Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution _6185-Case 5.1232 College Aprk Specific Plan, GPA & CZRESOLUTION NO. 6185 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA FOR APPROVAL OF CASE 5.1232 COLLEGE PARK SPECIFIC PLAN, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & CHANGE OF ZONE LOCATED WEST OF INDIAN CANYON DRIVE, EAST OF HIGHWAY 1111NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, NORTH OF SAN RAFAEL DRIVE AND SOUTH OF THE CHINO CREEK/WHITEWATER RIVER FLOOD CONTROL LEVEE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450 et. seq. public hearings were held before the City of Palm Springs Planning Commission on March 9, 2011 to consider Case No. 5.1232 - College Park Specific Plan (CPSP) and associated General Plan Amendment (GPA), Change of Zone (CZ) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing for Case 5.1232 was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, a public meeting on January 26, 2011 and a public hearing on March 9, 2011 were held in accordance with applicable law by the Planning Commission on the CPSP and EIR (Case 5.1232); and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). An environmental analysis has been completed and a Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Case 5.1232 adequately addresses the general environmental setting of the proposed project, its significant environmental impacts, and the mitigation measures related 0 to each significant environmental effect for the proposed project. The Planning Commission further finds that, with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures, potentially significant environmental Planning Commission Resolution No. 6185 Case 5.1232 College Park Specific Plan, GPA and CZ March 9, 20-11 Page 2 of 3 impacts resulting from this project will be reduced to a level of insignificance and therefore recommends certification of the Draft EIR for the project. Section 2. The Planning Commission independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft EIR, prior to its review of this Project and the Draft EIR reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. Section 2. The Planning Commission finds that the Draft EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and is a complete and adequate description of the environmental consequences of the proposed project. Section 3: The Planning Commission finds that as drafted the Draft EIR avoids or substantially lessens significant impacts associated with the proposed project to the greatest extent possible. Section 4: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Findings of Fact attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Section 5: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, including the specific finding that the benefits of implementation of the College Park Specific Plan outweigh the significant and unavoidable aesthetic, air quality impacts associated with the development of the project. Section 6: The Planning Commission finds that the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR are appropriate and recommends that they be implemented, and that the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included in the Draft EIR. Section 5: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Case Number 5.1232, the College Park Specific Plan. No conditions of approval are necessary to further ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements or to further ensure the public health, safety and welfare are proposed and included in Exhibit A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6185 Case 5.1232 College Park Specific Plan, GPA and CZ March 9, 2011 Page 3 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Case 5.1232, for the regulation of land use and development in the College Park Specific Plan area. ADOPTED this 91h day of March 2011. AYES: 4. Klatchko, Conrad, Munger and Vice Chair Donenfeld NOES: None ABSENT: 2, Chair Caffery and Hudson ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA W PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION COLLEGE PARK SPECIFIC PLAN — EXHIBIT "B" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (March 9, 2011) The City of Palm Springs ("City") hereby adopts and makes this statement of overriding considerations concerning the College Park Specific Plan's unavoidable significant impacts to explain why project benefits override and outweigh unavoidable impacts. CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. Those reasons are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City finds that the project will create substantial economic, legal, social, educational, technological, or other benefits that will enhance the quality of life for residents, businesses and visitors, resulting in increased investment within the City of Palm Springs. Each benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the project, independent of other benefits, despite each and every unavoidable impact. The following overriding considerations apply independently to each unavoidable impact: 1. Adoption of the proposed project will provide the City with a variety of educational, industrial, retail, office, resort hotel, recreational and residential opportunities, which currently do not exist in the College Park planning area of the City. 2. The economic and social benefits of an energy efficient mixed of land uses, and new development and redevelopment will enhance the residential, educational, industrial, retail and service experience for residents, costumers and clients, and attract new businesses to the City, which will promote investment and create new employment opportunities within the City. 3. The presence of substantial residential units in the College Park planning area will enhance the City's jobs/housing balance, by providing residents with an opportunity to work in close proximity to their workplace. Planning Commission Resolution - College Park Specific Plan, Exhibit "B" March 9, 2011 Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 2 of 2 4. The proposed project will generate substantial improvements, and increase sales and property tax revenue for the City, which will allow the City to enhance residents' quality of life. 5. Development of new business park and industrial enterprises, retail and office uses will provide local and regional residents with high quality technical jobs and professional services that are conveniently situated, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled, and improving air quality. 6. The College Park Specific Plan focuses on the development of education and training in sustainable technologies and facilitates the development of more than 10 megawatts of solar power in the planning area that will off- set impacts to local and regional air quality and promote the development and implementation of solar thermal and photovoltaic technologies in the planning area and throughout the City. 7. The interaction created by the mix of uses provided for in the College Park Specific Plan, between residential, educational, commercial and industrial uses, will provide a social benefit centered on the public gathering place located at the future West Valley Campus of College of the Desert and planned commercial centers near residential neighborhoods within the planning area. Build out of the College Park Specific Plan is projected to have a net positive effect on the City's economy. Major revenue sources will include property tax and sales tax, and indirect revenues from enhanced education and higher paying jobs. Additional revenue sources will be generated from developer impact fees, building permits, utility taxes, business licenses, and other development -related fees. The economy of the project is expected to be self-sustaining at build out, as its annual revenues are expected to outweigh its annual costs. The City finds that the specific benefits associated with the proposed Specific Plan override and outweigh the project's significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR and in the record. In making this finding, the City has balanced the benefits of the College Park Specific Plan against its unavoidable impacts and has determined that the project's unavoidable impacts are acceptable in light of these benefits. EXHIBIT "A" CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS A. INTRODUCTION CEQA Requirements The College Park Specific Plan constitutes a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, and the State Guidelines for the implementation of CEQA, as amended. Therefore, the City has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that identifies certain unavoidable significant effects which may occur as a result of the project, or which may occur on a cumulative basis in conjunction with the project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. CEQA and the State Guidelines require that no public agency approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified and which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by an explanation of the rationale supporting each finding. The possible findings include the following: 1. Changes or alterations have been project, which avoid or substantially 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunity for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. The City has determined that the EIR is complete and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the City of Palm Springs proposes to approve the College Park Specific Plan, and the findings set forth herein. Project Description, Location, and Objectives Project Location The EIR analyzed a proposed project which consists of contiguous lands generally occurring at the northernmost portion of the corporate limits of the City of Palm Springs. The project area is generally bounded on the west by Highway 111, on the south by W. San Rafael Road, on the east by Indian Canyon Drive, and on the north by Whitewater/Chino Creek flood control levee and future Sunrise Parkway. The planning 0 EO A-1 area can also be described as all of the southeast 4, a portion of the southwest'/, all of the south '/ of the northeast 4, and a portion of the south %Z of the northwest 4 of Section 34, Township 3 South, Range 4 East; a portion of the northeast 4 of the northwest 1/, a portion of the northwest ',4 of the northeast 4, and a portion of the northeast 4 of the northeast 4 of