HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/15/2017 - STAFF REPORTS - 5.C. aO�pp`M SA4
iy
c
V N
ryC01.09aE0 ''' 1x
Cq<IFORN�P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 15, 2017 NEW BUSINESS
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYSIS AND CONFORMITY REPORT FOR A
PROPOSED 3.0 MEGAWATT WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM
("WECS") ON TRIBAL TRUST LAND LOCATED TO THE SOUTHEAST
OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 111 AND THE 1-10 FREEWAY,
0-5 (OPEN LAND) ZONE (CASE 5.1406).
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Department of Planning Services
SUMMARY:
Under the Tribal/City Land Use Review Agreement ("Agreement"), the City is to prepare
an Administrative Analysis and Conformity Report for proposed projects on reservation
lands owned by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ("Tribe"). A proposal has
been submitted to construct a 3.0 MW wind turbine on an undeveloped parcel owned by
the Tribe, located near the intersection of Highway 111 and the 1-10 freeway. The
tower will be 279 feet tall, as measured to the hub; the rotor will have a diameter of 337
feet, and the overall height will be up to 448 feet as measured to the top of the blade in
the 12 o'clock position.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. , "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM SPRINGS APPROVING A CONFORMITY REPORT FOR A PROPOSED 3.0
MEGAWATT WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM ("WECS") ON TRIBAL TRUST
LAND LOCATED TO THE SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 111
AND THE 1-10 FREEWAY (CASE 5.1406)."
BACKGROUND:
The City and the Tribe entered into an Agreement on December 15, 1998, to facilitate
an expedited process for the City to review and comment on development projects
located on land owned directly by the Tribe. The Agreement identifies a schedule for
project review; in order to comply with the Agreement, the following schedule has been
prepared:
Item Timeline Required Timeline
1. Pre-Submittal N/A December 21, 2016
ITEM NO.
City Council Staff Report
February 15, 2017-- Page 2
Case 5.1406
Item Timeline Re uired Timeline
2. Submission of Project 90 days prior to Tribal December 21, 2016
Report approval
3. Administrative Review CC review 30 days after February 15, 2017
submission of Project Report
4. Conformity Report CC adopts within 30 days of February 15, 2017
receiving Administrative
Review
5. Joint Meeting2 City and Tribal Councils March 17, 2017
within 30 days of adopting
Conformity Report
6. Final Tribal Action 90 days after submission of No sooner than
Project Report March 21, 2017
The Administrative Review and adoption of the Conformity Report by the City Council may be
consolidated into a single review per Section 7 of the Agreement.
2Joint meeting of Tribal Council and City Council may be waived.
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Foundation Windpower is proposing to construct and operate a single 3.0 MW wind
energy conversion system ("WECS") on property owned by the Tribe. The wind turbine
will be up to 448 feet in overall height, as measured from the ground to the top of the
blade at the 12 o'clock position, with a rotor diameter of 337 feet. The steel tubular
tower will measure 279 feet from the ground to the center of the hub. The tower will
connect to the power grid north of the 1-10 freeway at the existing Poppet Flats Circuit,
located approximately 3,000 feet northwest of the project site. The electrical
transmission lines connecting the turbine to the Poppet Flats Circuit will be located
primarily underground within existing public rights-of-way or private utility easements.
The project will also include a temporary construction laydown area next to the turbine
tower location for the delivery and temporary storage of the turbine components.
ANALYSIS —ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW:
The purpose of the Administrative Review is to determine the adequacy of police and
fire safety services, and any other services of the City necessary for the project; any
health, safety or welfare concerns; compatibility of the project with surrounding
properties; and the fiscal impact of the project. The Project Report has been circulated
to Police, Fire, Community & Economic Development, Building & Safety, and the
Engineering Services departments. The following summary details the comments
received from the various City departments:
• Streets and Utilities: The Engineering Services Department has reviewed the
Project Report and noted that general infrastructure improvements in the area
are adequate to serve the proposed turbine tower. A list of standard conditions
has been prepared for the project and is included as an attachment to this report.
02
City Council Staff Report
February 15, 2017 -- Page 3
Case 5.1406
• Public Safety: The Fire Department has noted that the project will have minimal
impact to the provision of emergency services. It has been requested that street
identification signage be installed adjacent to the site (on Wendy Road and
Tipton Road) to assist emergency personnel in responding to incidents at the
site, both during construction and planned operations.
• Building Permit/impact Fees: Tribal projects are exempt from permit review fees,
as the Tribe conducts its own permit review process. In addition, the City will not
be collecting any impact fees for the proposed development. The Building &
Safety Department has provided an analysis of the fees that would typically be
charged for similar projects.
• Taxes and Revenue: Tribal projects are exempt from the collection of standard
taxes and fees that would typically be collected for similar projects. Business
license fees may be collected for contractors working on the project, but the
impact to the City would be minimal.
• Economic Development: Based on the location of the proposed turbine, the
construction of the project is not expected to result in any significant impacts on
the local economy. The project is not projected to bring any new commercial
business to the area, and would have minimal economic impact on the city.
ANALYSIS — CONFORMITY REPORT:
Per the Agreement, the Conformity Report shall detail the conformance of the project to
existing City rules and regulations, and the compatibility of the project with surrounding
properties. The following tables and discussion provide an analysis of the project
relative to the requirements of the Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC).
Site Area
Gross Acres 79.96 Acres; wind turbine proposed to occupy a smaller 3-acre
portion of the parcel.
Surrounding Existing Land Use Existing General Existing Zoning
Property Per Chapter 92 Plan Designation Designation
Undeveloped, Off-
Subject Property Premise Signs Desert 0-5
Billboards
1-10 Freeway, Open Space RR (Unincorporated
North Undeveloped (Unincorporated Riverside County)
Riverside Count
South Undeveloped, Union Desert 0-5
Pacific Railroad
East Undeveloped, 1-10 Desert 0-5
Rest Area
03
City Council Staff Report
February 15, 2017 -- Page 4
Case 5.1406
Highway 111, Open Space RR (Unincorporated
West Undeveloped (Unincorporated Riverside County)
Riverside Coun
Pursuant to PSZC Section 92.21.03, the following standards apply:
Standard Required/ Provided Compliance
Allowed
Min. Lot Size 5 Acres 79.96 Acres Y
Min. Lot Width 250 Feet Approx. 1,410 Y
Feet
Min. Lot Depth 250 Feet Feet Y
Min. Setbacks
•Front (west) 50 Feet 1,504 Feet Y
•Front (north) 50 Feet 1,152 Feet Y
•Side (south) 50 Feet 382 Feet Y
•Rear east 50 Feet 620 Feet Y
Max. Lot Coverage 10% <1% Y
Pursuant to PSZC Section 93.23.07, the following standards specific to Commercial
Wind Energy Conversion S stems WECS shall apply:
Standard Required/ Provided Compliance
Allowed
Zoning District W, 0-5, E-I, M-2 0-5 Y
Height Limit 300 Feet (12 448 Feet (12 N
o'clock position) o'clockposition)
Setback —To Lot Line 1.25 times the 382 Feet to Y
total WECS abutting Tribal
height (560 Feet) parcel; 780 to
nearest non-
Tribal parcel
Setback — To 1,200 Feet No residences, Y
Residence, Hotel, hotels, hospitals,
Hospital, Etc. etc. within 1,200
feet
Setback — Public 1.25 times the 652 Feet Y
Highway, Road, total WECS
Railroad, Off-Site height (560 Feet)
Building
Setback — Overhead 1.25 times the Approx. 1,375 Y
Transmission Line total WECS Feet
height 560 Feet
04
City Council Staff Report
February 15, 2017-- Page 5
Case 5.1406
Standard Required/ Provided Compliance
Allowed
Wind Access Setback 5 rotor diameters Approx. 1,410 N
(1,685 Feet) Feet (Wendy
Road
Scenic Setback — Hwy. 1,315 Feet Over 1,315 Feet Y
62 &Whitewater River
Scenic Setback — Indian 500 Feet Over 500 Feet Y
Canyon
Scenic Setback — 1-10 500 Feet 1,152 Feet Y
Scenic Setback — Hwy. 3,472 Feet 1,504 Feet N
111
Scenic Setback — Dillon 1.25 times the Over 560 Feet Y
Road total WECS
height 560 Feet
Fencing Required around Not indicated Not indicated
WECS tower
Lowest Extension of 25 Feet from Approx. 110 Feet Y
Rotor Blade Ground Min.
Color/Finish Light Not indicated; the Not indicated
environmental photo simulations
colors (off-white, depict an off-
gray, etc.) or white color
darker fully-
saturated colors
PSZC Section 93.23.07(E)(3)(d) allows the Planning Commission to approve a lesser
setback where topography or other conditions eliminate or substantially reduce potential
safety hazards.
Based on the analysis above, the following compliance issues are recommended to be
addressed by the Tribal Council in their consideration of the proposed project:
• Height: The proposed turbine exceeds the maximum 300-foot height limit by 148
feet (49%). As indicated in the Project Report, the City has approved other
facilities in excess of 300 feet with the submittal of a Variance application and
making the associated findings. The rationale for the additional height is partly
based on the topography of the site and elevation of Highway 111 to the west,
which is identified as an upwind barrier to the operation of the turbine. Another
rationale cited in the Project Report for the additional height is that the fewer
towers are needed to generate the same amount of energy.
• Wind Access Setback: PSZC Section 93.23.07(E)(4) requires that the center of
the WECS tower be located a distance of 5 rotor diameters (1,685 feet) from any
lot lines that are within 45 degrees of perpendicular to and downwind of the
dominant wind direction. Figure 2 of the Project Report depicts the downwind
setback for the proposed tower, which shows that several property lines
05
City Council Staff Report
February 15, 2017-- Page 6
Case 5.1406
encroach into the downwind setback field. One of the parcels is the Whitewater
Rest Stop, which is owned by the State of California; the other parcels are owned
directly by the Tribe. PSZC Section 93.23.07(E)(4) allows for the setback
encroachment upon entering into an agreement with the adjacent landowner.
• Scenic Setback — Highway 111: PSZC Section 93.23.07(E)(5) requires a 3,472-
foot setback from Highway 111; the tower as proposed will be 1 ,504 feet from the
highway. The zoning code states that the setbacks may be reduced by the
Planning Commission if a determination is made that the characteristics of the
surrounding property eliminate or substantially reduce considerations of scenic
value. The Project Report states that the property is surrounded by uses that
substantially reduce its scenic value; the presence of off-premise advertising
signs (billboards) currently located on the site also reduce its scenic value.
Furthermore, the area is already highly developed with many other WECS
towers, which are clearly visible from the subject site and Highway 111. Visual
simulations of the proposed tower are included in the Project Report, and an
assessment of the scenic impact is addressed in the Environmental Assessment
for the project.
• Fencing: PSZC Section 93.23.07(E)(6) states that fencing or other security
measures are required to prevent unauthorized access to the WECS tower. The
Project Report does not identify if fencing or other measures are proposed for the
site; a condition of approval has been added to address the requirement.
• Color/Finish: PSZC Section 93.23.07(E)(20) requires that all WECS towers shall
be either light environmental colors (off-white, gray, beige or tan) or darker fully-
saturated colors (dark blue, dark green, maroon, or rust red). The visual
simulations depict the tower as being off-white in color, but no sample has been
provided; a condition of approval has been added to specify this requirement.
CRITERIA— CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
The Agreement requires that proposed project be evaluated for compatibility with
surrounding properties and conformance to code requirements; the following analysis
evaluates the project against the criteria contained in PSZC Section 94.02.00 for
Conditional Use Permit applications.
1. That the use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one
for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this Zoning Code.
The subject property is zoned 0-5 (Open Space); PSZC Section 93.23.07(B)
allows for the construction of WECS facilities in the 0-5 zone upon the approval
of a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, the proposed use is authorized at the
subject site upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
2. That the use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is
in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the general plan, and is not
06
City Council Staff Report
February 15, 2017 -- Page 7
Case 5.1406
detrimental to existing uses or to future uses specifically permitted in the zone in
which the proposed use is to be located.
The proposed project is generally in conformance to the Desert land use
designation specified by the General Plan, in that it proposes a public utility use
for the property. The project is also in conformance with Policy RC8.1, Policy
RC8.2, and Policy 8.12 of the Recreation, Open Space & Conservation Element
of the General Plan relative to the development of sustainable energy sources. It
should be noted that the proposed WECS facility is not within the boundaries of
the Wind Energy Overlay area identified in the General Plan. However, the use
is consistent with existing and future uses specified in the zone in which the use
is to be located, and is also consistent with the pattern of wind energy uses is the
northernmost area of the City.
3. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
such use, including yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other
features required in order to adjust such use to those existing or permitted future
uses of land in the neighborhood.
The overall parcel is 79.96 acres in area, which is can easily accommodate the
proposed use. The placement of the turbine tower does not meet the Wind
Access Setback requirement, but may be approved if the abutting property owner
is in agreement with the encroachment.
