan will result in the construction and operation of various land uses
including residential, commercial, and industrial uses, which would result in the increase of solid
waste generated in the area. The Lambs Canyon Landfill has 319,242,950 cubic yards of remaining
capacity. Future development projects in the City will be required to comply to the same waste
reduction mandates as are currently in place, and more stringent mandates if they are legislated in
the future. These requirements are designed to reduce the waste stream by 75%, and will assist all
projects in reducing cumulative solid waste impacts. The landfill serving the City and the project
site still have an available remaining capacity and there is potential for expansion at the landfill.
Therefore, cumulative impacts to solid waste would be less than significant.
Buildout of the project, related projects, and additional forecasted growth in SCE’s service area
would cumulatively increase the demand for electricity supplies and infrastructure capacity. SCE’s
planning area consumed approximately 3,959.5 GWh of electricity in 2020. According to the
CEC’s Demand Analysis Office, SCE estimates that electricity consumption within SCE’s
planning area will be approximately 129,000 GWh annually by 2030. The proposed project, and
other future development projects would be expected to incorporate energy conservation features,
comply with applicable regulations including CALGreen and State energy standards under Title
24, and incorporate energy design features. Increased efficiency, both in construction materials
and fixture design, will apply not only to the proposed project, but to all cumulative projects
developed within SCE’s service area. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts
related to of the expansion of facilities to provide electricity would not be cumulatively
considerable and, thus, would be less than significant.
Buildout of the City of Palm Springs would result in additional natural gas demand within
SoCalGas’s service area. SoCalGas has adequate policies, programs, and projects in place to
provide energy to their users, including the proposed project, for the foreseeable future. SoCal Gas
projects total gas demand to decline at an annual rate of 1 percent from 2020-2035. Project on-site
equipment would consume an estimated 13,926 gallons of natural gas, which is equivalent to
1,273,560.6 kBTU and 1,236,466.6 cf of natural gas. On-site cargo handling equipment used
during operation of the project would consume approximately 0.15 percent of the 2030 forecasted
consumption in SoCalGas’s planning area. All other projects in this area of the City will be
required to complete the appropriate CEQA review for significant or unmitigated impacts.
Therefore, cumulative impacts of natural gas would be less than significant.
115
Buildout of the City of Palm Springs would result in increased demand for telecommunication
services. The project is located within Frontier’s and Charter Communications’ service areas for
telecommunications. Although buildout of the City would increase demand of telecommunication
services, future developments are required to participate in the design review process of
telecommunication plans associated with the future development. Palm Springs is a largely built
out community and infrastructure exists throughout much of the City. Physical determination prior
to implementation of any project and the need for further infrastructure upgrades would similarly
be accomplished through the required design review and approval plans for projects through the
City, nearby jurisdictions, and the appropriate regulatory agencies and utility providers. Therefore,
demand would not be cumulatively considerable and would not cause or contribute to a significant
cumulative impact. See page 4.15-23 of the DEIR/RDEIR.
IX. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE EIR AND
REJECTED
The State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a) requires the discussion of a “a reasonable range
of alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the
basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects
of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The Guidelines state that
the “range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly
accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one
or more of the significant effects” (Section 15126(c)). The Final EIR evaluated a reasonable range
of alternatives to the proposed Project. These alternatives are:
Alternative 1: No Project
Alternative 2: Reduced Intensity
Alternative 3: Industrial Business Park
Alternative 4: Warehousing
When a lead agency has determined that a proposed project will still cause one or more significant
environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided after the adoption of all
feasible mitigation measures, prior to approving the project as mitigated, the agency must consider
the environmentally superior alternatives identified in the EIR and find that they are infeasible
before approving the project. (Pub. Resources Code, section 21081(a)(2); CEQA Guidelines
section 15091(a)(3).)
An alternative may be rejected if it is “infeasible,” does not avoid significant environmental
impacts, or if it fails to achieve most of the basic project objectives identified within the EIR.
(CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(c). “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA
Guidelines, § 15364.) Other considerations, such as practicality, may also provide the basis for an
infeasibility finding. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a)(3); California Native Plant Society
v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1002.) Infeasibility encompasses notions of
desirability, to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant
economic, environmental, social, or technological factors.
116
The EIR identifies Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 as the environmentally superior alternatives.
A. Alternative 1: No Project
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e) requires the analysis of alternatives to include the specific
alternative of “No Project.” The purpose of describing and analyzing a No Project alternative is to
allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts
of not approving the proposed project. Under the No Project Alternative (“Alternative 1”), the
project would remain in its current and existing vacant condition. The existing visual character and
visual resources would remain the same, and none of the significant impacts of the project would
occur.