Section 3, Township 4 South, Range 4 East of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian See Attachment "A" for corresponding Assessor's Parcel Numbers. Project Description The College Park Specific Plan has been prepared to plan for future development and redevelopment of approximately 510 acres in the northern portion of urban Palm Springs. The planning area is largely developed, but includes approximately 119 acres of vacant lands proposed for the development of the College of the Desert West Valley Campus (COD WVC) and associated renewable energy plant, as well as vacant parcels proposed for new residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The College Park Specific Plan is a comprehensive master planning effort intended to establish long-term development goals, new standards and guidelines for the planning area, facilitate development of the COD WVC and associated renewable energy generation plant, and provide new employment opportunities in the planning area. The Specific Plan also proposes the development of additional multi -family housing, new development and redevelopment of an existing industrial park that focuses on sustainable technologies, and planned commercial development along Indian Canyon Drive. The Specific Plan also provides opportunities for second unit development, or accessory dwelling units, on existing single-family residential lots. The Specific Plan is divided into ten Planning Areas, including: • Planning Area 1 (PA1) includes vacant lands and the existing DWA well sites in the northernmost portion of the planning area, located north of Tramview Road, west of Indian Canyon Drive, south of the Whitewater/Chino Creek flood control levee, and east of the Mountain Gate Neighborhood. Planning Area 1 includes 1.2 acres devoted to the DWA facilities, and 118.2 acres proposed for the development of COD WVC and associated renewable energy generation plant. • Planning Area 2 (PA2) is located immediately south of Planning Area 1, and includes 17.6 acres devoted to the existing James O. Jessie Community Center and Desert Highland Park. • Planning Area 3 (PA3) is on the eastern portion of the Specific Plan, and is located west of Indian Canyon Drive, north of Rosa Parks Boulevard, east of El Dorado Boulevard and south of Tramview Road. Planning Area 3 includes existing commercial uses, and is approved for approximately 3.0 acres for the new Palm Springs Gardens commercial project, and proposes an additional 3.9 acres for the proposed Plaza del Mundo commercial center. • Planning Area 4 (PA4) includes the central portion of the College Park Specific Plan, a.nd is located west of El Dorado Boulevard, south of Tramview Road, east of the Mountain Gate Neighborhood, and north of Rosa Parks Road. This A-- planning area includes the existing Desert Highland Neighborhood, which is made up primarily of single-family and multi -family family residential. • Planning Area 5 (PA5) is located in the southeastern portion of the College Park Specific Plan, south of Rosa Parks Road, west of Indian Canyon Drive, north of San Rafael Drive, and east of McCarthy Road. This planning area is predominantly industrial in nature, and includes 57.9 acres of existing industrial, 7.0 acres of existing Business Park, 6.5 acres approved for the Desert Oasis Industrial Lofts, and 3.8 acres proposed for the new Agave East & West Business Park. Approved residential development in Planning Area 5 includes 59 multi -family units for the Rosa Gardens affordable housing project at the northwest corner of McCarthy Road and Radio Road. • Planning Area 6 (PA6) is the "southernmost portion of the planning area, located south of W. San Rafael Drive, west of Indian Canyon Drive, north of Santa Catalina Road, and east of Virginia Road. Planning Area 6 is currently vacant, but approximately 58 multi -family residential units are proposed for the 7.3-acre San Rafael Gardens residential project. • Planning Area 7 (PA7) is located in the southwest portion of the planning area, located east of Highway 111, north of W. San Rafael Drive, west of McCarthy Road, and south of the Gateway Estates neighborhood. This planning area includes the existing Palm Springs Villa II Condos, and proposes approximately 77 new multi -family units on 5.1 acres for the McCarthy Place residential development. • Planning Area 8 (PA8) is located in the western portion of the planning area, north of Planning Area 7, west of Planning Area 5, and south and east of Planning Area 9. Planning Area 8 includes existing single-family residential units, and is currently built out. • Planning Area 9 (PA9) is located in the far western portion of the College Park Specific Plan planning area, and is bound by Highway 111 on the west, Planning Area 1 and 10 on the north, and Planning Area 7 and 8 on the south. This planning area includes the established Mountain Gate Neighborhood, and is built out with single-family units. • Planning Area 10 (PA10) is located in the northwest portion of the planning area, located south of the Whitewater/Chino Creek flood control levee, east of Highway 111, north of Mountain Gate Neighborhood, and west of Planning Area 1. This area is proposed for the future extension of Sunrise Parkway. Project Objectives The primary goal of the College Park Specific Plan is to provide a comprehensive and cohesive planning tool that facilitates development of the College of the Desert West Valley Campus and which leverages and optimizes campus development for expanded educational and cultural opportunities, and neighborhood revitalization in the College Park area of the City. A The College Park Specific Plan objectives include the following: 1. Establish a planning context and provide development standards and guidelines for the future development of the College Park planning area, including the COD West Valley Campus, consistent with the City General Plan's goal of providing lifelong learning opportunities for the City's residents. 2. Provide for land use, infrastructure and economic synergies between the COD West Valley Campus and surrounding lands that enhance and improve the material, social, cultural and economic well being of the planning area and the City. Provide a vision for the College Park planning area that considers and integrates all aspects of sustainable communities in land use, transportation, energy and water use, and environmental quality, and that furthers the City's Path to Sustainability. 4. Provide enhanced development opportunities and guidance for new residential, commercial, industrial, business park and institutional development that supports existing, approved, and future land uses. 5. Provide a community -planning document that expands economic resources, creates new jobs in sustainable technologies, and improves the social and economic environment of the planning area. 6. Provide development standards and guidelines that will enhance community and neighborhood cohesiveness within the Specific Plan area. 7. Encourage the development of land uses that address community needs, and that are accessible to, and enhance and protect the public health and safety of, local residents, businesses and users of the College. 8. Provide guidance for the development of coordinated and adequately sized infrastructure to serve the development potential of the Specific Plan area. B. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT The CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist Form was used to prepare an Initial Study, which was used by the City of Palm Springs to determine that all required environmental issues would be addressed in the EIR. The City determined that the proposed project would have no impact on agricultural resources or mineral resources. In addition, the Initial Study determined that there would be no impact associated with the proposed project for the following specific categorical thresholds of concern: Biological Resources c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Geology and Soils e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. 0 Hazards and Hazardous Materials d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or environment. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Hydrology and Water Quality g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Land Use and Planning a) Physically divide an established community? Noise 0 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? A-5 Population and Housing b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Transportation/Traffic c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? C. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT This section addresses issues areas found in the EIR that would result in less than significant impacts. Aesthetic Resources Impacts The proposed Specific Plan would be implemented within the 510} acre planning area, of which approximately 60 percent has already developed. Most of the planning area is developed and new structures and landscaping will generally "infill" pockets of vacant lands within existing development. The existing visual character of the area has already been impacted by dilapidated and poorly maintained industrial and commercial buildings, haphazard and illegal parking, and unscreened vehicle and materials storage areas. The planning area contains no historic buildings' or rock outcroppings, and there are few large trees in the area with the exception of palms in existing landscaping and tamarisk trees on the WVC site. There are no scenic highways in the area, however Highway 111 is currently designated as an "Eligible Scenic Highway— Not Officially Designated". The planning area is east of Highway 111, and impacts on scenic resources along Hwy 111, therefore, are expected to be less than significant. n Air Quality Impacts The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for establishing air quality measurement criteria and relevant management policies for the SSAB and neighboring air basins including the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The 2007 Air Quality Management Plan sets forth policies and other measures designed to help the District achieve federal and state ambient air quality standards. The SCAQMD also monitors daily pollutant levels and meteorological conditions throughout the District. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and its member cities, which includes Palm Springs, have taken an active role in the control and reduction of suspended particulate matter (PM10) through the implementation of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM,,, in the Coachella Valley. The College Park Specific Plan will be required to abide by the Palm Springs General Plan. Palm Springs, as a member of CVAG, is required to implement the strategies and goals of the 2007 AQMP and SIP for PM14. Palm Springs, CVAG, and its member cities have worked to implement policies and programs that aid in regulating and reducing particulate matter. Impacts associated with obstructing the implementation of AQMP, therefore, will be less than significant. The implementation of the land use plan within the Specific Plan area will result in a mix of land use predominated by the College of the Desert. As identified in the EIR, traffic Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: College of the Desert Western Coachella Valley Campus Project and Coilege Park Specific Pan prepared by CRM Tech, May 5, 2009. A-- levels of service will not be significantly impacted, with the implementation of mitigation measures. There will therefore not be significant increases in idling in and around the Specific Plan area, which is the primary source of pollutant concentration. As a result, impacts associated with pollutant concentrations will be less than significant. The build out of the College Park Specific Plan will result in a broad range of land uses, including redeveloped industrial land uses. However, the City's development standards, and requirements for enclosed buildings for industrial uses, will limit the potential for odors generated by these uses. Impacts associated with objectionable odors are therefore expected to be less than significant. Construction activities will result in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from construction activities will end once construction is complete. With adherence to SCAQMD, local and regional development principals and best control measures, emission of greenhouse gases are expected to be minimized. Therefore, impacts from the emission of greenhouse gas as a result of construction activities are expected to be less than significant. Biological Resources Impacts The City does not have its own biological resource protection ordinance, including a tree preservation ordinance; the City does participate in regional resource conservation efforts. The project site is within the planning area for the CVMSHCP, under which the City is a "Permittee." Although outside any designated conservation areas, development facilitated by the Specific Plan will be subject to conditions set forth in the CVMSHCP, especially planning area lands adjacent to the Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area. Impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, therefore, are less than significant. Cultural Resources Impacts The project cultural resources study was prepared by CRM Tech to determine the presence of cultural resources on lands owned by the BLM and proposed for sale to the City of Palm Springs for the proposed COD West Valley Campus. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) consisted of the proposed campus site, although literature searches associated with the study covered the APE vicinity, including the balance of the CPSP planning area. The cultural resources survey conducted on the proposed COD West Valley campus site found a single prehistoric pottery shard, which was recorded as an isolate. Such isolates lack contextual integrity and do not qualify as archaeological sites. They do not constitute potential "historic properties." The balance of the project area outside the proposed COD site has been extensively disturbed, and has limited potential for archaeological resources. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan is not expected to result in impacts to any historic properties. Geology and Soils Impacts Much of the CPSP planning area is developed and the geological conditions and potential geotechnical risks on -site are well understood. Geotechnical investigations conducted for existing development, as well as mapping prepared for the General Plan and the Riverside County Soils Survey, provide extensive information regarding conditions on the site and vicinity. Based on data provided by the aforementioned resources, future development on the College Park area is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, with the implementation of mitigation measures set forth below. As set forth in the City General Plan, future development, including the College of the Desert West Valley Campus, will be subject to completion of site -specific geotechnical surveys prior to approval of grading plans and issuance of building permits. Liquefaction is seismically induced ground failure that occurs when loose, saturated, granular soils behave like a fluid when subjected to high -intensity ground shaking. Manifestation of liquefaction generally occurs when groundwater levels are within 50 feet of the ground surface and the soils within the saturated zone are susceptible to liquefaction. Depth to ground water in the planning area is expected to be greater than 100 feet; therefore, the potential for liquefaction is considered negligible. The site lies within a low liquefaction probability zone based on mapping in the Palm Springs General Plan. Due to depth to groundwater, the planning area is considered to have a low risk of liquefaction. Therefore, potential impacts are expected to be less than significant. The planning area is located on the valley floor and exhibits little topographical relief. There is little to no risk of landslide on the project site. Portions of the valley, including canyon areas in the City of Palm Springs, are underlain by water -borne and wind-borne sediments that are largely composed of granular soils (silty sand, sand, gravel, cobble and boulders). Such units are typically in the very low to low range for expansion potential. Based on characteristics described in their USGS soils classifications, planning area soils have low shrink -swell (expansion) potential. As noted previously, the soils on the project site are expected to have a very low expansion potential, and little vulnerability to shrinking and swelling. Impacts associated with expansive soils are expected to be less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact The eastern 40± percent of the CPSP planning area is located within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (APLUCP) of the of the Palm Springs International Airport, with portions being in the Zones D and E. CPSP lands located with Zone D of the APLCP include the eastern portion of the COD West Valley Campus and Desert Highland residential neighborhood, and a portion of commercial and industrial lands just west of Indian Canyon Drive. Zone D finds low -density residential and non-residential densities of up to 100 persons per acre, and light industrial uses to be compatible. The balance of these lands are designated Zone E and are considered generally compatible uses. Therefore impacts related to the Palm Springs International Airport will be less than significant. Development facilitated by the Specific Plan is not expected to result in transportation or other barriers that might interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The backbone transportation system will be built out and will result in additional roadway improvements and remediation of certain areas where the roadway network is currently constrained. It is expected that all future development 19 will be required to ensure adequate primary and secondary (emergency) access and shall be subject to review by the City Fire Marshal to ensure consistency with evolving emergency response and evacuation needs. The project site is not located within a wildland area, and surrounding lands to the south and southeast are primarily developed with urban and semi -urban uses, or have been approved for such uses. Vacant lands in the planning area are primarily comprised of sandy soils with sparse desert vegetation. Future development in the planning area will be required to provide adequate fire protection measures including sprinkler systems within buildings, and will be required to establish an emergency response and evacuation plan. The College will carry out comparable activities on the campus site. Future development in the planning area is not expected expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wild land fires. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. Hydroloay and Water Resources Impacts Hydrology On -site drainage and surface runoff have the potential to convey a variety of pollutants that could conceivably enter the groundwater basin and compromise water quality standards or exceed wastewater discharge requirements. All projects implementing the Specific Plan will be required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) and to conform to the existing NPDES water quality program and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit process. Therefore, cumulative water quality impacts would also be less than significant. Build out of the College Park Specific Plan will result in the construction of new multi- family and single-family dwelling units, new commercial and industrial development, and institutional/community college campus. All these developments will result in impervious surfaces, which will increase stormwater runoff. However, due to the already extensive urban development that has taken place in and surrounding the CPSP planning area, build out of the CPSP area will not significantly change area drainage patterns. The build out of the Specific Plan area will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area or result in new conditions that would result in on -site or off -site flooding. The City -required means of drainage management assure that there will be no substantial increase in the rate of surface runoff that result in on -site or off -site flooding. Therefore impacts to drainage will be less than significant. The planning area is not served by storm drains, although a subsurface storm drain system capable of conveying the 10-year storm is shown on the City Master Drainage Plan. Currently, runoff from developed lands exceeding certain volumes is typically directed into the adjacent streets, where it flows to the nearest drainage improvements. The nearest surface discharges for local drainage is the Whitewater River in the vicinity of Gene Autry Trail. As buildout continues, only limited additional cumulative runoff, primarily from public streets, would be generated in the area. The City requires that the net increase in run- off from all new development be stored on -site either in retention basins or subsurface A-Io capture systems. Therefore, cumulative impacts to the existing or planned drainage conditions would be less than significant. The northern portion of the CPSP planning area is protected from 100-year storm flows by the Chino Creek/Whitewater River flood control levee. Documentation for this levee has been submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers as a part of a nation-wide levee certification process implemented following Hurricane Katrina. This levee is expected to remain effective protection against the 100-year flood threat in this area of the City. Water Resources Development of projects within the College Park Specific Plan planning area will comply with all existing and forthcoming water quality standards and regulations. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and implemented for individual projects implementing the Specific Plan; and a Notice of Intent will be filed with State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). This action will assure that planning area projects are covered by the General Permit and are in compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Therefore, the Specific Plan will not impact water quality in the vicinity or region, including groundwater resources. Any potential impacts to water quality as a result of build out of the Specific Plan are expected to be less than significant. Land Use and Planning Impacts Impacts to the subject and adjacent land uses associated with adoption and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan are not anticipated to be significant. The proposed land use plan incorporates a mix of land uses thoughtfully developed to be compatible with one another and with the surrounding environment. Spatial organization of the lands within the Specific Plan area involved logical transition of adjoining residential densities from areas of lower to higher densities. The proposed land use plan recognizes the need to insulate sensitive land uses (residences, schools, etc.) from areas of transportation noise by establishing a buffer of less sensitive uses, such as the business park buffer between the Desert Highland neighborhood and industrial uses. As discussed in the Biological Resources discussion in section III-D of the EIR, the College Park Specific Plan is located within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), which also includes a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). The MSHCP provides incidental take coverage for development on the valley floor, including the proposed project. The College Park Specific Plan lies outside the boundaries of but is adjacent to the Whitewater Flood Plain Conservation Area established by the MSHCP. The proposed CPSP project does not conflict with the Coachella Valley MSHCP, associated NCCP or other applicable habitat conservation plan. Therefore impacts on the MSHCP will be less than significant. Mineral Resources Impacts Preliminary geotechnical analysis indicates that the northern/undeveloped portion of the College Park planning area contains useable aggregate and other sand and gravel A 11 materials and that on -site mining and processing of these materials, including cobble and boulders is feasible. Although sand and gravel aggregate is present onsite, the existing adjacent land uses (residential and community park) would be greatly impacted by any mining operation. Significant sand and gravel resources have also been identified elsewhere in the region, as noted within the EIR, and extensive resources are currently permitted for mining elsewhere. The Mineral Report concludes that mining operation are not practical at this location and that the development of these lands would not result in the loss of significant mineral resources. Noise Impacts The CPSP planning area is located approximately 5.5 miles north of the nearest airport, the Palm Springs International Airport. The General Plan shows that the 60 dBA airport noise contour extends to a point southeast of San Rafael Road and does not impact the planning area. Most of the eastern portion of the site is within the "primary traffic patterns" zone as shown in the City General Plan. While portions of the planning area may potentially be exposed to noise from aircraft overflights, these impacts are not expected to be substantial given the area's distance from the airport and modeled future noise contours shown in the General Plan. Population and Housing Impacts Development facilitated by the College Park Specific Plan has potential to induce limited population growth in the area through in -fill residential, industrial, commercial and business park development as well as through development of COD WVC. According to Table III-3 (Built and Approved But Unbuilt Components) in the College Park Specific Plan EIR, the Plan includes 324,604 square feet of approved, but unbuilt, commercial and industrial units, 650,000 square feet of proposed COD WVC, and 89,098 square feet proposed for Commercial and Business Park uses. These uses will create new jobs, which may encourage new growth into the area. As far as new residential uses, the CPSP Plan includes 137 approved, but unbuilt, single-family units, and 59 approved, but unbuilt multi -family units. The Specific Plan also proposes 235 additional multi -family units on top of what has already been approved. Approximately 100 of these units include studio units built in conjunction with single-family homes in the Desert Highland and Gateway Estates neighborhoods, as second -story garage studio or attached units. The Palm Springs 2007 General Plan estimates that the Land Use plan has a capacity for 51,406 housing units within the City limits and its Sphere -of -Influence, and that these housing units will result in a population of 94,950 at General Plan build out. The College Park Specific Plan will provide 196 already approved residential units, and 235 additional units, for a total of 431 units. In total, the proposed project will generate only 1.0% of the potential units anticipated in the Palm Springs General Plan. Therefore, impacts related to substantial population growth are expected to be less than significant, and can be accommodated by available lands in the planning area and immediate vicinity approved for residential development. The Specific Plan does not propose the removal of existing housing, although redevelopment of the area may result in the consolidation of lots, and eventual development of new housing. Should this occur, however, it will be as a result of market influences, and will not displace homes or residents unless they have sold their property to private parties. Impacts associated with the displacement of people or housing are expected to be less than significant. Transportation and Traffic Impacts Primary access to the planning area is taken from Indian Canyon Drive to the east and San Rafael Drive. The Specific Plan provides development standards and design guidelines to ensure adequate emergency access, and will be subject to review by the City fire and police departments. Impacts are expected to be less than significant The College Park planning area is well served by public transportation provided by SunLine with SunBus Lines 14, 24, and 111 extending through the study area. Transit service is provided between 5:24 AM and 11:26 PM. SunLine Transit has bicycle racks on every bus in its fleet. These bike racks can carry up to three bicycles per bus. There are existing and planned bikeways within and surrounding the CPSP planning area, as discussed in detail in Section III: Master Circulation Plan. A transit station is located north of the CPSP site off of Indian Canyon Drive, at the end of Train Station Road. Amtrak train and Greyhound buses serve this station. Build out of the proposed project is not expected to have any significant impact on the existing public transportation structure, as the service presently provided by the SunLine Transit Agency has available capacity. Utility/Service systems Water The proposed project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Project -specific water saving design strategies assure that new water demand in the planning area is minimized, thereby limiting the need for groundwater supplies. In addition, the Specific Plan has the potential to help realize water use reductions from existing development through City and COD sustainability programs, which would further reduce the planning area's overall water demand and limit groundwater extraction. Solid Waste The City of Palm Springs contracts with Palm Springs Disposal Services (PSDS) to provide for the City's recycling. Currently, the program includes both commercial and residential (single-family and multifamily) recycling through a separate bin collection. PSDS is responsible for complying with all federal, state and local statutes regulating solid waste. Impacts related to federal, state, and local statutes related to solid waste, therefore, will be less than significant. N R-13 D. EFFECTS MITIGATABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE Aesthetic Impacts Future development in the planning area, especially the COD campus, has the potential to significantly affect viewsheds as seen from public rights -of -way. With the implementation of mitigation measures set forth in this EIR, as well as the application of Specific Plan guidelines for building setbacks, building design and exterior finishes, landscape, walls and fences, and exterior lighting, these impacts are expected to be reduced to less than significant levels. The project preserves substantial viewsheds and, given the relatively flat topographic relief of the site and vicinity, along with the aforementioned measures and Specific Plan guidelines, impacts are less than significant with the mitigation measures listed below. The proposed Specific Plan will create new sources of light and glare from interior and exterior lighting sources, windows