4. That the site for the proposed use relates to the streets and highways properly
designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated
by the proposed use.
The proposed use will generate a modest amount of traffic during the
construction phase, and will only generate minimal traffic during the operational
phase. Surround streets and highways are adequate to support the proposed
use with no degradation in service.
5. That the conditions to be imposed and shown on the approved site plan are
deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and
may include minor modification of the zone's property development standards.
Recommended Project conditions are included as an attachment to this report,
and are intended to address issues of public health, safety and welfare. Per the
Agreement, the Tribal Council may consider the proposed conditions, but may
approve or modify the Project in any way it deems appropriate.
07
City Council Staff Report
February 15, 2017 -- Page 8
Case 5.1406
CONCLUSION:
The proposed project is consistent with many of the development standards identified in
the Palm Springs Zoning Code for WECS facilities, but exceeds the height limit and
certain setback requirements. The project is also generally consistent with the Land
Use Element of the General Plan, and is consistent with the goals of the Recreation,
Open Space & Conservation Element relative to the development of sustainable energy
sources. Conditions of approval are suggested for consideration by the Tribal Council
in their review of the project, and are included as an attachment to this report.
F-I > /
Flinn Fagg, AICP Marcus L. Fuller, MPA, P.E., .L.S.
Director of Planning Services Assistant City Manager/City Engineer
David H. Ready, Esq., Ph
City Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Draft Resolution with Recommended Conditions of Approval
3. Building & Safety Department Fee Summary
4. Tribal/City Land Use Coordination Agreement
5. Whitewater Ranch Wind Project Report
08
{Of v PlM SaP
Department of Planning Services
�....,4 M Vicinity Map Lj
C'r[IFOM1N�P
1-10
1.10 1.10 WBON
I-10 EBOFF
\�
sy
i
-7
Legend
®Site 0:
Y
M500' Radius a 05
Zoning 3
Parcels y
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE # 5.1406
Conformity Report: Whitewater Ranch
a9
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS APPROVING A CONFORMITY REPORT
FOR A PROPOSED 3.0 MEGAWATT WIND ENERGY
CONVERSION SYSTEM ("WECS") ON TRIBAL TRUST
LAND LOCATED TO THE SOUTHEAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 111 AND THE 1-10
FREEWAY (CASE 5.1406).
The City Council of the City of Palm Springs finds:
A. On December 15, 1998, the City Council of the City of Palm Springs ("City") and
the Tribal Council of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ("Tribe") entered into a
Land Use Coordination Agreement which provides for City review and comment on
projects outside of the Land Use Agreement of 1977, while retaining the Tribe's final
approval and authority over projects on Tribal Land.
B. On February 3, 1999, the City and the Tribe amended the Land Use Agreement
of 1977 with Supplement No. 5, which exempted all Tribal lands from the Land Use
Agreement of 1977 subject to the aforementioned Land Use Coordination Agreement.
C. Pursuant to Section 7 of said Agreement, the City Council and the Tribal Council
may wiave procedural requirements of the Agreement, as follows:
7. Waiver. With the approval of both parties, any part of the foregoing
process may be waived if the Project is not deemed significant or if the
project is found to be conforming, or if due to the exigencies of time the
normal process cannot be accommodated.
D. On December 21, 2016, the Tribe submitted to the City a Project Report for a 3.0
megawatt WECS facility to be developed on 79.96 acres of Tribal Trust land near the
intersection of Highway 111 and the 1-10 freeway.
E. The Project Report was transmitted to the City for review and comment under the
terms of the Agreement. In order to adhere to the review timeline specified by the
Agreement, the City and the Tribe have agreed to a combined Administrative Review
and Conformity Report in accordance with Section 7 of the Agreement.
F. On February 15, 2017, the City Council conducted a public meeting and
considered the matter, including the Project Report, the Administrative Review, the
Conformity Report, and related exhibits.
G. The City Council has concluded that the proposed WECS facility is generally
consistent with the goals of the City of Palm Springs General Plan, generally consistent
with the development standards of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, and is generally
consistent with the height of other WECS facilities previously approved in the City of
Resolution No. _
Page 2
Palm Springs.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Conformity Report, dated February 15, 2017, including the
suggested conditions contained in Exhibit "A" attached and made a part thereto, is
hereby approved and staff is directed to transmit the Conformity Report to the Tribe.
SECTION 2. The following requirement for a joint meeting of the City Council
and the Tribal Council to discuss the project (Case 5.1406) as outlined in the
Agreement for Tribal/City Land Use Coordination on Certain Parcels, is hereby waived:
Section 5. Joint Meeting.
"...Within thirty (30) days (of the City Council's adoption of the Conformity
Report), the Tribal Council and the City Council shall schedule a Joint
Meeting to discuss the Conformity Report and whether any measures
should be taken to make the project ;more conforming with the rules,
regulations, and ordinance of both the City and the Tribe."
SECTION 4. The last section is always followed by the following verbiage:
ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017.
David H. Ready, Esq., Ph.D.
City Manager
ATTEST:
Kathleen D. Hart, MMC
Interim City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
11
Resolution No.
Page 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, KATHLEEN D. HART, Interim City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby
certify that Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at
a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Kathleen D. Hart, MMC
Interim City Clerk
12
RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
Case 5.1406 — Conformity Report
Southeast Corner of Highway 111 and the 1-10 Freeway
February 15, 2017
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The recommended conditions below are provided by the Director of Planning Services,
the Director of the Building & Safety Department, the Fire Chief, and the City Engineer or
their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
PLN 1. Height. The Tribal Council shall make findings that the height of the proposed
WECS facility is justified by special circumstances relative to the topography,
location, or surroundings of the subject site; does not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity and zone in which the property is situated; and that the height will not
be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare.
PLN 2. Setbacks. The Tribal Council shall make a determination that the reduced
setback from Highway 111 ("Scenic Setback") does not substantially eliminate
or reduce considerations of scenic value. In addition, the applicant is
encouraged to obtain Wind Access Waivers from any affected adjoining
property owners.
PLN 3. Noise. A WECS facility shall not be operated inconsistent with the provisions
of Chapter 11.74 (Noise Ordinance) of the Palm Springs Municipal Code.
PLN 4. Water Efficient Landscaping Conformance. The following restrictions are
encouraged relative to the occupancy and use of the subject property:
a. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine
directly upon adjoining properties or public rights-of-way.
b. No building or structure shall be closer than fifty (50) feet from any road
right-of-way or lot line and no building or structure shall exceed thirty (30) feet
in total height, with the exception of the WECS facility.
c. No advertising sign or logo shall be placed or painted on any equipment.
No more than one (1) unlighted advertising sign relating to the development
shall be located on the project site.
1 13
d. The applicant is encouraged to monitor the environmental impacts of the
WECS facility, including, but not limited to, noise, hydrogen production, safety
maintenance, and sightings of threatened or endangered species.
PLN 5. Paint Color. The color and finish of the WECS facility shall be either light
environmental colors (such as off-white, gray, beige or tan) or darker fully-
saturated colors (such as dark blue or green, maroon, or rust red) or
galvanized. All WECS facilities shall have a matte or galvanized finish.
PLN 6. Fencing. Fencing, or other appropriate measures, shall be required to
prevent unauthorized access to the WECS facility. Legible signs warning of
electrical and other hazards shall be posted at any gated entry points to the
project site at a height of three to five feet above ground.
PLN 7. Transmission Lines. All new transmission lines connecting the turbine wind
generator shall be undergrounded by an underground cable system.
PLN 8. Removal. Any unsafe or inoperable WECS facility which has not generated
power for twelve (12) consecutive months is declared to be a public nuisance
which shall be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
STREETS
ENG 1. It is recommended that the applicant shall obtain State permits and approval
of plans for any work done on State Highway 111.
ENG 2. It is recommended that upon completion of that upon completion of required
improvements by the applicant, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the
Bureau of Indian Affairs an Affidavit of Completion in accordance with Section
169.16, Title 25, of the Code of Federal Regulations, for the off-site debris
basin improvements constructed by the applicant for which the easement was
dedicated through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The applicant shall be
responsible for obtaining the necessary form for the Affidavit of Completion
from the Palm Springs Agency of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and for having
it completed as necessary by the applicant's Engineer of Record.
GRADING
ENG 3. It is recommended that a Precise Grading Plan Precise Grading Plan
prepared by a California registered Civil engineer be submitted to the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Engineering Division for review
and approval. It is recommended that the Grading Plan be approved by the
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) prior to issuance of grading
permit.
2 14
ENG 4. It is recommended that a Geotechnical/Soils Report prepared by a California
registered Geotechnical Engineer shall be required for and incorporated as an
integral part of the grading plan for the proposed development. A copy of the
Geotechnical/Soils Report shall be submitted to the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Engineering Division with the first submittal of a
grading plan.
ENG 5. It is recommended that the applicant provide all necessary geotechnical/soils
inspections and testing in accordance with the Geotechnical/Soils Report
prepared for the project. All backfill, compaction, and other earthwork shown
on the approved grading plan shall be certified by a California registered
geotechnical or civil engineer, certifying that all grading was performed in
accordance with the Geotechnical/Soils Report prepared for the project. It is
recommended that no certificate of occupancy be issued until the required
certification is provided to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
(ACBCI).
ENG 6. It is recommended that a mylar copy of the approved Grading Plan be
provided to the City Engineering Division for the City's information, use and
files.
GENERAL
ENG 7. It is recommended that all proposed utility lines shall be installed
underground.
ENG 8. It is recommended that all existing utilities shall be shown on the improvement
plans if required for the project. The existing and proposed service laterals
shall be shown from the main line to the property line.
ENG 9. It is recommended that the applicant shall become a part of Underground
Service Alert (USA) so that it can be included in the USA Alert database of
underground facilities in the general area, so that others can be notified of
their existence prior to their excavation activities.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
FID 1. It is recommended that the applicant work with the City of Palm Springs to
install street identification blade signage on Wendy Road and Tipton Road to
assist emergency personnel in responding to any calls for service at the site.
END OF CONDITIONS
3 � �
Pagel-Permit Fee Summary
'j-Tuesday,December 27,2016 at 04:34 PM Pe'r^miitt#<DRAFT> Contractor:AGUACALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS()
r Valuation:$5,3D0,000 -�/Is /�QT/O/� 074- /)e i' ✓ ��� i `������•
SgFt Values:: Finished:0 Unfinished:0 TotalFinUnfin:0 Sprinkled:0 Acc Heated:0 Acc Unheated Acc Total:0 TOtalFinUnfinAcc:0
SgFt Values:: Porch/Deck:0 Pavement:O TotalFinUnfnAccPorchDeck:O
R=Required, S=Status, O=Order
R S Status Date O Invoice# Fee Cat Description Calc Method Calc Data Min Fee SubTotal
Yes New 12/27/2016 6 001-37112 SMIP2 Valuation 0.50 530.00
Yes New 12/27/2016 7 001-34308 Microfilm Fixture 2.00 91.54
Yes New 12127/2D16 16 001.32219 S.B.1473 Valuation 0.00 212.00
Yes New 12/27/2016 17 261-32214 Technology Fee Valuation 0.00 8003.00
Yes New 12127/2016 18 001-34210 Fire Dept.Plan Check Fixture 0.00 277.00
Yes New 1227/2016 19 001-34210 Fire Inspection Fees Fixture 0.00 293.00
Yes New 12/272016 24 150-34390 Public Art %of Valuation 0.500000 0.00 26500.00
Yes New 12272016 25 001-34310 General Plan Maint. Valuation 0.00 3551.00
Yes New 12272016 28 001-33117 CVMSHCPFee Fixture 0.00 6451.00 r QPr�
Yes New 12/27/2016 32 001-34303 Planning Plan Check Fee Fixture 0.00 1240.00
Yes New 12/27/2016 33 261-32214 Planning Technology Fee Valuation 0.00 4611.00
Yes New 1212712016 34 261-32214 Engineering Technology Fee Valuation 0.00 4611.00
Yes New 12/27/2016 37 001-32201 COMMERCALNEWCONSTRUCTION Fixture 0.00 1657.76
Yes New 12/272016 51 001-32204 PERMITPROCESSINGFEE FlatRate 34.32 0.00 34.32
Yes New 12/27/2016 52 001-34301 Plan Check Fee Manual 0.00 161.20 aVY
EE
Yes New 12/27/2016 53 134-33110 TU F Manual 0.00 1031.56
1�
J
' Page 2—Permit Fee Summary—Tuesday,December 27,2016 at 04:34PM Permit#<DRAFT> Contractor:AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS()
Valuation:$5,300,000
SgFt Values:: Finished:0 Unfinished:0 TotalFinUnfin:0 Sprinkled:0 Acc Heated:0 Acc Unheated:0 Acc Total:0 TotalFinUnfinAcc:0
SgFt Values:: Porch/Deck:0 Pavement:0 TotalFinUnfinAccPorchDeck:0
R=Required, S=Status, O=Order
R S Status Date O Invoice# Fee Cat Description Calc Method Calc Data Min Fee SubTotal
Yes New 12/27/2016 54 001-32201 Commercial MEPcomplex Manual 0.00 328.64
F-�
v
2/6/2017 APPENDIX4 AGREEMENT FOR TRIBAL CITY TRIBAL/CITY LAND COORDINATION ON CERTAIN PARCELS AGREEMENT#1324A R19450,1-6-99
ZONING CODE
ZONING CODE APPENDICES
APPENDDC 4 AGREEMENT FOR TRIBAL CITY TRIBAL/CITY LAND COORDINATION ON CERTAIN PARCELS
AGREEMENT#1324A R19450, 1-6-99
THIS AGREEMENT FOR TRIBAL CITY LAND USE REVIEW ON CERTAIN PARCELS ("Agreement") is
made this 15th day of December, 1998 by and between the AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS,
acting through its Tribal. Council (the "Tribe"), and the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, acting through its
City Council, a municipal corporation (the City). This Agreement is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. WHEREAS, the Tribe is a federally recognized Indian tribe which exercises its sovereign authority over the
lands of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation according to a constitution approved by the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs, as well as applicable federal law, with portions of the City of Palm Springs located within the boundaries of
federal Indian reservation; and
B. WHEREAS, the city of Palm Springs is a charter city, possessing lull powers with respect to municipal affairs to
regulate the territory under its jurisdiction and in accordance with the California Constitution, its Charter and State law.