Finding and Facts in Support of Finding
Although the No Project Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative
in that it would avoid the significant adverse effects of the project; the Planning Commission of
the City of Palm Springs rejects the No Project Alternative for the following reasons:
1. The No Project Alternative does not meet any of the project objectives. Specifically,
this Alternative does not promote quality development consistent with the goals and
policies of the City General Plan; develop a state-of-the-art industrial fulfillment center
in the City’s Industrial land use designation; provide employment opportunities and
growth in the City; concentrate nonresidential uses near existing roadways, highways,
and freeways to reduce environmental impacts related to truck traffic congestion, air
emissions, and industrial noise; or create a project that takes advantage of existing
infrastructure, including the project’s proximity to major regional roadways.
2. The site is located in an area designated for industrial land uses. Therefore, this
alternative is inconsistent with the General Plan because the General Plan has planned
for industrial development on the site. Thus, it is likely to be developed as an industrial
facility.
3. The No Project Alternative would fail to generate jobs and business tax revenues in
order to enhance the City’s economic base and long‐term financial stability.
The Planning Commission therefore finds the No Project Alternative is unacceptable and rejects
it favor of the proposed project.
B. Alternative 2: Reduced Intensity Alternative
Under this Alternative, the project would develop a reduced intensity industrial project. Alternative
2 would reduce the size of the industrial building by half. Therefore, this Alternative would reduce
the building footprint to 369,680 square feet. This Alternative would reduce the number of
employees and reduce the traffic generated by this Alternative.
117
Finding and Facts in Support of Finding
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs rejects the Reduced Intensity Alternative
for the following reasons:
1. The Reduced Intensity Alternative meets all of the project objectives, but to a lesser
degree due to the reduced building size.
2. Although the Reduced Intensity Alternative meets all of the project objectives, it would
not develop the highest and best use of the site per the General Plan land use designation
of industrial.
3. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would fail to generate the same levels of jobs and
business tax revenues in order to enhance the City’s economic base and long‐term
financial stability.
The Planning Commission therefore finds the Reduced Intensity Alternative unacceptable and
rejects it in favor of the proposed project.
C. Alternative 3: Industrial Business Park Alternative
Under this Alternative, a mixed use multi-building project with uses consistent with the M-2
Zoning District, would be built as a typical industrial business park. Alternative 3 proposes to
develop a 182,000-square-foot storage facility on 7-acres, a 26,000-square-foot vehicle storage
and rental facility (i.e., U-Haul) on 1 acre, two 26,000-square-foot manufacturing buildings (i.e.,
stone cutting, lighting and wiring) on 2 acres, two 26,000-square-foot buildings for equipment
sales on 2 acres, and two 274,000-square-foot wholesale, warehouse, distribution, fulfillment, and
import/export centers on 21 acres. It is estimated that open space areas for retention, irrigation
ditches and landscaping would take up 5 acres of the project site.
Finding and Facts in Support of Finding
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs rejects the Industrial Business Park
Alternative for the following reasons:
1. Although the Industrial Business Park Alternative would meet all of the project’s
objectives, this Alternative would result in incremental increased impacts to air quality,
energy (electricity, natural gas and petroleum), greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and
transportation. These increases in Alternative 3 are due to increased employees and
daily trips associated with the various industrial businesses, resulting in significant and
unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions and transportation impacts.
The Planning Commission therefore finds the Industrial Business Park Alternative unacceptable
and rejects it in favor of the proposed project.
118
D. Alternative 4: Warehousing Alternative
Under this Alternative, the project would develop a distribution center, instead of a fulfillment
center. The distribution center would store and distribute goods to retailers, wholesalers or other
locations vs., processing and shipping orders to customers directly. Typical activities of a
distribution center would include receiving, sorting, storing, and shipping goods usually in bulk
quantities. The warehouse building (739,360 square feet) number of parking spaces (736 parking
stalls), access, and landscape will be the same as the proposed project. Alternative 4 would likely
result in increased employment and reduced vehicle delivery activity compared to the proposed
project, since warehousing uses require less truck access.
Finding and Facts in Support of Finding
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs rejects the Warehousing Alternative for the
following reasons:
1. The Warehousing Alternative meets all of the project objectives, but to a lesser degree
due to the reduced capacity for movement of goods.