and other reflective building materials, project -related vehicular traffic and parking lots, and street lighting. Future commercial, industrial, business park development, as well as that on the COD West Valley Campus, have the potential to generate high lighting levels from parking lots and safety and security lighting. Enjoyment of the night sky is especially important to desert dwellers and can be adversely impacted by excessive lighting. Further, such lighting can intrude onto adjoining properties, and the project's contribution to lighting in the vicinity may be evident on the valley floor during evening and nighttime hours. Findings: Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project which will mitigate these impacts to less than significant levels. The EIR includes mitigation measures designed to reduce the potential impacts to scenic vistas and light and glare to less than significant levels, as follows: a. Individual project site plans, grading and drainage plans, architecture and landscape architecture designs shall conform to the design guidelines set forth in the College Park Specific Plan, as reviewed and approved by the City of Palm Springs. b. Landscaping plans and materials applied to the perimeter of individual projects, including the boundary between the College of the Desert campus and adjacent lands, shall serve to create a harmonious transition between the natural and built environment. Consistent with local conditions, native and appropriate non-invasive non-native plants shall be utilized to the greatest extent practicable. Visual order to landscape designs and materials should be used to establish or enhance visual order to streetscapes, parking areas, building perimeters and common open space areas. ;'� 1 1 c. As prescribed in the Specific Plan, walls and fences shall be constructed as so as to maintain open vistas to the greatest extent practicable, and to define and delineate surrounding areas. Where walls and fences are planned they shall incorporate landscaping to frame views, obscure or soften hard edges and enhance security. Internal security fencing shall use quality materials, and perimeter walls and fences shall not exceed six feet in height except as otherwise approved by the City. d_ All outdoor lighting shall be in compliance with the dark sky requirements of Section 93.21.00 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code and the Specific Plan Design Guidelines. Other lighting recommendations include the following: i. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to the minimum height, number and intensity of fixtures needed to provide security and identification, taking every reasonable effort to preserve the community's night skies. ii. Lighting fixtures shall be of appropriate scale, style and character of the architecture. No lighting which incorporates flashing, pulsing or is otherwise animated shall be permitted. iii. The intensityof light at the bounds of an development shall not g boundary Y p exceed seventy-five (75) foot lamberts from a source of reflected light. iv. All lighting shall be directed onto the site and away from adjacent properties. e. Elevated lighting, including but not limited to parking lot lighting, shall be full -cutoff fixtures. Drop or sag lens fixtures shall not be permitted. f. All development plans, including grading and site plans, detailed building elevations and landscape plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. g. The development shall provide adequately and appropriately screened outdoor storage/loading areas, truck storage, trash storage and other service areas. h. To the extent practicable, new development shall provide protected and enhanced outdoor seating areas, appropriate levels of lighting, limited signage, and the thoughtful use of landscaping that preserves and enhances visual resources. 0 i. All project signage shall be in compliance with the Design Guidelines set forth in the College Park Specific Plan. Signage shall be limited to the minimum size, scale and number needed to provide adequate exposure A 15 l- for identification and to provide direction, while minimizing impacts on traffic safety, streetscape, scenic viewsheds and the aesthetic character of the development. j. Each development shall provide detailed site planning, building massing, preliminary architecture, color and materials, signage and lighting program, that serve to reduce visual impacts on the surrounding environment to a less than significant level. Air Quality Impacts Construction activities result in potential impacts to air quality from grading activities and ground disturbance, operation of heavy equipment, trenching, paving, building construction and application of architectural coatings. Construction emission projections as forecast using the Urbemis 2007 software represent daily air quality emissions averaged over entire construction period. With the implementation of mitigation measures emissions will be below established thresholds for all criteria pollutants during construction activities. Therefore, emissions for all criteria pollutants during construction activities are expected to have less than significant impacts to air quality with the implementation of mitigation measures. C- Findings: 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project which will mitigate impacts to less than significant levels. The EIR includes mitigation measures designed to reduce the potential impacts associated with air quality during construction to less than significant levels, as follows: a. Grading and development permits shall be reviewed and conditioned to require the provision of all reasonably available methods and technologies to assure the minimal emissions of pollutants from the development, including proper vehicle maintenance and site watering schedules. b. To reduce construction -related traffic congestion, the developer and contractors shall configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference; provide a flag person to ensure safety at construction sites, as necessary; and schedule operations affecting roadways for off-peak hours, as practical. c. In response to requirements of SCAQMD to monitor air quality impacts associated with fugitive dust from site disturbance and grading activities, all construction activities within the project boundary shall be subject to Rule 401 Visible Emissions, Rule 402 Nuisance, and Rule 403 Fugitive Dust. The City shall coordinate with the project developers to encourage the phasing and staging of development to assure the lowest construction - related pollutant emission levels practical. As part of the grading permit A-`6 Air Quality. Construction impacts for the No Project Alternative are expected to be less than construction impacts projected for the Preferred Alternative. This is because the No Project alternative results in less intense land development. Under the No Project Alternative, air quality emissions during operation at build out would not exceed any of the SCAQMD thresholds, except for CO. All other criteria pollutant emissions would result in less than significant impacts to air quality. Under the No Project alternative, greenhouse gas emissions are projected to be less. With the implementation of sustainable design strategies, including development of the onsite solar park, the No Project alternative would result in greenhouse gas emission offsets through the production of onsite alternative energy. Biological Resources: The No Project alternative will have comparable impacts to the Preferred Alternative. All vacant lands would be expected to eventually develop, with native vegetation would be replaced by landscape materials, some of which could be native plants. The potential impacts to the Whitewater Flood Plain Conservation Area may be modestly reduced due to the assumed development of solar energy arrays instead of the campus on the 119± acre PA 1. Under this alternative, the Sunrise Parkway would eventually be built and would generate at least some impacts to the adjoining Conservation Area. Cultural Resources: Impacts associated with this alternative would be generally similar in terms of cultural and paleontological resources. Mitigation measures would apply as they do for the Preferred Alternative. Geology and Soils: Under this alternative, there will be 830 new residents and up to 395 new residential units. This is approximately 8.3% less than the Preferred Alternative, and therefore represents a slightly lower risk of exposing people and structures to significant earthquake and associated hazards. This alternative would also not result in development of the COD West Valley Campus, thereby eliminating potential exposure of campus users at this site. Hazardous and Toxic Materials: The No Project Alternative would see the continued buildout of the General Plan, but the campus lands would develop as a 119± acre solar array, and while a solar array may bring its own complement of materials to the site, the potential impacts would be expected to be appreciably less than those associated with campus development. Hydrology: Although the No Project alternative would eliminate the campus and replace it with solar arrays, the net effect would not differ since either development will be required to store the difference generated in runoff on the project site. Therefore, the flooding and hydrology impacts associated with this project are expected to be the same for each of the four alternatives. Water Quality and Resources: New water demand for the No Project Alternative would be approximately 186 acre-feet per year. Water demand for the No Project %49 Alternative is less than half of the water demand estimated for the Preferred Alternative. Although the no project alternative would require less water compared to the Preferred Alternative, neither alternative is expected to substantially deplete groundwater supplies, interfere with groundwater recharge, or violate water quality standards. Land Use and Planning: Under the No Project Alternative, the BLM will retain ownership of approximately 119.37 acres in the northern portion of the planning area, which would be developed as a renewable energy generating facility generating up to 20 megawatts. Approved entitlements on all other lands in the planning area will remain in place and be constructed as currently approved. Future development