The trust land of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation are interspersed in a checkerboard pattern within that portion of
the City located within the Reservation; and
C. WHEREAS, both the Tribe and the City wish to cooperate in promoting the orderly and expeditious use and
development of all lands of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation to their highest and best use consistent with principles
of sound planning and the sovereignty of the tribe; and
D. WHEREAS, on July 26, 197T the Tribe and the City entered into that certain Agreement No. 1324 (hereinafter
the "Land Use Agreement"), adopted by city Council Resolution No. 12298. Pursuant to that Agreement, the parties
agreed that applications for issuance of permits and development pertaining to any Trust lands would initially be
processed through the City, with the City collecting its normal fees and charges. Any party aggrieved by an action of the
City Council in any such planning and zoning matters was given the right to appeal any action of the City to the Tribal
Council with the Tribal Council having the ability, following a noticed hearing, to affirm, reverse, or modify any
decision of the City Council on any matter affecting Indian Trust Lands, with the decision of the Tribal Council being
final, after consideration of the recommendation of the Indian Planning Commission, as well as applicable federal and
tribal law; and
E. WHEREAS, the Land Use Agreement has been amended from lime to time, by Supplements 2, 3, and 4, and
most recently by Supplement No. 5. which would exempt all land acquired by the Tribe from regulation by the City,
including: Application of all laws, ordinances, and codes; application of all fees, including drainage, sewer, school,
Uniform Transportation Mitigation fees, building and other fees. The taking of title to parcels into trust by the United
States for the tribe would exempt such property from regular City taxes such as property taxes, sales taxes, transient
occupancy taxes, and others; and
F. WHEREAS, the Tribe has generally supported development consistent with the City's General Plan and other
ordinances and regulations but has the authority to adopt its own land use plan and policies; and
G. WHEREAS, the Tribe has commenced a program, when economically feasible, to reacquire any Trust Land
which has been sold in fee. To facilitate Indian development on such Land, the Tribe would like to have an expedited
process for City review and comment on said projects. The Tribe is willing to consider such review and comment if
given in a timely manner. The City believes that the opportunity to provide review and comment, but not approval, of
such projects would be valuable to assure that such projects are integrated with surrounding development and to assure
that the City's and the Tribe's normal development standards are maintained insofar as possible. In addition, both parties
believe that all development throughout the City on both Tribal and non-Tribal land should make a fairshare contribution
in exaction, fees or other consideration to pay for the burdens imposed by the development on the City or for the benefits
received by the development from the City.
IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I B
http://,Nww.gcode.us/codes/paimsprings/ 1/4
21&i2017 APPENDIX 4 AGREEMENT FOR TRIBAL CITY TRIBALICITY LAND COORDINATION ON CERTAIN PARCELS AGREEMENT#1324A R19450,1-6-99
1. Pre-Submittal.
Prior to the initiation of a Project on Tribal Land and initiation of the process detailed below, the Tribe, where feasible,
will consult with the City to determine the scope and significance of the Project and its appropriate level of review. This
consultation will normally, but not necessarily, be satisfied by a meeting between the Tribal Planning Department and
City Department of Planning and Building.
2. Submission of Report.
When any new development or substantial expansion or renovation of a project is proposed on land located within the
Reservation and has been acquired by the Tribe, at least ninety (90) days prior to Tribal approval of the project including
preliminary or schematic design, the Tribe shall submit to the City a report on the Project ("Project Report"). As used
herein, "Reservation" means those lands whose legal description is set forth in Exhibit A hereto. The Project Report
shall include a description of the Project, the preliminary or schematic plans and drawings for the Project, environmental
documents per NEPA, if any, or any equivalent Tribal document, an analysis of the compatibility of the proposed Project
with the City's and the Tribe's development standards, an analysis of the fiscal impact of the Project and a statement
identifying any manner in which the Project would be exempt from, or not conform to, any ordinance, rule, regulation, or
standards of the City or of the Tribe. The Tribe shall provide any explanation of any of the foregoing, as they shall deem
reasonable or necessary. The Indian Planning Commission, and other Tribal bodies, will develop this report in
accordance with applicable federal and Tribal law. The level of detail provided in the Project Report should be as
follows: if a minor project, then similar to the level of detail normally required by the City for architectural review; if a
major project, then similar to the level of detail which would be required by the City for Planned Development District
permit. The determination of whether a project is major or minor shall require the agreement of the chief staff planning
official of each party but, in the event of a disagreement, the opinion of the Tribe's planning official shall govern. It is
the intent of the parties that this process be undertaken, not at the point at which the land is acquired by the Tribe, but
when development is contemplated, and when the development is contemplated, and when the development can be
described and its impacts forecast.
3. Administrative Review.
Upon receipt of a Project Report, the City Manager shall distribute the Project Report to appropriate departments,
including Police, Fire, Finance, Public Works, Planning and Building and such other departments as the City Manager
shall deem relevant, such as Parks and Recreation, Tourism, Economic Development, and so forth. It shall be the
purpose of this administrative review to determine how well the Project conforms with the City's existing rules and
regulations; any health and safety, or welfare concerns; the adequacy of police and fire safety services, and other
services of the city necessary for the Project; compatibility of the project with surrounding properties; and the fiscal
impact of the Project. The purpose of the fiscal impact analysis shall be to determine whether the Project will pay the
normal City fees, taxes charges, and assessments; to the extent that any of such revenues will not accrue to the city,
what will be the resulting financial impact therefrom; what other direct and indirect financial impacts, negative or
positive, will result and what the overall economic impact will be of the Project on the city. Within thirty(30) days of
the City Manager's receipt of the Report from the Tribe, the City shall prepare the "Administrative Analysis" of the
foregoing information and shall submit the Administrative Analysis to the City Council for its review and approval.
4. City Council Conformity Report.
The City Council shall have thirty (30) days from the submission of the Administrative Analysis to prepare the City
Council's Conformity Report ("Conformity Report"). The Conformity Report shall be adopted by the City Council at a
public meeting. At the same time that the City Manager submits the Administrative Report to the City Council, a copy of
the same shall be submitted to the Tribe. The Tribe shall have ten(10) days to prepare its comments on the
Administrative Analysis for submission to the City Council to be considered at the time the City Council determines the
Conformity Report. The Conformity Report shall contain the same subject matter as the Administrative Analysis.
5. Joint Meeting.
Upon the City Council's adoption of the Conformity Report, the Project Report shall be immediately submitted to the
Tribal Council. Within thirty(30)days, the Tribal Council and the City Council shall schedule a Joint Meeting to discuss
the Conformity Report and whether any measures should be taken to make the Project more conforming with the rules,
regulations, and ordinances of both the City and the Tribe.
6. Final Tribal Action. 19
http://www.gcode.us/codes/palm springs/ 214
2/6/2017 APPENDIX 4 AGREEMENT FOR TRIBAL CITY TRIBAUCITY LAND COORDINATION ON CERTAIN PARCELS AGREEMENT#1324A R19450,1-6-99
At the Joint Meeting, or following the Joint Meeting, the Tribal Council may take any action authorized by its
Constitution, Bylaws, rules, and ordinances concerning the Project. The Tribal Council shall be free to disregard any or
all comments in the Conformity Report or otherwise made by the City Council and may approve or modify the Project in
any way the Tribal Council deems appropriate. It is expressly understood by the parties hereto that the Tribal Council
retains full and complete sovereignty to administer Tribal lands in accordance with the Constitution, Bylaws, and
Ordinances of the Tribe and applicable federal law. This Agreement deals solely with the consultation process in which
the City is being given the opportunity to review and comment on certain projects being undertaken by the Tribe, and the
Tribal Council retains full and complete authority to make final decisions concerning the development of Tribal Land
under its Constitution and applicable federal and Tribal law.
7. Waiver.
With the approval of both parties, any portion of the foregoing process may be waived if the Project is not deemed
significant, if the Project is found to be conforming, or if due to the exigencies of time the normal process cannot be
accommodated.
8. Amendments.
This Agreement maybe amended by mutual agreement by the parties, provided that neither party may terminate this
Agreement, without prejudice to any legal position thereafter asserted, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other
party.
9. Approval.
This Agreement shall be approved by Resolutions of the Tribal Council and the City Council.
10. Lands Located Inside Reservation and Owned in Fee by Parties Other than the Tribe.
This Agreement will not affect, alter, increase, or decrease in any way the jurisdiction that either the City or the Tribe
may have over the use or development of parcels of land located within the Reservation, which are owned in fee by
parties other than the Tribe. The parties recognize that federal law already allocates such jurisdiction over such parcels.
11. Lands Located Outside Reservation.
The parties recognize that federal law provides to the City notice and an opportunity to express its views on the subject
of the proposed taking of title into trust for the Tribe of parcels located outside the Reservation but within the city limits
of the City in 25 CFR. § 151.1l(d), as well as time in which to challenge such a proposed action before it occurs, in 25
C.R.F. § 151.12(b). Otherwise, this Agreement will not affect, alter, increase, or decrease in any way the jurisdiction
that either the City or the Tribe may have over the use or development of such parcels of land. The parties recognize
that federal law already allocates such jurisdiction over such parcels.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement by their respective authorized officers on
the day and year first above written.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
a municipal corporation.
Will Kleindienst, Mayor
Attest:
Judith Sumich, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
David Aleshire, City Attorney
Approved by the City Council
By Res. No. 19450, 1-6-99, A1324-A
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS,
a federally-recognized Indian tribe
By:
Richard M. Milanovich, Chairman 20
Approved as to form:
http:/Iwww.gcode.us/codes/palmsprings/ 3/4
2/fi/2017 APPENDIX 4 AGREEMENT FOR TRIBAL CITY TRIBAL/CITY LAND COORDINATION ON CERTAIN PARCELS AGREEMENT#1324A R19450.1-5-99
Art Bunce, Tribal Attomey
View the mobile version.
21
http:/Mww.gcode.us/codes/palm springs/ 4/4
WHITEWATER RANCH
WIND PROJECT
PROJECT REPORT
December 20, 2016
k
P
d
Prepared by:
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
22
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1
1 .1 Project Background and Purpose................................................................................1
1 .2 Tribal/City Land Use Agreements................................................................................. 1
SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................2
2.1 Project Location and Existing Conditions ...................................................................2
2.2 Project Description..........................................................................................................2
SECTION 3: PROJECT ANALYSIS..................................................................................................5
3.1 Land Use ...........................................................................................................................5
3.1.1 Wind Turbine Height Limit .................................................................................... 5
3.1.2 Wind Turbine Setbacks......................................................................................... 7
SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES .....................................................8
SECTION 5: FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS.......................................................................................8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map..................................................................................................3
Figure2 Project Site.................................................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES
Table1 Setbacks......................................................................................................................7
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A Whitewater Ranch Wind Project Environmental Assessment
Whitewater Ranch Wind Project Report i December 20, 2016 23
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background and Purpose
In August of 2005, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ("Tribe") was awarded a
grant under the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Tribal Energy Program to engage in
a process that would result in the development of a comprehensive Tribal energy plan.
The grant, awarded under DOE's First Steps program, supported the development of a
strategic energy plan designed to integrate with the Tribe's overall planning and
economic development goals, and align with the Tribal cultural, social, political, and
spiritual values.