2. The Warehousing Alternative would generate more jobs, however, the Alternative
would fail to generate the same levels of business tax revenues in order to enhance the
City’s economic base and long‐term financial stability due to the reduced movement of
goods when compared with the proposed project.
The Planning Commission therefore finds the Warehousing Alternative unacceptable and rejects
it in favor of the proposed project.
E. Additional Findings Regarding the Environmentally Superior Alternatives
A summary comparison of impacts associated with the project Alternatives is provided in the
RDEIR in Table 7-9, Comparison of Alternatives and Project. Of the Alternatives considered in
this RDEIR section, Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior to the
other Alternatives because this Alternative would avoid any impacts identified for the project or
any other alternative.
Although Alternative 1 is environmentally superior, it does not meet any of the objectives of the
proposed project because it would not involve any development of the site.
The CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR identify an environmentally superior alternative to the
project and “if the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall
also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126[e][2]. In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes
adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives.
Among the other alternatives, Alternative 2 (Reduced Intensity Alternative) would be the
environmentally superior alternative because it would cause incremental reductions with respect
to impacts related to all of the environmental topics except biology, cultural resources, geology
and soils, hazards (construction), hydrology, and tribal cultural resources, where the impacts are
119
expected to be similar to those resulting from the proposed project because of similar land
disturbance. Although impacts would be similar under the Reduced Intensity Alternative compared
to the proposed project, mitigation measures would still be required to mitigate impacts to
biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources.
Alternative 2 would result in reduced impacts to aesthetics, air quality, energy resources,
greenhouse gas emissions, hazards (operation), noise, population and housing, public services,
transportation, and utilities, due to the reduced building area. In addition, Alternative 2 meets all
of the objectives proposed for the project, however, due to the reduced building size, it does so to
a lesser degree. Specifically, Alternative 2 promotes quality development consistent with the goals
and policies of the Palm Springs General Plan; would develop a state-of-the-art industrial
fulfillment center in the Industrial land use area in Palm Springs that is consistent in use and look
with the existing developments in the surrounding area; provides employment opportunity and
growth in the City’s Industrial land use designation north of the Interstate 10 freeway; concentrates
nonresidential uses near existing roadways, highways, and freeways in an effort to isolate and
reduce any potential environmental impacts related to truck traffic congestion, air emissions,
industrial noise to the greatest extent feasible; and creates a project that takes advantage of existing
infrastructure, including the proximity to major regional roadways, such as Interstate 10, and other
similar infrastructure. Therefore, Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative.
While Alternative 2 is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative, the Planning
Commission rejects it as infeasible because it will not generate as many employment opportunities
or as much business tax as the proposed project. As a result, Alternative 2 is rejected.
X. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, CEQA requires the decision-making agency to
balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including
region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental
benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the
adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
As described in Section III of these Findings, the project will have significant and
unavoidable impacts in the following areas:
(1) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: the project will generate a net total of 9,438.47
MTCO2e/yr., exceeding the County’s screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr.
(2) Transportation: the project VMT per SP resulted in a project generated VMT of
59.77 for baseline and 52.24 for cumulative conditions, which are greater than the
City’s impact threshold of 34.52 VMT per SP.
As permitted under CEQA Guideline 15093(b) the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Springs adopts and makes this statement of overriding considerations concerning these
unavoidable significant impacts to explain why the project’s specific economic, legal, social,
120
technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits,
outweigh its unavoidable impacts.
The project site provides an appropriate location for the proposed fulfillment center, since
the site is located in proximity to the Interstate 10 freeway, which is a major transportation corridor.
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs finds that the project’s significant
environmental impacts are acceptable when balanced with the project’s benefits. Each of the
benefits cited below constitutes a separate and independent basis that justifies approval of the
project and outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of approving the project, and
thus make the adverse environmental effects acceptable. Thus, even in the absence of one or more
of the reasons set forth below, the City has determined that each remaining reason, or any
combination of reasons, is a sufficient basis for approving the project, notwithstanding any
significant and unavoidable impacts that may occur.
1. Land Use Benefits: Development of the proposed project is consistent with the
City’s General Plan Land Use Designation and zoning code. The proposed project
site’s location in proximity to the Interstate 10 freeway, makes it an ideal location
for the proposed fulfillment center, since trucks accessing the site will
predominantly travel along the I-10, which provides regional access to the City of
Palm Springs. The project will also provide 718 permanent jobs in the City. The
fulfillment center will take advantage of the site’s location near I-10, and the
demand for goods from City residents due to the increase of e-commerce
businesses.