will complete build out of the planning area at maximum allowable densities provided for in the General Plan. This alternative still results in the development of a large-scale renewable energy facility, but otherwise does not change or address the land use compatibility issues raised by the current Mixed-Use/Multi-Use land use designation. The current, somewhat uncoordinated mix of land uses would continue, with land use compatibility being determined on a case by case basis. The potential for land use incompatibilities remains the same. Mineral Resources: There are no known mineral leases, claims or prospects located on vacant lands in the planning area. These resources will no longer be assumed available under any alternative considered. Noise: The No Project Alternative will result in construction of fewer homes and less commercial, industrial/mixed use development than the Preferred Alternative. Under this alternative, the COD West Valley Campus will not be developed. It will generate less traffic, and therefore is projected to generate a lower level of noise -related impacts than the Preferred Alternative. Population and Housing: The No Project Alternative would result in less development within the project area, and would therefore result in less growth. This alternative would slightly reduce the potential for induced growth, although this potential is less than significant in the Preferred Alternative as well. This alternative would not displace housing or people, similar to the Preferred Alternative. Recreational Resources: This alternative will result in an overall population and potential recreational users that is approximately 9% less than the Preferred Alternative scenario. The No Project alternative is subject to City open space requirements for multi -family residential projects that are slightly higher than those set forth in the Specific Plan and would therefore result in additional private open space lands in multi -family development. There would be no new development on vacant lands at the City -owned Desert Highland Park under the No Project alternative. In the overall, the No Project and Preferred Alternatives result in a similar level of impacts to recreational resources. A -So Transportation and Traffic: The No Project alternative has a greater trip reducing effect when compared to the Preferred Alternative. Some roadway segments are expected to carry the same traffic as the Preferred Alternative, while others have a 12% or more decrease in volumes. From a volume analysis perspective, the No Project is the least impacting. Utilities/Service Systems and Public Services: Under the No Project Alternative, approved and proposed development will increase population in the planning area by 830. Based on the existing staff -to -population ratio in the City, one new fire personnel will be required. The COD WVC would not be developed under this alternative. From the perspective of fire protection staff and resources, this alternative is slightly superior to other alternatives. However, this alternative does not provide improvements to emergency access or other enhancements to safety, as does the Preferred Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, one new police officer would be required, based on the standard set forth in the General Plan. Overall the No Project Alternative is slightly superior to other alternatives in terms of demand for police services. The No Project Alternative and the Preferred Alternative are the most similar in terms of student generation, with the No Project generating slightly fewer students. 0 The No Project Alternative will result in the consumption of 9,464,241 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. This is the lowest demand of all the alternatives, and is 6,772,446 kwhlyear less than the Preferred Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, natural gas consumption is estimated at 3,257,862 cubic feet/month (cflmo), including approved and future development. This is 3,111,870 cflmo less than the Preferred Alternative and represents the least demand for natural gas resources of all alternatives. Total solid waste generation for the No Project Alternative will be 1,230 tons per year. The No Project Alternative is expected to generate the lowest amount of solid waste of all the development alternatives. The No Project Alternative will generate approximately 83,070 gallons of wastewater per day. None of the alternatives is expected to generate wastewater flows in excess of the capacity of the City treatment plant. 3. Findings_: As discussed above, and confirmed in the EIR, the City of Palm Springs compared the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project and the No Project Alternative, and did not select this Alternative. The Proposed Project, as described in Section C of these Findings, incorporates monitored mitigation measures and other features that will substantially reduce the environmental effects of the proposed project. 1 ;I 4. Facts: The objectives of the project, as well the policies and programs of the General Plan, and the goals of the College Park Specific Plan would not be implemented with this alternative. Although this alternative would reduce impacts to a greater degree than the other alternatives, the benefits of this alternative would not be comparable. This alternative would not generate the levels of employment of the other alternatives, would not create the College of the Desert West Valley Campus, and would not provide the redevelopment opportunity associated with the Preferred Alternative. B. Alternative I: Less Intense Alternative 1. Description of Alternative: Under the Less Intense Alternative, all existing entitlements will remain in place. These include buildout of the Desert Highland, Gateway Estates and Mountain Gate neighborhoods, as well as all approved residential, commercial and industrial development. The BLM land sale to the City will occur, however, the COD WVC will not be developed; instead, these lands will be developed for Very Low Density Residential at an average density of 3 dulac. A General Plan Amendment will be required to change the current General Plan land use designation, "School" to "Very Low Density Residential'. Proposed multi -family, commercial and business park development will be constructed as described under the Preferred Alternative but at less intense levels. This alternative would allow 531 new residential units, including 354 single-family residential units, and 177 new multi -family residential units. Buildout would also allow for 19,000 sq. ft. of commercial, and 36,608 sq. ft. of business park. 2. Comparison of Effects: Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The Less Intense Alternative will most notably alter the visual character of the site through development of 354 single-family residential units on currently vacant BLM lands to the north. Under the Preferred Alternative these lands are proposed for campus and alternative energy development. Whereas the Preferred Alternative provides for a relatively low visual -impact use (solar arrays) along the western portion of the COD site nearest the existing Mountain Gate community, the Less Intense Alternative would place homes in this area. Potential impacts to sensitive viewsheds include mountain and valley views from Mountain Gate, impacts to privacy for both residential communities, and the creation of new sources of light and glare. Since the elevations on the respective properties are approximately the same, future development plans will need to incorporate design features such as building orientation and massing, landscaping and screening, to ensure privacy while retaining desirable viewsheds. Mitigation measures would be applied similar to those for the Preferred Alternative. Air Quality: Construction impacts for the Less Intense Alternative are expected to be slightly less than construction impacts projected for the Preferred Alternative. This is due to the somewhat decreased intensity of land development proposed A-52 under this alternative. Operational air emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for CO and ROG. All other criteria pollutant emissions would result in less than significant impacts to air quality. Compared to the proposed alternatives, the Less Intense Alternative results in slightly fewer air quality impacts under the business as usual condition. It should be mentioned that even with the implementation of sustainable design strategies CO and ROG thresholds would still be exceeded. Biological Resources: Under this alternative, biological species would likely be similarly impacted as under the Preferred Alternative. Currently vacant lands would be replaced by neighborhoods, commercial areas, and limited open spaces. Compared to the campus development, 360 homes at this location adjacent to the Conservation Area would have potentially greater impacts than the campus, with the increased potential for roving dogs and cats, and more likely human intrusion into these lands. Cultural Resources: Impacts associated with this alternative would be generally similar in terms of cultural and paleontological resources. Mitigation measures would apply as they do for the Preferred Alternative. Geology and Soils: The Less Intense Alternative would result in development of 1,527 units, and a population increase of 727, an approximately 83.9% increase over the Preferred Alternative. However, the COD West Valley would not be developed under this alternative so neither 10,000 FTES nor staff would be present on the site in the event of a major earthquake. Hazardous and Toxic Materials: This alternative would result in the development of an additional 354 dwelling units in PA 1, where the College is planned under the Preferred Alternative. This increases the buildout population in the planning area, and therefore arguably increases the scope of exposure to any potential release. The amount of potential new industrial development is the same under all alternatives. Hydrology: The same basic management approach will be imposed on all development in the planning area, regardless of the land use scenario that builds out. Therefore, the flooding and hydrology impacts associated with this project are expected to be the same for each of the four alternatives. Water Quality and Resources: The Less Intense Alternative water demand is