Since development of the Agua Caliente Strategic Energy Plan, in addition to making
use of energy efficiency measures, the Tribe has reviewed, researched, and developed
renewable energy on the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation ("Reservation") as part of
its overall energy strategy. Development of the Whitewater Ranch Wind Project
("Project") will support the Tribe's continuing goal for renewable energy development
and energy self-sufficiency.
1.2 Tribal/City Land Use Agreements
As part of the project approval process and pursuant to the terms of the Agreement for
Tribal/City Land Use Coordination on Certain Parcels with the City of Palm Springs
("City") dated December 15, 1998, the Tribe has prepared this report on the Whitewater
Ranch Wind Project ("Project Report") for the City's administrative review. The following
key Tribal and/or City actions establish the project approval process for Tribal lands:
1. On July 26, 1977, the Tribe and the City entered into Agreement No. 1324
(hereinafter, the "Land Use Agreement") adopted by City Council Resolution No.
12298. Pursuant to the Land Use Agreement, the parties agreed that applications
for issuance of permits and development pertaining to any Trust lands would initially
be processed through the City, with the City collecting its normal fees and charges.
Any party aggrieved by an action of the City Council in any such planning and
zoning matters was given the right to appeal any action of the City to the Tribal
Council, with the Tribal Council having the ability, following a noticed hearing, to
affirm, reverse, or modify any decision of the City Council on any matter affecting
Indian Trust lands, with the decision of the Tribal Council being final, after
considering the recommendation of the Indian Planning Commission, as well as
applicable Federal and Tribal law.
2. On December 15, 1998, the Tribe and City entered into a "Land Use Coordination
Agreement" which provides for City review and comment on projects outside of the
Land Use Agreement, while retaining the Tribe's final approval and authority over
projects on Tribal land.
3. On February 3, 1999, the City and the Tribe amended the Land Use Agreement with
Supplement No. 5, which exempted all Tribal lands from the Land Use Agreement
subject to the aforementioned Land Use Coordination Agreement.
Whifewater Ranch Wind Project Report 1 December 20, 2016 24
This Project Report serves as an expanded project description and goes "hand in hand"
with other submittal documents including site plans, technical reports, and other
pertinent information. These documents have been prepared to correspond in most
material respects with the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process outlined in Section
93,23.07 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code.
SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location and Existing Conditions
The proposed Project is located west of Tipton Road, between Interstate 10 to the north,
Whitewater Ranch to the east, Highway 111 to the west, and the Union Pacific Railroad
to the south, on approximately 3 acres of vacant Tribal Trust land located within Section
9, Township 3 South, Range 3 East, of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian ("Project
Site," see Figures 1 and 2); nine outdoor advertising displays are currently situated along
the northern and western edges of the greater Tribal Parcel on which the Project Site is
located.
2.2 Project Description
Foundation Windpower, LLC. ("Project Proponent"), is proposing to construct and
operate one (1) 3.0 MW General Electric wind turbine mounted on a steel tubular-
shaped tower. The wind turbine will be up to 448 feet in overall height, as measured
from the ground to the top of the blade at the 12 o'clock position, with a rotor diameter
of 337 feet. The proposed location of the wind turbine is depicted on Figure 2.
The point of interconnection to the power grid will be north of 1-10 at the existing Poppet
Flats Circuit located approximately 3,000 feet northwest of the Project Site. The
electrical transmission lines connecting the wind turbine to the Poppet Flats Circuit will
primarily be located underground within existing public rights of way or private utility
easements (see Figure 2). The Poppet Flats Circuit currently serves the area north of 1-10
and has sufficient capacity for this Project.
The Project will also include a temporary construction laydown area next to the wind
turbine location for the delivery and temporary storage of the wind turbine
components (tower, nacelle, blades, etc.).
Whitewater Ranch Wind Project Report 2 December 20, 2016 25
�. � tea^• .
'lot
at
Q
Q.
v CD
N J
_o
(D r'
� � ,�..--�.•.• � '.`....`".'<'.�.-w—..,-..'._.::�,�_ it r ."� _ '_
Subject Parcel t} _
W
i
Nl-
T R
c a
O q
dCl.
e
�d
3 San Gorgonio Pass Site Map
I 0
tp ��aJac[Site
cr �
N U Feet
•
0 000 2,000 3,000 -
P
N
T
PGC Pole
F
Q
m
t
Q - Exi=_tiny SCE Pole
3 v4K6^122E a
4_
b i[---�
ti.
Nr
O
610
1
M
Cot
~ - • Om-�
17 n Servwe!a erCedns Coo r. nrl�' 16-
n !n Approximate Property Boundary • Aqua Caliente 3.0 M W Wnd Turbine
CD SCE,zK Pp BRC
Poppet Flats Circuit Downwind Setback(1090r)
W r —800'O&M Roadway Improvements(17 Width,Gravel) ... Setback Distance(Feet to Property Boundary)
ry
0 aba.wwn tomuh.nta lnc. N
NO Q OH Conductors ••• Turbine Access Road Feet
NO O — UG Conductors
0 500 1.000 2,000
P ] —Proposed 500'Bore
N
SECTION 3: PROJECT ANALYSIS
3.1 Land Use
The Tribal Land Use Ordinance designates the Project Site as Tribal Enterprise, a land use
designation intended to support the economic development of the Tribe. The Project is
situated within a proven wind energy resource area and it is not located inside any of
the conservation areas established by the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan (THCP).
Under the Palm Springs General Plan, the Project Site is designated Desert, which allows
one (1) residential unit per 10 acres. Other permitted uses include "public facilities that
comply with the intent of the goals and policies of the General Plan."
Since the Project will provide a direct economic benefit to the Tribe and its members,
the proposed wind turbine is considered a public facility. As a public facility, the
proposed wind turbine meets the intent of the following Palm Springs General Plan
Recreation, Open Space & Conservation Element Goals and Policies:
Goal RC8 Employ the efficient, sustainable, and environmentally appropriate use
and management of energy and mineral resources to ensure their
availability for future generations.
Policy RC8.1 Facilitate the orderly and efficient development of wind energy resources
and regulate their location, operation, and management through the
Wind Energy Conversion Systems Development Agreement, conditional-
use permit process, and appropriate environmental clearance.
Policy RC8.2 Support and encourage the use of alternative energy sources, such as
cogeneration, solar, wind, ethanol and natural gas, fuel cell technologies,
and other alternative and sustainable fuel sources and generating
industries to provide more reliability in the supply of electricity to the City
and to promote the development of clean, sustainable, and alternative
energy industries in the City. The use of alternative energy sources should
also be encouraged in the construction of new buildings and retrofit of
existing buildings.
Policy RC8.12 Make all practical use of indigenous wind resources.
Except for the height limit and certain setback requirements, the proposed Whitewater
Ranch Wind Project complies with a majority of the City's Wind Energy Conversion
Systems (WECS) Ordinance standards and development criteria. The following
subsections provide an analysis of these exceptions.
3.1.1 Wind Turbine Height Limit
The Agreement for Tribal/City Land Use Coordination on Certain Parcels states that the
Project Report shall include "[a]n analysis of the compatibility of the proposed Project
with the City's...development standards." The City's WECS Ordinance (Section
93.23.07(E)(1)(a) of the Palm Springs Municipal Code) states that "[n]o commercial
WECS shall exceed three hundred (300) feet in height, measured at the top of the
blade in the '12 o'clock position."' At 448 feet, the proposed wind turbine would
exceed this limit by 148 feet (49%). However, as permitted by the WECS Ordinance, the
Whitewater Ranch Wind Project Report 5 December 20, 2016 28
City has granted height variances for wind projects with commercial WECS in excess of
300 feet.
The most recent height variance example would be the WKN Wagner, LLC Project
("WKN Project," Case No. 5.1268 - CUP and 6.525 - VAR) located northwest of the
Indian Avenue/1-10 Interchange, where the City approved a height variance of 110
feet (37%) to allow two (2) 3.0 MW Vestas V90 wind turbines with heights up to 410 feet.
In order to grant the height variance, the City had to make findings per Section
94.06.00(B.). If the findings contained in Section 94.06.00(B) applied to the Whitewater
Ranch Wind Project, then the following analysis would justify a height variance for the
Project:
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning
Code would deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity and under identical zone classification.
The wind conditions at the Project Site are impacted by Highway 111 to the west,
which is upwind barrier elevated an average of 45 feet above the ground level of
the actual wind turbine location. According to the American Wind Energy
Association (AWEA), for optimal performance the bottom tips of the wind turbine's
blades should pass three times above the tallest upwind barrier, or at least 25-30 feet
above any physical wind barriers within 300-500 feet of the tower. With a hub height
of 279 feet and a rotor diameter of 337 feet, the bottom tips of the blades at the 6
o'clock position will be passing approximately 111 feet above ground level at the
wind turbine location. This height would put the bottom tips of the blades at an
average of 66 feet above the elevation of Highway 111, and above AWEA's
minimum recommended height clearance.
Since no other parcels capable of commercial wind energy development in the
vicinity of the Project are impacted by the elevated portion of Highway 111, the
strict application of the height limit would deprive the Tribal property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification.
2. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the
adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in
which subject property is situated.
The increased height of the wind turbine will not constitute a grant of special
privilege since existing wind projects in the vicinity have been granted similar height
variances. The positive trade-off for this increase in height is that fewer wind turbines
are needed to generate the same amount of energy, which has been supported by
the City for similar wind projects.
3. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health,
safety, convenience or welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the
some vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated.
Whitewater Ranch Wind Project Report 6 December20,2016 29
The Whitewater Ranch Wind Project is located within an area that is primarily used
for wind energy development. The Project's wind turbine is more energy-efficient
than older models and requires additional height for optimal performance; all
necessary precautions such as safety and fire protection setbacks have been taken
into consideration in the layout of the Project Site. Therefore, the granting of the
height variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience or
welfare, or be injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity of the Project.
4. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the general plan of the city.
The Project Site is designated Desert under the Palm Springs General Plan, which
allows public facilities that comply with the intent of its goals and policies. The
General Plan encourages the expansion of wind, solar, and other renewable
sources, and as described in the beginning of this Section, granting the height
variance will not adversely affect the Project's consistency with the General Plan's
goals and policies.
3.1.2 Wind Turbine Setbacks
With the exception of the HWY 111 scenic setback, the Whitewater Ranch Wind Project
meets all of the other WECS Ordinance setback requirements shown in Table 1 .
TABLE 1: WECS ORDINANCE SETBACK EXCEPTIONS
WECS Development Standard Required Setbacks Proposed Setbacks
Public Road/Railroad Setback 1.25 x overall height = 560' 652'
Lot Line Setback 1.25 x overall height = 560' 780'
Downwind Setback Five (5) rotor diameters = 1,685' >1,690'
Interstate 10 Scenic Setback 500' 1,152'
HWY I I I Scenic Setback 2/3 mile 3,472' 1,504'
Public Road/Railroad Setback
As shown on Figure 2, the wind turbine would be located 652 feet (1.5 times its overall
height) from the northern boundary of the Union Pacific rail line. The WECS Ordinance
prohibits locating wind turbines "where the center of the tower is within a distance of
1.25 times the total WECS height from any public highway or road, railroad or off-site
building...as measured from the boundary of the public right-of-way or railroad right-of-
way."
Lot Line Setback
The wind turbine would be located approximately 780 feet (1.7 times its overall height)
to the southwest from the closest non-Tribal property. The WECS Ordinance prohibits
locating wind turbines "where the center of the tower is within a distance of 1.25 times
the total WECS height from any lot line."
Downwind Setback
The WECS Ordinance includes a "Downwind Setback" requirement that prohibits
locating wind turbines "where the center of the tower is within a distance of five (5)
Whitewater Ranch Wind Project Report 7 December 20, 2016 30
rotor diameters from a lot line that is perpendicular to and downwind of, or within forty-
five (45) degrees of perpendicular to and downwind of, the dominant wind direction."
At 337 feet, the rotor diameter of the proposed wind turbine would require a Downwind
Setback of 1,685 feet.
As shown on Figure 2, a small portion of the Downwind Setback encroaches on
undeveloped land that is part of the Whitewater Rest Area south of Interstate 10, along
a small portion of the Union Pacific rail line, and on portions of Wendy Road.
Interstate 10 and Highway 1 1 1 Scenic Setbacks
Two major regional thoroughfares, Interstate 10 and Highway 1 11, bound the north and
west sides of the Project Site. The proposed wind turbine is located 1,152 feet from
Interstate 10 and 1,504 feet from Highway 111. The WECS Ordinance prohibits locating
wind turbines "where the center of the tower is within five hundred (500) feet of
Interstate 10," and "where the center of the tower is within three thousand four hundred
seventy-two (3,472) feet (two-thirds (2/3) mile) of State Highway 1 1 1."