The project’s location near the freeway and away from residential land uses will
avoid the project’s potential to expose residential communities to impacts of
industrial uses, which typically include air quality impacts, greenhouse gas
emissions, and traffic impacts by nature.
2. Meet Market Demands for Industrial Space: The Project would provide much-
needed industrial space to fulfill the needs of the growing industrial sector in the
area that faces a shortage of such space. The greater Southern California region is
expected to continue to see strong demand for industrial facilities driven by the
needs of retail and e-commerce users for facilities with modern amenities to
maximize distribution efficiency. Markets, including those in Los Angeles County,
Orange, and San Bernardino counties are running out of space to support more
industrial facilities. The limited availability of industrial facilities can result in
negative effects such as stock-outs, trade bottlenecks, and delays in the time it takes
for goods to reach consumers.
Development of the project would support the goods movement industry in
decreasing lead times for delivery of consumer products and increasing the local
supply of goods for regional consumers.
3. Economic and Fiscal Benefits: The project encourages economic growth and
diversity within the City by providing a fulfillment center for a business wishing to
invest in the City. The project would increase annual property tax revenues as
121
improvements increase assessable value of the project site and would also generate
additional revenues through the collection of certain other taxes, licenses, and fees
associated with business operation. The tenant’s expenditures associated with
constructing the project would also supplement the City’s General Fund as sales
tax revenues are collected during the sales of construction materials. The project
would support temporary construction jobs and approximately 718 permanent jobs
during operation. The generation of these jobs would result in economic benefits as
wages associated with these jobs translate to regional economic growth by local
spending, as well as indirect fiscal benefits when wages are spent on goods and
services, which generates sales tax revenues for the General Fund. A new industry
and associated jobs would be introduced to the City that would help to broaden the
economic base. The project would also result in the contribution of Developer
Impact Fees and fair share contributions to the City that would be directed towards
capital improvements for infrastructure in the area.
4. Public Infrastructure Benefits: The project would add and improve public
infrastructure in the area. The project includes street improvements along the
frontages of 19th Avenue and Indian Canyon Drive.
The project will also extend existing sewer lines, located approximately 650 feet
east of the project along 19th Avenue, to the project site. These improvements will
facilitate the orderly development of this part of the City.
The provision of these roadway and utility infrastructure improvements would
provide a benefit to the City by facilitating access within the project area and
increasing the reliability of current utility systems.
5. The project will pay substantial City Development Impact Fees. The
implementation of this measure is assured and enforceable because it is included in
the conditions of approval for the project.
In light of the foregoing, and the information contained within the Final EIR and other portions of
the project record of proceedings, the Planning Commission concludes that implementation of the
project will result in the development of a unique project that provides substantial economic, legal,
social, technological, and other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental
benefits, as outlined above, which outweigh and make acceptable the significant, unavoidable
environmental impacts associated with the project and, accordingly, adopts this Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
122
XI. FINDINGS REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR
Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Springs as the lead agency under CEQA is responsible for certification of the EIR and therefore
makes the following findings:
1. The Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines;
2. The Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission, which reviewed and
considered the information in the Final EIR prior to making its decision on the
project;
3. The certification of the Final EIR and the findings set forth herein reflect the
Planning Commission’s and the City’s independent judgment and analysis in its
capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency for the project; and
4. The Planning Commission adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (Attachment A) to reduce or avoid the significant and mitigable impacts
of the project to the extent feasible.
5. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR, properly evaluated the project’s
potentially significant cumulative impacts based on General Plan buildout, and that
this analysis included all past, present and probable future projects in the project
vicinity that could cause or contribute to such significant cumulative effects.
6. The Planning Commission finds that the additional information and evidence
submitted after release of the RDEIR and prior to certification of the Final EIR,
including responses to comments on the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR does not
constitute “significant new information,” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5, but rather, merely clarifies and amplifies the information provided in the
Draft EIR.
By these Findings, the City ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings,
responses to comments and conclusions of the Final EIR. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, and the mitigation measures specified therein, are hereby approved and
adopted, and shall be fully enforceable through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
as well as permit conditions, agreements or other measures. Any finding required to be made by
the City shall be deemed made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language
included in this document constitutes findings by the City, whether or not any particular sentence
or clause includes a statement to that effect. The City intends that these findings be considered as
an integrated whole and, whether or not any part of these findings fail to cross-reference or
incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding required or committed
to be made by the City with respect to any particular subject matter of the Final EIR, shall be
deemed to be made if it appears in any portion of these findings.
If any term, provision or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a
particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions
123
of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the project, shall continue in full
force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.