projected to be 382 acre-feet per year. Compared to the Preferred Alternative, this alternative would demand an equal quantity of water. Thus, the Less Intense Alternative is expected to have similar impacts to water resources as the Preferred Alternative, in that the Less Intense Alternative will not substantially deplete groundwater resources, impact water quality, interfere with groundwater recharge, or violate water quality standards. Land Use and Planning: Under the Less Intense Alternative, all existing entitlements will remain in place. The Less Intense alternative lacks the formative A 53 and catalytic effects of the community college campus. There is also a loss in land use and infrastructure efficiencies with lower density residential development. The synergistic effects expected from the Preferred Alternative would not be realized in the Less Intense alternative and "business as usual', along with its existing undesirable traits, would be perpetuated. Mineral Resources: There are no known mineral leases, claims or prospects located -on vacant lands in the planning area. These resources will no longer be assumed available under any alternative considered. Noise: As compared with the Preferred Alternative, the Less Intense Alternative reduces noise impacts along several roadway segments; these decreases are less than 1 dBA and are therefore considered insignificant. It also increases impacts along some segments, again by less than 1 dBA. The Less Intense Alternative results in audible decreases in noise impacts along two modeled roadway segments, as compared with the Preferred Alternative. Population and Housing: The Less Intense Alternative would result in less development within the project area, and would therefore result in less growth. This alternative would slightly reduce the potential for induced growth, although this potential is less than significant in the Preferred Alternative as well. This alternative would not displace housing or people, similar to the Preferred Alternative. Utilities/Service Systems and Public Services: The Less Intense Alternative will result in an increase in the planning area population of 1,527, which could require the addition of two fire staff. While this alternative does not provide for development of the COD WVC, it proposes residential uses on those lands, which will increase demand for fire protection services and potentially increase response times. The Less Intense Alternative will result in an increased population of 1,527 and would require the addition of two sworn police officers. While this alternative does not provide for development of the COD WVC, it proposes residential uses on those lands, which will increase demand for police services and potentially increase response times. The Less Intense Alternative has the greatest potential for additional student generation, in that it proposes construction of 531 residences. Each project alternative would be subject to developer impact fees to be calculated based on current State requirements. It is estimated that the Less Intense Alternative would be required to pay the largest amount of fees, given the level and type of development that would occur. The Less Intense Alternative will generate demand for 10,558,012 kwhlyear of electricity, or 5,678,675 kwhlyear less than the Preferred Alternative. Here too, the potential exists for on -home PV systems, although these are not assumed in the Less Intense Alternative. A-54 The Less Intense Alternative is projected to consume 5,281,532 cflmo, or 1,088,200 cflmo less than the Preferred Alternative. Total solid waste generation for the Less Intense Alternative would be approximately 1,768 tons annually. The Less Intense Alternative will generate approximately 122,109 gallons of wastewater per day. Development of the proposed COD site, either for campus uses or residential development, as proposed under the Less Intense Alternative, will require the extension of new sewer lines from existing laterals in the planning area. None of the alternatives is expected to generate wastewater flows in excess of the capacity of the City treatment plant. The Less Intense Alternative will consume approximately 382.8 acre-feet of water per year. DWA has a network of water mains and distribution lines throughout developed portions of the planning area, from which laterals will be extended to serve new development on the site. Recreational Resources: This alternative results in 68.7% increase in population over the Preferred Alternative, based on approved and proposed residential development. New single-family residential development would replace proposed campus uses. Based on City standards for provision of parklands, 3.7 acres of O open space would be required to serve the buildout population of these new units. Open space requirements for new multi -family units would be the same as for the Preferred Alternative. Transportation and Traffic: The traffic impacts associated with the Less Intense alternative are comparable to or modestly less than those associated with the Preferred Alternative. Decreases in link volumes are as high as 10%, and in some locations the volumes are the same. The Less Intense Alternative is moderately superior to the Preferred Alternative. 3. Findings — As discussed above, and confirmed in the EIR, the City of Palm Springs compared the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project and Less Intense Alternative, and did not select this Alternative. The Preferred Alternative, as described in Section C of these Findings, incorporates monitored mitigation measures and other features that will substantially reduce the environmental effects of the proposed project. 4. Facts — The Less Intense Alternative does not meet the objectives of the proposed project or the General Plan, and does not meet many of the benefits associated with the proposed project, as outlined in Section A of these Findings. Therefore, the City rejected the Less Intense Alternative. C. Alternative II: More Intense Alternative 1. Description of Alternative: Development proposed under the More Intense Development Scenario is the same as for the Preferred Alternative, with the exception that development intensities are increased. All existing entitlements will remain in place, however, under this alternative it is assumed that the 32@Agave project will build out as follows: • Built units: 3 single-family on approximately 0.5 ac @ 6 duiac • Unbuilt units will be developed as multi -family on remaining lands, approximately 4.8 acres, @ 15 duiac: 72 du. Note that since the transmittal of the CPSP NOP, this project has received new approvals (now called Vista San Jacinto) for 72 apartments and three single family homes) The More Intense Alternative (Alternative II) provides for development of the COD WVC, however, the core campus development would be increased by approximately 325,000 square feet (77%) and is therefore expected to accommodate an additional 6,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) students for a total of 16,000. Approximately 300 multi -family dwelling units will be developed at a density of 15 duiac on 20± acres on the campus site. While the precise location of these apartments has not been identified, access would be provided by Sunrise Parkway extended. These units will be for use by COD faculty, staff and students. 2. Comparison of Effects: Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The More Intense Alternative is expected to generate the highest level of impacts to visual resources of all the development scenarios. The More Intense Alternative proposes a similar, albeit slightly reduced level of Business Park and Commercial land uses as compared with either the Preferred Alternative or the No Project Alternative. In the overall, these uses, which will occur within PA 3 and PA 5, are expected to result in similar impacts to visual resources in the planning area. For all alternatives, they are consistent with existing uses and the existing visual character of the area. Overall, the More Intense Alternative will generate the greatest level of impacts to visual resources. Air Quality: Construction impacts for the More Intense Project Alternative are expected to be slightly greater than construction impacts projected for the Preferred Alternative. This is due to the somewhat increased intensity of land development proposed under this alternative. Although emissions associated with construction activities from the More Intense Alternative may be slightly elevated compared to the Preferred Alternative, construction related air quality impacts are expected to be less than significant and remain below established thresholds for all criteria pollutants. Likewise, greenhouse gas emissions from construction operations are expected to be less than significant, although quantities may be somewhat elevated compared to the Preferred Alternative. The More Intense Alternative would result in similar impacts to air quality as the Preferred Alternative, in that CO, NOx, and ROG thresholds would be exceeded under operational activities. Even with implementation of sustainable design strategies that reduce stationary source emissions, moving sources are projected to result in significant and unavoidable impacts to CO, ROG, and NOx. A-56 Greenhouse gas emissions for the More Intense Project Alternative, are projected to increase compared to the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to air quality as a result of greenhouse gas emissions would be considered significant due to moving source emissions. Biological Resources: This alternative would result in the development of all vacant lands and would see a general intensification in land use. Furthermore, this alternative allows for the development of up to 300 residential units on the campus, which would contribute the same sort of edge effects of roving pet and uncontrolled human intrusion into the Conservation Area as in the Less Intense Alternative. Cultural Resources: Impacts associated with this alternative would be generally similar in terms of cultural and paleontological resources. Mitigation measures would apply as they do for the Preferred Alternative. Geology and Soils: Under the More Intense Alternative, there would be 1,697 dwelling units and a population increase of 851. This is a 97.4% increase over the Preferred Alternative. The COD