The WECS Ordinance allows these scenic setbacks to be reduced, however, if "the
characteristics of the surrounding property eliminate or substantially reduce
considerations of scenic value." The Project Site is currently surrounded by uses that
substantially reduce its scenic value. Visual simulations have been completed for the
Project from multiple vantage points. The visual simulations confirm that the surrounding
area is already highly developed with similar wind turbines and the eligible scenic
highways in the area would not be adversely impacted by the incremental addition of
one wind turbine. See the Project's Environmental Assessment for a more detailed
analysis of the Project's potential impacts to scenic vistas or scenic highways.
SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the Whitewater Ranch Wind
Project and is included as Attachment A. The EA analyzed the potential effects of the
proposed Project including impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, land use, noise, parking, population and
housing, public safety, public utilities, traffic and circulation, and water quality and
drainage. Based on the analysis contained in the EA and the mitigation measures it
incorporates into the proposed Project, no adverse impacts to environmental or cultural
resources are anticipated.
SECTION 5: FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
The Project proponent shall be responsible for all costs associated with the off-site utility
infrastructure improvements required for the proposed Project. No traffic related fiscal
impacts are anticipated, and as described in the EA, the proposed Project may
generate additional demand for fire and police protection services; however, such
demand is expected to be minimal and not require additional emergency services
beyond those that currently exist.
Whitewater Ranch Wind Project Report 8 December 20, 2016 31
ATTACHMENT A
(Whitewater Ranch Wind Project Environmental Assessment)
32
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAMLLA INDIANS
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
�cAHU1��P�
1. Project Title: Whitewater Ranch Wind Project
2. Contact/Phone No: Margaret E. Park, Director of Planning &Natural Resources(760) 883-1326
3. Project Location: The proposed Whitewater Ranch Wind Project ("Project") is located west of Tipton Road,
between Interstate 10 to the north, an active ranch to the east, Highway 111 to the west, and the Union Pacific
Railroad to the south, on approximately 83 acres of primarily vacant Tribal Trust land located within Section 9,
Township 3 South, Range 3 East, of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian ("Project Site," see Exhibits A and B);
nine outdoor advertising displays are currently situated along the northern and western edges of the Project Site.
4. Assessor's Parcel Number: 516-070-022
5. Address: 13-941 Tipton Rd,Whitewater, CA 92282
6. General Plan Designation: Desert (1 du/10 ac), Palm Springs General Plan
7. Zoning: Tribal Enterprise,Ague Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ("Tribe") Land Use Ordinance
8. Description of Project: The Project consists of the construction and operation of one (1) 3.0 MW General
Electric wind turbine mounted on a steel tubular-shaped tower. The wind turbine will be up to 448 feet in overall
height, as measured from the ground to the top of the blade at the 12 o'clock position, with a rotor diameter of 338
feet. The proposed location of the turbine is depicted on Exhibit B.
The point of interconnection to the power grid will be at the existing Poppet Flats Circuit located north of Interstate
10 from the Project Site. The electrical transmission lines connecting the wind turbine to Poppet Flat Circuit will
be located primarily underground, within existing public rights-of-way or private utility easements (see Exhibit B).
The Poppet Flats Circuit currently serves the area north of 1-10 and has sufficient reserve capacity for this Project.
The Project will also include a temporary construction laydown area next to the turbine and the delivery and
temporary storage of the turbine components (towers, nacelles, blades, etc.).
9. Surrounding Land Uses & Setting: The Project Site is situated.on vacant Tribal Trust land within the City of
Palm Springs. Surrounding land uses consist of vacant land, the Union Pacific Railroad and regional electrical
transmission lines to the south, vacant and ranch land to the east, Highway 111 and vacant land to the west, and
Interstate 10 and vacant land to the north.
10. Other Public Agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement): Bureau of Indian Affairs, California Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
and Riverside County Flood Control District.
Page 1 of 23
Ver:J 3'
P CA!/E4, . ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
��
The environmental factors checked below would potentially be affected by this project,
v involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
�CAHUI��P�
❑ Aesthetics ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise
❑ Biological Resources ❑ Population &Housing
❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Public Services
❑ Geological Problems ❑ Recreation
❑ Hazards ❑ Transportation/Circulation
❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Utilities&Service Systems
❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Water
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a FINDING OF ❑
NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT(FONSI)will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached form have been added
to the project. A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT(FONSI)will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL ❑
IMPACT STATEMENT(EIS)is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect; 1) ❑
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document, pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached form, if the effect
is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant if not mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT(EIS)is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be ❑
a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects(a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIS, pursuant to applicable standards and(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIS,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are proposed upon the proposed project.
Signature Date
MA2GAlLt= r PACK
Printed Name
Page 2 of 23
Ver: 4/13
34
CA(/e# EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
�CAHUI��P�
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES: POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
1. AESTHETICS
Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic affect? ❑ ❑ p ❑
c) Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ p ❑
1-10 and HWY 111 are listed as "State Eligible' scenic highways per the Palm Springs and Riverside County General
Plans. Visual simulations have been completed for the Project from multiple vantage points (see Exhibit C). These depict
the Project using standard methods of estimation for size and perspective of the turbine. The Project will have one red
flashing light on the top of the Wind Turbine pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements. The visual
simulations confirm that the surrounding area is already highly developed with similar wind turbines and the eligible scenic
highways in this area will not be adversely impacted by the incremental addition of one wind turbine.
II. AIR QUALITY
Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ❑ p ❑ ❑
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ p
concentrations?
c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ p
number of people?
Environmental Setting
Regional Air Quality
Project Site is located at the eastern edge of the San Gorgonio Pass area, an area that is known for having high
sustained winds and a prime location for wind energy development. This area is also part of the Salton Sea Air Basin
(SSAB), within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Air quality conditions in the area are
monitored by a SCAQMD monitoring station located at 590 East Racquet Club Road, Palm Springs, California,
approximately nine miles east of the Project Site.
Regional and Federal Standards
The State of California and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have established ambient air quality
standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants based on their health impacts. The seven air pollutants are: ground-level
ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), particulate matter with a diameter of 10
microns or less (PMio), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The State of California has also
set limits for four additional pollutants: sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. All
of the state and federal standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the general population with a
reasonable margin of safety.
The EPA is responsible for the implementation Of the Clean Air Act on Tribal lands; state and local agencies, such as the
California Air Resources Board (CARB), SCAQMD, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments(CVAG), do not
Page 3 of 23
Ver: 4G,13
cfaciF�T�
�CHHUI��P�
have jurisdiction. However, although not required to do so for this Project, the Tribe will voluntarily comply with SCAQMD
air quality regulations. This voluntary compliance does not include submission of the Tribe to SCAQMD authority or the
payment of any fees to SCAQMD.
Regional Meteorology
Air quality in the Coachella Valley is also affected by atmospheric conditions, such as wind speed, wind direction,
temperature, and rainfall. The climate in the Coachella Valley is largely caused by its terrain and geographical location,
which is characterized by hot summer days and mild winters with low average precipitation. The Coachella Valley is
bordered by the San Jacinto, Santa Rosa, and San Bernardino Mountains and is part of the Whitewater River watershed
that drains into the Salton Sea. The highest peaks in the surrounding mountains are Mt. San Jacinto at 10,804 feet and
Mt. San Gorgonio at 11,499 feet. Elevations on the valley floor range from 1,600 feet above sea level at the west end of
the valley near Palm Springs, down to 250 feet below sea level at the Salton Sea.
Annual temperature variation in the Coachella Valley is extreme, with occasional winter lows in the mid-20's (in degrees
Fahrenheit), and occasional summer highs in the mid-120s; the mean annual temperature is 74°F. The closest
climatological station is located at the Palm Springs International Airport. The monthly average maximum temperature
recorded at this station ranges from 69.6°F in January to 108.3°F in July, with an annual average maximum of 88.7°F.
The monthly average minimum temperature recorded at this station ranges from 42.1°F in January to 74.8°F in July with
an annual average minimum of 57.0°F.
Rainfall is extremely limited, with average annual precipitation rates of one to two inches. Most rainfall occurs during the
winter months, although there is a monsoonal season during mid-summer that can result in high-intensity rains, producing
flash floods and severe erosion. Average monthly rainfall at the Palm Springs International Airport monitoring station
varied from 1.14 inches in January to 0.20 inches in July and September, with an average annual total of only 5.53
inches.
Seasonal winds can also be a concern in some regions of the Coachella Valley. Windstorms most frequently occur in the
late spring and can cause extensive damage to unprotected soils, plants, structures, and vehicles. Airborne dust carried
by these winds can compromise air quality and respiratory health; as a result, SCAQMD has implemented special rules
for dust control in the Coachella Valley (Rule 430.1: Fugitive Dust Control Requirements For Coachella Valley Sources)
that protects the public health from the effects of airborne dust while still considering the natural windstorms that occur
frequently.
Regional Air Quality Management Plan
SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for formulating and
implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)for the SSAB. About every four years, SCAQMD prepares a new
AQMP, updating the previous plan and its 20-year horizon. SCAQMD adopted the current 2012 AQMP on December 7,
2012, and describes it as a regional and multiagency effort (Le., involving the SCAQMD Governing Board, CARB, SCAG,
and EPA). State and federal planning requirements include developing control strategies, attainment demonstration,
reasonable further progress, and maintenance plans. The 2012 AQMP also contains "an update on the air quality status
of the Salton Sea Air Basin ... in the Coachella Valley, a discussion of the emerging issues of ultrafine particle and near-
roadway exposures, an analysis of the energy supply and demand issues that face the Basin and their relationship to air
quality" (SCAQMD, 2012). CARS approved the 2012 AQMP and incorporated it into its State Implementation Plan (SIP)
on January 25, 2013.
Methodology and Analysis
The guidelines and emissions thresholds established by SCAQMD in its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air
Quality Handbook are based on the attainment status of the SSAB with regard to air quality standards for specific criteria
pollutants. Because the concentration standards were set by the EPA at a level that protects public health with an
adequate margin of safety, these emissions thresholds are regarded as conservative and may overstate an individual
project's contribution to health risks.
Page 4 of 23
Ver: 4/13
36
QVJP CAI 64
AHua
The following table shows the emissions thresholds for each of the criteria pollutants that SCAQMD has established for
the SSAB:
Table 1, SCAQMD Mass Daily Emissions Thresholds
Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase
ROCS 75lbs/da 55lbs/da
CO 550lbs/da 550lbs/da
NOx 100lbs/da 55lbs/da
VOC 75lbs/da 55lbs/da
Sox 150lbs/da 150lbs/da
PM10 150lbs/da 150lbs/da
PM2.s 55lbs/da 55lbs/da
Lead 3lbs/da 3lbs/da
Source: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/scagmd-air-quality-
sign ificance-thresholds.pdf
Greenhouse Gasses
Greenhouse gases (GHG), including CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and 03, are released during the
combustion of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, etc., and lead to an increase in the GHG effect. GHGs are present in
the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources or formed by secondary chemical reactions taking place in the
atmosphere. However, in the last 200 years, substantial quantities of GHGs have been released into the atmosphere due
to human activities. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural
GHG effect, which is believed to be causing global warming.
Appendix G of the CEQA Checklist includes the following questions pertaining to GHG emissions on a project-specific
level. They state:
"Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?"
The nature of this Project implies that there is no impact for either of these questions. The construction equipment utilized
for the installation of the wind turbine does generate GHG emissions; however, these are short-lived and on a small scale,
and the end result is the installation of alternative energy sources that will contribute to a continued reduction of the use of
fossil fuels in electricity generation. In addition, the installation of the wind turbine does not conflict with any state plans to
reduce GHG. This Project would actually contribute to the implementation of these plans including the state mandate that
33 percent of electricity in California must come from renewable sources by 2020.
Impacts
Approximately three (3) acres will be disturbed during the construction of the wind turbine and local access roads. The
Project was analyzed using CalEEMod (http://www.caleemod.com/CalEEMod), a standardized program that is widely
accepted to determine air quality impacts under CEQA, which calculated expected Project emissions with mitigation
measures. Most of the Project Site will remain open space, only a 30 foot diameter area and a small 10x10 foot pad will
be installed for the wind turbine resulting in a very small area (less than 0.05 acre)covered by permanent structures.
Page 5 of 23
Ver: 4113
37
C JP cAciF,yT�
Ql�CAHU1�`P
Table 2 shows the emissions calculated by the CaIEEMod program using the above acreages and the following
construction schedule:
• Road Installation and pad grading: February 1, 2017 through March 30, 2017;
• Turbine construction: April 1, 2017 through August 30, 2017; and
• Final road restoration and grading: September 1, 2017 through December 30, 2017
Table 2 Project Estimated Emissions
Source Pollutant Emissions, Ibs/da
CO ROC NOx S02 PM10 PMZ5 CO2
Project Construction Emissions, 2.8 0.44 3.9 0.00 0.37 0,04 361
Unmitigated 4
Project Construction Emissions, 2.8 0.44 3.9 0,00 0.04 361
Mitigated 4 0.37
SCAQMD Construction Thresholds 550 75 100 150 150 55 No
Si nificant Construction Emissions? No No No No No No Threshold
Project O eration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
SCAQMD O eration Thresholds 550 55 55 150 150 55 No
Significant Operational Emissions? No No No No No No Threshold
With the incorporation of certain mitigation measures such as water applications and adherence to the Coachella Valley
Fugitive Dust Control Rule 403.1, the Project does not exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds (see Exhibit E,
CalEEMod run).
Mitigation
The following mitigation measures were included in CaIEEMod to limit particulate matter emissions during construction:
• Water exposed surfaces at least three(3)times per day;
• Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roadways; and
• Manage dust at each entry to the site.
The following mitigation measure is intended to reduce NO2 emissions from the equipment used during Construction:
• Restrict idling time to 15 minutes or less.
Table 2 and Exhibit E shows that the mitigated Project construction emissions will not exceed the SCAQMD construction
threshold in any of the seven air pollutant categories. Therefore, with the implementation of the above mitigation
measures, which are more completely described in Section XVIII, no adverse impacts on air quality are anticipated.
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES: POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
III. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats ❑ x❑ ❑ ❑
(including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
and birds)?
Page 6 of 23
Ver: 4/13
38
�°JP cAc,••F�T�
�CAHUI��P
b) Locally designated, native species (e.g. palm trees, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
mesquite, etc)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. palm, cacti ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑
or creosote oasis, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat(e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ❑ ❑ ❑ x❑
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ x❑
Environmental Setting
The vegetation community occurring within the Project Site has been mapped as Sonoran creosote brush scrub, the most
widespread vegetation type in the Colorado Desert, and it is specifically comprised of medium- and large-sized creosote
(Larrea tridentata) shrubs with little vegetation in between. The Project Site contains low quality habitat in an area that
has experienced extensive fragmentation due to Interstate 10, Highway 111, regional electrical transmission lines, and the
Union Pacific Railroad. It has been impacted by occasional off-road vehicle activity and there are several dirt roads that
provide access to the nine outdoor advertising displays situated along its northern and western edges. A 20-inch
underground petroleum pipeline crosses the southern portion of the Project Site from southeast to northwest, and two
underground natural gas lines cross the northern portion from southeast to northwest.
The Project Site is located at the eastern edge of the San Gorgonio Pass area, an acknowledged wildlife corridor between
the Peninsular and Transverse mountain ranges, where wildlife are known to use the underpasses below Interstate 10
and Highway 111 to migrate between the two. Located directly north of the Project Site is an underpass below Interstate
10 for Cottonwood Canyon Wash; however, this underpass is unlikely to be used as a wildlife corridor because
Cottonwood Canyon Wash terminates at the Project Site, which has been cutoff and isolated from the rest of the San
Gorgonio Pass area by Union Pacific Railroad to the south, Highway 111 to the west, and Whitewater Ranch to the east
(see Exhibit D). Conversely, the Whitewater and Stubbe Canyon Washes located approximately one to two miles east
and west of the Project Site provide clear and unobstructed connectivity between the two mountain ranges.
Cottonwood Canyon Wash is a desert ephemeral tributary that has been improved by the Riverside County Flood Control
District with a concrete channel beginning approximately one mile north of Interstate 10. This channel carries stormwater
runoff under the Interstate and onto the Project Site where it terminates. Cottonwood Canyon Wash is a first-order stream
located within the Whitewater River watershed; however, there is no riparian vegetation associated with it, and because it
terminates at the Project Site, this wash does not impact the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the closest
Traditional Navigable Waterway (Salton Sea). Lacking a significant nexus, Cottonwood Canyon Wash does not qualify as
a Water of the United States based on the criteria established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; therefore, a Clean
Water Act Section 404 Permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification are not required for this Project.
Since the Project is located on Tribal Trust land, it is subject to the requirements of the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan
(THCP). The Project Site is located within the Valley Floor Planning Area (VFPA) and the following THCP covered
species have the potential to occur Desert Tortoise (Federal Threatened), Burrowing owl (Bird of Conservation Concern),
Palm Springs pocket mouse, Palm Springs ground squirrel (Federal Candidate for Listing), Coachella Valley Jerusalem
cricket, Coachella Valley Milk-vetch (Federal Endangered), and Le Conte's Thrasher(Bird of Conservation Concern). In
lieu of focused species surveys, presence will be assumed for all covered species that have potential to occur within the
Project Site.
In addition to the species covered by the THCP, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identified concerns in a
comment letter dated June 17, 2011, about the potential for the proposed wind turbine to affect Golden Eagles (Aquila
chrysaetos) and migratory birds. Subsequently, the USFWS released voluntary Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines
("Guidelines,' dated March 23, 2012) in response to increasing wind energy development United States, which "use a
'tiered approach' for assessing potential adverse effects to species of concern and their habitat" (USFWS, 2012). The
Page 7 of 23
Ver: `h
QV�P CN E4T(�
CAHU1�P
following paragraphs address the concerns raised in the USFWS comment letter and the issues/questions identified
under Tiers 1 and 2 of the Guidelines.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the
Interior, from "taking" golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The BGEPA defines "take' as "pursue, shoot,
shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." This species is known to occur in woodlands,
savannahs, agricultural lands, and at the edge of desert habitats, where it preys primarily on large rodents and
lagomorphs. Golden eagles produce between 1-3 eggs during their breeding season, which occurs from late January
through August. (CDFW, 2016).
During Feld surveys conducted by Philip Unitt, Curator, Department of Birds and Mammals, San Diego Natural History
Museum and others from December 6 through December 10, 2010, a pair of Golden Eagles were seen near the
Whitewater Rest Stop. An email correspondence from Mr. Unitt dated May 31, 2011, indicated they most likely drifted
over from nearby Chino Canyon, where Jeff Lincer, Research Director, Wildlife Research Institute, Inc. told Mr. Unitt the
pair nests. There are two other known occurrences of Golden Eagles approximately five miles northeast of the Project
Site. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)occurrence#9 is near the Whitewater Trout Farm; this sighting was
recorded in 1987. The second CNDDB occurrence (occurrence# 267) is located near Windy Point, about 2 miles south
of Whitewater Hill (CNDDB, 2016).
Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA), it is illegal for people to "take" migratory birds, their eggs, feathers or nests.
Take is defined in the MBTA to include any means or in any manner, any attempt at hunting, pursuing, wounding, killing,
possessing or transporting any migratory bird, nest, egg, or part thereof. Studies by McCrary et al. in 1983 and 1984
estimated that 69 million birds migrate through the Coachella Valley annually. The study by McCray at al. in 1983
identified that the mean altitude above ground level of all passerine migratory flights in the Whitewater area was 380
meters (1,247 feet) above ground level. The filed surveys conducted by Mr. Unitt in December 2010 identified 'one flock
of Canada Geese and a few flocks of California Gulls high overhead flying west," supporting the migratory altitudes
recorded in the 1983 McCrary at al. study.
The study by McCrary at al, in 1986 estimated that 6,800 birds were killed annually at the San Gorgonio Pass Wind
Resource Area (WRA) based on 38 dead birds (passerines) found while monitoring nocturnal migrants. Considering the
high number of passerines migrating through the area relative to the numer of passerine fatalities, the authors of the 1986
study concluded that this level of fatality was biologically insignificant(McCrary at al., 1986).
Studies conducted by Mudry (2006), Anderson et al. (2005), and Chatfield et al. (2009), provide information about impacts
to birds from other wind farms in the area. The results of these studies indicate that avian impacts, especially towards
raptors, have been low in the San Gorgonio Pass WRA compared to other WRAs in California (e.g. Altamont Pass).
Anderson et al. (2005)conducted an analysis of avian activity patterns and mortality in the San Gorgonio Pass WRA and
estimated an unadjusted raptor fatality rate of 0.006 fatalities per turbine per year, and noted that this is significantly lower
than estimated rates from the Altamont Pass and Tehachapi Pass WRAs.
Avian and bat mortality studies conducted at the Dillon Wind Energy Facility containing 45 wind turbines, located north of
Interstate 10 and east of Highway 62, identified 45 bird fatalities comprising 24 species and 21 bat fatalities comprising
five species during 471 standard carcass surveys (Chatfield et al., 2009). The authors of this study estimated a mortality
rate of 4.71 fatalities per turbine per year; however, contrary to the results of Anderson at al. (2005), no raptor mortalities
were observed. Based on the results of the above mentioned surveys, the most likely birds to be impacted by the
proposed Project are songbird species migrating during the spring and fall.
Impacts
The development of the Project Site will result in the loss of three (3) acre of Sonoran creosote brush scrub, which is not
considered significant. Other direct impacts include construction related activities that would disturb wildlife in the vicinity
of the Project. Generally, these temporary impacts are also considered less than significant; however, during bird nesting
Page 8 of 23
Ver: 4/13
40
�CAHU1�s
season construction has the potential to disrupt nesting activities. Disruption of actively nesting Golden Eagles and
migratory bird species could occur unless preventive mitigation measures are implemented.
Even though the wind turbine proposed to be constructed as part of this Project will have similar blade tip speeds
compared to the smaller turbines in the vicinity, the wind turbine will have fewer rotations per minute. Lower rotation rates
may be partly responsible for the lower raptor collision rates observed at most wind facilities where larger turbine have
been installed (NAS, 2007). Additionally, the turbine will be well below the average passerine migratory flight altitude in
the Whitewater area; therefore, based on previous bird and bat surveys in the San Gorgonio Pass WRA, up to five
fatalities per turbine per year could be expected during the operation of the Project. Given the large number of birds and
bats in the San Gorgonio Pass WRA, this rate of mortality is not expected to be significant.
Mitigation
Impacts to sensitive species will be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of the THCP. Projects in the VFPA are
also required to pay the THCP Mitigation Fee that will be used to acquire and manage Habitat Preserve lands. To
prevent the take of nesting Golden Eagles and migratory bird species, bird nesting surveys in accordance with U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service protocols shall be conducted prior to any clearing or grubbing activity. With the implementation of
these mitigation measures, which are more completely described in Section XVIII, impacts to biological resources are not
expected to be significant.
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES. POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ x❑ ❑ ❑
c) Affect historical resources? (3 ❑ ❑ ❑x
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, which ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
potential impact area?
The Project Site is located on Tribal Trust land, on the south half of the southeast quarter of Section 9, Township 3 South,
Range 3 East, of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian. Surrounding land uses consist of vacant land, the Union Pacific
Railroad and regional electrical transmission lines to the south, vacant and ranch land to the east, Highway 111 and
vacant land to the west, and Interstate 10 and vacant land to the north.
A search of the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) Registry indicated one archaeological assessment has been
conducted on the Project Site and one cultural resource has been identified on the subject property. Located within one
mile of the Project area there are 23 previously recorded cultural resources and 33 previous field investigations.
Considering the above information, the THPO has recommended mitigation measures to avoid potentially significant
impacts to cultural resources; these mitigation measures are included in Section XVIII.
Page 9 of 23
Ver: 4/13
41
cAtiey'�
';"CAHUI�P
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the proposal result in or expose people to
potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
b) Seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ p
d) Landslides or mudflows? ❑ ❑ ❑ IN
e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil ❑ ❑ ❑ p
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
f) Subsidence of the land? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
g) Expansive soils? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
h) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
Environmental Setting
The Project Site is located in the San Gorgonio Pass area, an east-west trending topographically low-lying area between
the San Bernardino and San Jacinto mountains at the western edge of the Coachella Valley. Located at the northernmost
extent of the Salton Trough, the Coachella Valley is an active rift valley. Formed by rifting along the East Pacific Rise, the
structure of the Salton Trough today is largely a product of the ongoing tectonic activity within the San Andreas Fault
system, which is located approximately six miles to the northeast of the Project Site.
Fault Rupture
Fault rupture refers to the fissuring and offset of the ground surface along a rupturing fault during an earthquake (City of
Palm Springs General Plan EIR, 2007). The Alquist-Priolo Act was enacted in 1972 and set forth fault zones where
development constraints are implemented in an effort to minimize impacts from fault rupture. The Project Site is not
located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no mapped faults or lineaments possibly associated with
active faulting have been identified within or trending toward the property.
Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
The Project could experience strong seismic ground shaking associated with the San Andreas fault and regional active
faults such as the San Jacinto fault. The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no
mapped faults or lineaments possibly associated with active faulting have been identified within or trending toward the
property.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction typically occurs within the upper 50 feet of the surface, when saturated, loose, fine-to-medium grained soils
(sand and silt) are present. Earthquake shaking suddenly increases pressure in the water that fills the pores between soil
grains, causing the soil to lose strength and behave as a liquid (City of Palm Springs General Plan EIR, 2007). According
Figure 5.64 of the General Plan EIR and the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared for the Project Site by Earth
Systems Global, Inc. dated July 12, 2011, the potential for liquefaction to occur at the Project Site is considered low as
groundwater depths in this area are greater than 50 feet.