West Valley Campus would generate an additional 6,000 full-time equivalent students (FTES) than would the Preferred Alternative. In terms of potential risk to people and structures from geotechnical hazards, therefore, the More Intense Alternative has the greatest potential to a expose people and structures to injury and damage from earthquake hazards. Hazardous and Toxic Materials: This alternative would result in the highest residential density in the planning area at buildout of all the alternatives. In the vicinity of the industrial uses, residential densities would be maximized. In the overall, this alternative increases the risk of exposure to hazardous and toxic materials. Hydrology. Based upon the analysis set forth in Section III of the EIR, and current implementation of the Master Drainage Plan, it appears that all of the project alternatives will have much the same impacts on regional hydrology and facilities. The same basic management approach will be imposed on all development in the planning area, regardless of the land use scenario that builds out. Water Quality and Resources: This alternative would increase water demand to 503 acre-feet per year, which is an increase of 24% compared to the Preferred Alternative. Due in part to the large quantity of groundwater in storage, it is expected that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies available to meet the water demand projected under the More Intense Alternative without substantially depleting groundwater supplies or interfering with groundwater recharge. As development strategies would be similar to the Preferred Alternative, the More Intense Alternative is not expected to violate water quality standards or substantially impact water quality. Land Use and Planning: Development proposed under the More Intense Development Scenario is the same as for the Preferred Alternative, with the A-57 exception that development intensities are increased. There would be no freestanding alternative energy generation facilities on the COD WVC site. However, development is expected to integrate renewable energy systems. While the intensity of land uses in greater under the More Intense alternative, the net effects of land use compatibility are essentially the same as those for the Preferred Project. Mineral Resources: There are no known mineral leases, claims or prospects located on vacant lands in the planning area. These resources will no longer be assumed available under any alternative considered. !Noise: Under this alternative, as compared with the Preferred Alternative, potentially audible differences are projected along two roadway segments. In the overall, the More Intense Project has the greatest potential to generate noise impacts along study area roadways. Population and Housing: This alternative would result in the greatest growth in the project area, and would therefore have greater potential to induce growth, although impacts would still be less than significant. This alternative would not displace housing or people, similar to the Preferred Alternative. Utilities/Service Systems and Public Services: The More Intense Alternative (Alternative II) will increase population in the planning area, thus requiring the addition of two fire staff. Like the Preferred Alternative, this alternative also provides for development of the COD WVC, which will further increase demand for fire protection resources and staff. The More Intense Alternative is the most demanding of all alternatives in terms of demand for police services, in that it would require two additional officers based on population. The More Intense Alternative has greatest potential for additional student generation. Each project alternative would be subject to developer impact fees to be calculated based on State requirements. The More Intense Alternative will generate the highest demand for electricity, 22,829,148 kwhlyear. This is 6,592,461 kwhlyear more than the Preferred Alternative. It should be noted that both the More Intense and Preferred Alternatives provide for development of the COD West Valley Campus and associated alternative energy uses. For the More Intense Alternative, these uses are incidental to other development on campus, with no freestanding solar arrays such as are envisioned under the Preferred Alternative. Natural gas consumption for the More Intense Alternative is estimated at 9,646,369 cfimo, or 1,187,557 cflmo more than the Preferred Alternative. This alternative generates the most demand for natural gas. A-59 - Total solid waste generation for under approximately 2,554 tons annually. The result in the most solid waste generation. the Most Intense Alternative would be More Intense Alternative is expected to The More Intense Alternative will generate approximately 215,166 gallons of wastewater per day. This is 72,603 gallons per day, or approximately 50.9% more than the Preferred Alternative. The More Intense Alternative is estimated to use 502.6 acre-feet of water per year. Of all project scenarios, the More Intense Alternative is the most demanding in terms of water resources, while the No Project is the least demanding. DWA has a network of water mains and distribution lines throughout developed portions of the planning area, from which laterals will be extended to serve new development on the site. Recreational Resources: This alternative proposes no new single-family residential development. It proposes an additional 20 acres of multi -family residential development to provide staff and student housing on the COD campus. Based on Specific Plan standards, this alternative would require allocation of 6 acres of open space lands to serve new multi -family development. The More Intense Alternative would generate a population that is more than twice that of the Preferred Alternative, resulting in higher demand for recreational facilities. Transportation and Traffic: Although the More Intense alternative does result in a substantial intensification of some land uses, the impact on area traffic is comparable to or moderately greater than the Preferred Alternative; increases in traffic are up to about 6 percent. All of the project intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with the mitigation measures set forth for the Preferred Alternative. 3. Findings — As discussed above, and confirmed in the EIR, the City of Palm Springs compared the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project and More Intense Alternative, and did not select this Alternative. The Preferred Alternative, as described in Section C of these Findings, incorporates monitored mitigation measures and other features that will substantially reduce the environmental effects of the proposed project. 4. Facts — The More Intense Alternative does not meet the objectives of the proposed project, and does not meet many of the benefits associated with the proposed project, as outlined in Section A of these Findings. Therefore, the City rejected the More Intense Alternative. 0 MR A- 9 D. Environmentally Superior Alternative The No Project Alternative, which results in only limited new development, and continuation of the General Plan policies, represents the environmentally superior alternative. Under this alternative, impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, hydrology and water resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, traffic and public services and utilities would be reduced. However, even under this alternative, impacts associated with air quality would remain significant, and would be unavoidable. The exception, however, is that the No Alternative Project would only exceed CO thresholds during operation, as opposed to the CO, NOx, and ROG pollutants, which would be exceeded with the Preferred Alternative. This alternative does not meet the long term goals of the City to broaden educational opportunities to its residents, or to improve the neighborhood character of this part of the City. This alternative would not provide the redevelopment potential of the Preferred Alternative, or the renewable energy sources contemplated for the proposed project area. G. FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that when a public agency is making the findings required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1), codified as Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the proposed project which it has adopted or made a condition of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City of Palm Springs hereby finds and accepts that the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is incorporated into the EIR, meets the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potential environmental impacts. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures as set forth in the EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan shall control. Ee A-6 1 H. SECTION 15091 AND 15092 FINDINGS Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record, the City of Palm Springs has made one of more of the following findings with respect to the significant effects of the proposed project: a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report. b. Some changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes can and should be adopted by such other agency. c. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of higher education to benefit society, employment for trained workers, and implementation of high technology alternative energy sources make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report. Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record, and as conditioned by the foregoing findings: a. All significant effects on the environment due to the proposed project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible as discussed in Sections B and C of these Findings. b. The benefits of the proposed project set forth in the foregoing Statement of Overriding Considerations, and as noted in Section D of these Findings, outweigh any remaining significant effects of the project on the environment found to be unavoidable. c. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings have been based are located at the City of Palm Springs Planning Department, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262. The custodian for these records is the Director of Planning Services. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. A-62 Lel EO m