Page 10 of 23
Ver: 4/13
42
cAtiF,y��
q�CAHU I
Landslides
The potential for landslides (slope failure) at the Project Site would be considered low, since it is relatively flat and not in
close proximity to any steep slopes.
Subsidence
Ground subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of the ground surface with little or no horizontal movement. This
phenomenon is associated with the over-extraction of groundwater in the Coachella Valley. The prevention of this type of
subsidence has been implemented in water management plans of water districts in the valley. Considering the
management of groundwater conservation and recharge that is implemented by the Coachella Valley Water District, the
potential for this type of subsidence at the Project Site is low.
Soils
Soils at the Project Site are alluvial sand and gravel,which typically decrease in grain size with distance from the mouth of
canyons (City of Palm Springs General Plan EIR, 2007). Alluvial sediments found in the valley and canyon areas of the
City, similar to those at the Project Site, are largely composed of granular soils such as silty sand, sand, gravel and
boulders. These soils are also typically in the "very low" to "low" range of expansion potential (City of Palm Springs
General Plan EIR, 2007).
Impacts
Because the Project is a wind power generation facility in a thinly populated area exhibiting low relief, and not a more
Critical structure such as a petroleum pipeline or an earth dam, the risks to human safety related to seismic hazards, such
as a tower collapse or a landslide, are minimal. The Project will adhere to the recommendations made in the
Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Earth Systems Global, and the construction of the wind turbine will be
subject to Tribal Building Code standards. The Pro]ect's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will also address soil
erosion and incorporate erosion control measures.
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES: POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
VI. HAZARDS
Would the proposal involve:
a) Possible interference with an emergency response plan ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
or emergency evacuation plan?
b) The creation of any health hazard or potential health ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
hazard?
c) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
hazards?
d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush? ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑
Environmental Setting
The Project Site is open desert terrain with nine outdoor advertising displays situated along its northern and western
edges. A 20-inch underground petroleum pipeline crosses the southern portion of the Project Site from southeast to
northwest, and two underground natural gas lines cross the northern portion from southeast to northwest. Surrounding
uses include Interstate 10 to the North, an active ranch to the west containing no habitable dwellings, the Union Pacific
Railroad to the South, and Highway 111 to the west.
Page 11 of 23
Ver: 4113
43
ctaciF,yT�
9`C `P
AHUI�
According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control's Envirostor database, the Project is not located on a
hazardous materials site and is not located near any such sites. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment(ESA) Report
was prepared by Earth Systems Southwest(ESSW) on July 12, 2011, that evaluated the Project Site for the presence of
Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) related to current or past uses, handling, storage, or disposal of hazardous
materials or petroleum products on or near the Project Site. The ESA Report found no evidence of on-site manufacture,
storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or RECs other than minor amounts and concentrations of common debris
along the perimeter of the Project Site. Since no RECs were identified, the ESA Report determined that further
investigations were not warranted (ESSW, 2011).
Impacts
During construction of the Project, small quantities of hazardous and potentially hazardous chemicals will be used
including gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, hydraulic fluid, solvents, cleaners, sealants, welding flux, various lubricants,
paint, and paint thinner. Construction personnel will be trained to handle these materials properly; however, small spills
may inadvertently occur. The potential environmental effects from any spill are expected to be limited to small areas of
contaminated soil. If a spill occurs, any contaminated soil will be placed into barrels or trucks for offsite disposal as a
hazardous waste.
During operation of the Project, the turbine lubricants used in the turbine gearbox may be potentially hazardous; however,
the gearbox will be sealed to prevent lubricant leakage and it will be sampled periodically and tested to confirm that
gearbox lubricant retains adequate lubricating properties. When lubricants have degraded to the point where they no
longer contain sufficient lubricating properties, the gearbox will be drained and new lubricant will be added. The sealed
transformers also contain oil for heat dissipation; however, they will not be subject to periodic inspection and the oil does
not need replacement.
Construction equipment and operation/maintenance vehicles will be properly maintained at all times to minimize leaks of
motor oils, hydraulic fluids, and fuels. To minimize the potential for harmful releases through spills or contaminated runoff,
chemicals will be stored in tanks or drums located within secondary containment areas. Use of extremely hazardous
materials is not anticipated. Storage and use of hazardous materials will be subject to a Hazardous Waste Management
Plan approved by the Tribe, and additional spill control and cleanup requirements will be specified in the Project's Storm
Water Pollution Prevention and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plans.
Upon installation, the turbine will be setback at least 1.25 times its overall height from Interstate 10, Highway 111, and the
Union Pacific Railroad, and outside of the easements/safety setbacks established for the underground petroleum pipeline
and two underground natural gas lines. In the unlikely event that the wind turbine suffers a catastrophic event and
collapse, the 1.25 safety setback is intended to protect the adjacent roadways and railroad from being impacted. Being
underground, both the petroleum pipeline and two natural gas lines would be shielded from such an event.
The closest facility where people could be exposed to any potential health hazard from the Project is a freeway rest stop
located approximately 1,700 feet to the northeast of the proposed turbine location. The nearest residences are located
over 5,000 feet away, separated from the Project Site by Interstate 10 and Highway 111. Given these distances, neither
the rest stop nor the residences will be exposed to potential health hazards as a result of the Project.
Since the proposed wind turbine is over 200 feet high, the Project will also be subject to review by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). Through its Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460.1), the FAA will review the
Project prior to construction and it is expected that a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation will be issued by that
agency.
Page 12 of 23
Ver: 4/13
44
QV�P CAI FE4%
�CAHU0.�P�
vll. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposal:
❑ ❑ ❑ o
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
Environmental Setting
The Project is situated within a proven wind energy resource area on undeveloped land bounded by the Interstate 10
Freeway, Highway 111, the Union Pacific Railroad, and an active ranch. The closest residential community is located
over 5,000 feet away, north of Interstate 10, and there are other wind farms located north, east, and west of the Project
Site. The Tribal Land Use Ordinance designates the Project Site as Tribal Enterprise, a land use designation intended to
support the economic development of the Tribe. The Project Site is not located inside any of the conservation areas
established by the THCP.
Impacts
The proposed Project would not conflict with the Tribal Land Use Ordinance or THCP, and it is compatible with existing
land uses in the vicinity which include wind farms.
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES: POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
Vill. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
b) Result in the loss of availability of any known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑p
resource that would be a future value to the region and
residents of the community?
Environmental Setting
The California Geological Survey Mineral Resources Project classifies lands throughout the state that contain regionally
significant mineral resources. The classification of mineral resources is based on geologic factors and requires that the
State Geologist classify mineral resources areas as Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ's), Scientific Resource Zones or
Identified Resource Areas. The Project Site is located within the MRZ-3 Zone, which is an area where the significance of
mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data (City of Palm Springs General Plan, 2007).
Page 13 of 23
Ver: 4/13
45
Qer _'f4l�ct-%PCAL/
S, CA
HU
Impacts
The proposed Project would not result in the loss of any known mineral resources given the small area of disturbance
associated with the construction of the wind turbine. The Project is also not located near any locally-important mineral
resource recovery sites and would not interfere with any such mining operations.
IX. NOISE
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ x❑ ❑
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
Environmental Setting
The Project Site is bounded by Interstate 10 to the north, the Union Pacific Railroad to the south, Highway 111 to the
west, and an active ranch to the east; the ranch contains no habitable dwellings. Most of the ambient noise in the Project
vicinity is generated by the high winds in the San Gorgonio Pass area, traffic along Interstate 10 and Highway 111, and
frequent trains traveling along the Union Pacific Railroad. The closest facility where people would be exposed to any
potential noise generated from the Project is a freeway rest stop located approximately 1,700 feet to the northeast of the
proposed turbine location. The closest sensitive noise receptor to the Project Site is a small residential community
located to the northwest with the closest residence located over 5,000 feet away, separated from the proposed wind
turbine by Interstate 10 and Highway 111.
Being located adjacent to the south and north sides of Interstate 10, and less than a quarter mile from a heavily traveled
railroad track, the rest stop and the residential community nearest to the Project Site are exposed to significant traffic and
railroad noise. The noise contour maps included in the Noise Element of the Palm Spring General Plan indicate that
traffic and/or railroad noise levels are above 65 dB CNEL at the rest stop and the nearest residence to the Project Site.
Impacts
Noise during construction would be generated by equipment and vehicles necessary for the installation of the wind
turbine. The construction period is expected to last only a couple of weeks and construction activity would be limited to
7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. The following guidelines will be followed during construction to minimize
short-term noise impacts:
• All noise-producing construction and operation equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall
be equipped with mufflers in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specification; and
• The use of horns,whistles, electronic alarms, sirens or alarm bells shall be for safety warning purposes only.
The maximum noise level that will be generated the wind turbine is calculated to be 105 dBA (at the Nacelle) operating in
the highest noise emission level mode. At this maximum sound level, noise emanating from the wind turbine would be
approximately 40 dBA at the rest stop and 31 dBA at the nearest residence,which levels are equivalent to a quiet office or
suburban residential area. However, this additional noise generated by the wind turbine would likely be drowned out by
the adjacent freeway and railroad; therefore, the Project is not expected to significantly impact existing noise levels.
X. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
projections?
Page 14 of 23
Ver: 4/13
46
cAciF,y��
Q�CAHF
b) Include substantial growth in an area either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
indirectly(e.g. through projects in an underdeveloped
area or extension of a major infrastructure)?
c) Displace any existing housing, especially affordable ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
housing?
Environmental Setting
The proposed Project involves the construction and operation of a wind turbine on undeveloped land within a proven wind
energy resource area. It is anticipated that approximately 15 workers per day will be required, on average, for
construction of the Project over a four week period. It is anticipated that construction workers would be hired from the
local area. Up to two employees will work at the Project Site as needed to maintain the turbine during the life of the
Project. These positions are specialized and would not necessarily be filled from the local work force.
Impacts
Because the Project is not residential in nature, does not improve or create any new public roads, and a majority of its
employees would be hired from the local workforce, the Project would not induce population growth in the area. The
Project would result in additional electricity supplied to the power grid; however, this increase is in response to Riverside
County's growing demand for power and the state mandate that 33 percent of electricity in California must come from
renewable sources by 2020. The Project would not displace any housing or people.
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES: POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
X1. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered government services in any of
the following areas:
a) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑
b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑
c) Tribal Rangers? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
d) Tour Groups? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
e) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
f) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ ❑ x❑ ❑
g) Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ❑
Environmental Setting
The Project Site is currently served by the Palm Springs Fire (PSFD) and Police (PSPD) Departments. Access to the
Project Site during construction and operation would be from Wendy Road via Tipton Road, and either Interstate 10
and/or Highway 111.
The PSFD provides fire, paramedic, and emergency services within the corporate boundaries of the City, and the nearest
station to the Project Site is Station #3, located at 590 E. Racquet Club. Station #3 has one 1,500 gpm (gallons per
minute) engine and one 1,500 gpm reserve engine that are regularly staffed (Blumberg, 2016). The PSFD is an
Page 15 of 23
Ver: 4/13
47
e°JP cAciF,yr�
8;
AH!
emergency response force with capabilities to provide fire and rescue operations, paramedic emergency medical service,
Aircraft rescue firefighting, swift water rescue, trench rescue, low angle rescue, and hazardous materials incident
response (PSFD, 2016). Additionally, the City maintains mutual and automatic aid agreements with other local
jurisdictions such as Riverside County and Cathedral City (City of Palm Springs General Plan, 2007).
Located at 200 South Civic Street, the PSPD would serve the Project with police services. The PSPD approximately 90
sworn police officer positions, which includes the Chief and two Area Lieutenants (City of Palm Springs, 2014). Desired
response times for emergency calls and non-emergency calls are 5 minutes and 30 minutes, respectively, and the PSPD
maintains mutual aid agreements with other local law enforcement agencies in the event of a major incident that exceeds
PSPD's resources (City of Palm Springs General Plan, 2007).
Impacts
The wind turbine to be constructed as part of the proposed Project would be free-standing, painted steel, conical-type
(tubular) structures which is not habitable. Additionally, the turbine is equipped with a central Supervisory Control and
Data Acquisition system. In the event of a fire fault or excess vibration or temperature, the turbine(s) will be halted
immediately, and an alarm condition will be activated in the control system, which will notify first responders. With the
incorporation of these fire safety measures, the Project is not expected to significantly impact fire protection services.
The proposed Project is not anticipated to increase service calls to the PSPD. It is located on Tribal Trust property and
includes the installation of a gated entry point, and access to the Project Site will be restricted to authorized personnel
only.
Construction activities are expected to take a period of four weeks, during which the Project would generate additional
traffic on local access roads as construction workers commute to and from the Project Site. Several large transport trucks
will deliver the wind turbine and crane to the Project Site. These construction related vehicle trips would be short term in
nature and are not expected to significantly impact local roads. Operation and maintenance activities on the wind turbine
would require, on average, less than one daily trip to and from the Project Site and are also not expected to significantly
impact local roads.
XII. RECREATION
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase the demand for other recreational facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑z
The proposed Project involves the construction and operation of a wind turbine on undeveloped land within a proven wind
energy resource area. The Project is not residential and does not include any recreational facilities. Because the Project
is not residential and no substantial permanent employment would be generated, it will not substantially increase the
demand for recreational facilities or affect existing recreational opportunities.
XIII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby ❑ ❑ ❑ px
uses?
Page 16 of 23
Ver: 4/13
48
CpP CALtE4,
�CHHU1`�
d) Insufficient parking capacity on or off-site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians, hikers, bicyclists or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑p
equestrian traffic?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
transportation (e.g. bus turn-outs,jeep tours, hikers,
equestrians)?
g) Other traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑
Environmental Setting
The Project Site is bounded by Interstate 10 to the north, the Union Pacific Railroad to the south, Highway 111 to the
west, and Whitewater Ranch to the east. Access to the Project Site is provided by Wendy Road via Tipton Road, and
either Interstate 10 or Highway 111. Wendy and Tipton Roads are lightly traveled paved undivided two-way roads.
Wendy Road is a dead end street that connects the Project Site to Tipton Road, which provides access to Interstate-10
via the Whitewater Interchange, and Highway 111 via an at-grade crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad just north of the
highway.
Interstate 10 is an eight-lane freeway under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
providing regional access and the movement of goods and vehicles through the Coachella Valley. The freeway currently
carries up to 109,000 vehicles per day northwest of Highway 111 and up to 95,000 trips southeast of Highway 111
(Caltrans, 2014). These traffic volumes indicated that the Interstate is operating at Levels of Services A and B, northwest
and southeast of the Highway 111. Highway 111 is a four-lane expressway currently carrying 18,000 peak vehicle trips
per day south of Interstate 10 at Tramway Drive (Caltrans, 2014). Based on Riverside County standards for a four lane
expressway, Highway 111 is currently operating at LOS A south of Interstate 10.
Impacts
Construction Related
Construction activities are estimated to span a period of four weeks starting in early 2017. During the construction period,
the Project would generate additional traffic on local roads as construction workers commute to and from the Project Site,
construction equipment and building materials are delivered to the Project Site, and the crane and turbine components
are delivered for assembly on-site. Internal trips would also be generated as workers utilize the various pieces of
construction equipment to improve the proposed access roads to the wind turbine, clear temporary work areas, dig
trenches for electrical collection cables, excavate the areas to be used for the foundation, backfill and compact the
excavated areas, pour the reinforced concrete footings, construct the concrete pedestals, attach the towers to support the
turbine and restore temporary work areas.
The Project is expected to generate up to 33 peak hour vehicle trips (or 168 daily trips) to and from the Project Site during
peak construction activities, which are only expected to occur four days out of the four week construction interval. Heavy-
truck deliveries would most likely arrive at the site, off-load, and depart throughout the day. The delivery of the crane and
the wind turbine will also require oversized load permits from Caltrans and the City of Palm Springs. Overall, these
construction related vehicle trips would be short term in nature and are not expected to impact local or regional traffic.
Additional internal truck trips are expected to occur within the Project Site during the various construction activities.
These truck trips would involve the movement of cranes, construction and trade vehicles, dump trucks, concrete trucks,
and water trucks used to control fugitive dust generated by travel over unimproved surfaces. As these trips would remain
entirely within the Project Site, they would not adversely impact roadways in the vicinity of the Project.
Page 17 of 23
Ver: 4/13
49
cauF,yT�
CAHU1��
Operational Traffic
The Project would require up to two employees on an as needed basis for the operation and maintenance of the proposed
wind turbine, which on average is expected to generate less than one daily trip. As a result, Project-related operational
traffic impacts are expected to be less than significant.
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES: POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
XIV. UTILITIES &SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
b) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
e) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑
f) Solid waste disposal? ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑
g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
Environmental Setting
The proposed Project involves the construction and operation of a 3.0 MW wind turbine on undeveloped land within a
proven wind energy resource area. The point of interconnection to the power grid will be at the existing Poppet Flats
Circuit, a short distance to the north Of Whitewater Ranch and 1-10.
There is no infrastructure on the Project Site or in the immediate vicinity for natural gas, water, or sewer service
connections. An improved Riverside County Flood Control District stormwater channel located to the north channels
stormwater runoff from Cottonwood Canyon Wash, a desert ephemeral tributary, under Interstate 10 onto the Project Site
where it terminates. Palm Springs Disposal Services (PSDS) is the authorized waste hauler for the City of Palm Springs.
PSDS provides complete residential, commercial and roll-off trash services as well as recycling services for commercial,
industrial, construction and residential customers.
Impacts
The Project would result in additional electricity supplied to the power grid at the Poppet Flats Circuit, which has sufficient
capacity. This additional supply of clean power would help the state meet its mandate that 33 percent of electricity in
California must come from renewable sources by 2020. The electrical transmission line(s) connecting the wind turbine to
the Poppet Flats Circuit will be located underground, either in public right-of-way or in private utility easements.
During construction, minimal water will be needed for dust Control and other on-site construction uses. No wells will be
drilled for the Project, nor will it require the construction of new or expansion of existing water facilities. All water will be
provided from existing facilities at Whitewater Ranch, which has sufficient capacity and is owned and operated by the
Tribe. During Project operations, water use would be limited to maintenance related activities such as dust control.
Water trucks would be used for these dust control activities.
Page 18 of 23
Ver: 4113
50
QV�P CAc/F4
�r
CAHU
The Project will not require the use of sewer services and would not result in the construction or expansion of wastewater
treatment facilities. Development of the Project would not significantly increase the amount of impervious surfaces since
onsite access roads would be gravel surfaced allowing percolation and infiltration of storm water. Less than 10 percent of
Project Site would be covered with structures and/or gravel roads. The Project would not require the construction of new
or the expansion of existing storm water facilities.
The Project would generate minimal solid waste during its construction and operation, and it will comply with any
applicable federal, state, or local regulations regarding solid waste disposal.
XV. WATER
Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
such as flooding?
b) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
water quality(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
c) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
body?
d) Changes in currents, or the course direction of water ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
movements?
e) Change in quantity of ground water, through direct ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss
of groundwater recharge capability?
f) Altered direction or flow rate of groundwater? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
g) Impacts on the groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
h) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑p
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Environmental Setting
The Project Site is open desert terrain with nine outdoor advertising displays situated along its northern and western
edges. There are no wells or active streams on the Project Site, and it is not located in a Federal Emergency
Management Agency designated 100 or 500 year flood plain.
Impacts
The proposed Project involves the construction and operation of a 3.0 MW wind turbine on undeveloped land within a
proven wind energy resource area. During construction, water will be needed for dust control and other on-site
construction uses. No wells will be drilled for the Project, nor will it require the construction of new or expansion of
existing water facilities. All water will be provided from the existing facilities at Whitewater Ranch, which has sufficient
capacity and is owned and operated by the Tribe. During Project operations, water use would be limited to maintenance
related activities such as dust control. Water trucks would be used for these dust control activities.
Page 19 of 23
Ver: 4/13
51
�CAHUI��
XVI. PRIOR STUDIES, REPORTS, REVIEWS, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORTS, ETC.:
N/A
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES: POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO
SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
INCORPORATED
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project:
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑
the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a wildlife species, cause a wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of rare or endangered plant or animal
species or eliminate important examples of
the major proceeds of native history?
b) Have the potential to achieve short-term, to ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
the disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals?
c) Have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
cumulatively considerable? (i.e, the
incremental effects of the project are
considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, current projects
and/or probable future projects).
d) Have environmental effects,which will cause ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
The proposed wind turbine development is consistent with other uses currently operating within the San Gorgonio Pass.
The addition of one wind turbine to the area is not expected to have a significant impact to the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a wildlife species, cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, or
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. To avoid potentially significant or adverse impacts to the quality of the
environment, the mitigation measures identified in Section XVII will be implemented.
XVIII. Discussion of Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures.
AQ1 Construction Grading: Grading activities shall comply with the SIP for PMio in the Coachella Valley and
SCAQMD Rules 403, Fugitive Dust and 403.1, Supplemental Fugitive Dust Control Requirements for
Coachella Valley Sources. Control measures include, but are not limited to, watering active grading
areas, suspending grading activities when winds exceed 25 miles per hour, and preventing the deposit of
soil and sand on public roadways.
Page 20 of 23
Ver: 4/13
52
SOP CAI E4
CAHF
AQ2 Soil Stabilization: exposed surfaces shall be watered at least three times per day.
AQ3 Vehicle Speed: Vehicle speed on unpaved surfaces shall be limited to 15 mph.
AQ4 Diesel Anti-Idling: Idling of diesel engines shall be restricted to 15 minutes or less.
B1 THCP Mitigation Fee: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project proponent shall pay the THCP
Mitigation Fee that will be used to acquire and manage Habitat Preserve lands.
62 Desert Tortoise and Burrowing Owl Surveys: Prior to any ground or habitat disturbance associated with
the proposed Project, the Project proponent shall conduct protocol survey(s) of the Project Site in
accordance with the requirements of the Field Survey Protocol for Preparing for Any Action That May
Occur Within the Range of the Desert Tortoise, US. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010 Field Season), and
the standards contained in CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012).
B3 Bird Nesting Season: Prior to any ground or habitat disturbance associated with the proposed Project, the
Project proponent shall conduct protocol survey(s)of the Project Site in accordance with the requirements
of the Interim Golden Eagle Inventory and Monitoring Protocols, and other Recommendations, USFWS
(2010)to prevent the take of nesting Golden Eagles and migratory bird species.
C1 Cultural Resource Monitor(s): An Approved Cultural Resource Monitor(s) shall be present during any
survey and/or any ground disturbing activities. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the
Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified (Secretary
of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines) Archaeologist to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a
mitigation plan for submission to the THPO. Please contact the THPO for further information about
Approved Cultural Resource Monitors.
C2 Treatment of Human Remains Policy: Any discoveries of human remains will be subject to the Tribe's
"Treatment of Human Remains Policy" (Tribal Historic Preservation Organization and Policies, June 8,
2004).
XIX. List of Standard Source Materials Referenced in Preparation of the Checklist.
Anderson, R., J. Tom, N. Newmann, W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M. Bourassa, K.J. Bay, and J. Sernka.
2005. Avian Monitoring and Risk Assessment at the Sand Gorgonio Wind Resource Area.
Ague Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Land Use Ordinance. 2013.
Ague Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan. 2010.
Baldwin, B. G. Jed), Goldman, D. . Jed], Kell, D. J., Patterson, R. led], Rosatti, T. J. Jed], Wilken, D. [ed], 2012.
The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California: Second EditionUniversity of California Press. Berkeley
and Los Angeles, CA.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); formerly California Department of Fish and Game). 2016.
California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database. California Department of Fish and
Game, Sacramento, CA.
CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch, "California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) Life History Accounts and
Range Maps". These life history accounts and range maps represent updated versions of the species
Page 21 of 23
Ver: 4/13
53
Q�P cAc�F���
CAHUI��P
information in the three-volume set"California's Wildlife" edited by Zeiner, D.C. at al 1988-1990.
Accessed: October 2016. <http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx>
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Bald Eagles in Califomia. Available at:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Bald-Eagle. Accessed November 8, 2016.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 20014 Traffic Counts. Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/2014all/. Accessed October 11, 2016.
California Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB). November 16, 2016. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
City of Palm Springs. 2007. Palm Springs General Plan.
City of Palm Springs. 2007. Palm Springs General Plan Environmental Impact Report(EIR).
City of Palm Springs. 2014. Palm Springs Police Department Service Report 2014.
City of Palm Springs. Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS) Ordinance. Available at: http://gcode.us/codes/
palmsprings/view.php?topic=11-11_74-11_74_044&highlightWords=wecs&frames=on. Accessed
October 3, 2016.
City of Palm Springs. Noise Ordinance. Available at: http://gcode.us/codes/palmsprngs/view.php?topic=ll-
11_74&highlightWords=Noise&frames=on. Accessed October 3,2016.
Chatfield, A, W. Erickson, and K. Bay. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Study, Dillon Wind-Energy Facility, Riverside
County, California. Unpublished Technical Document Prepared for Iberdrola Renewables. Unpublished
report prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.
Earth Systems Southwest. 2011. Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, APN 516-070-022,
Whitewater Area, Riverside County California.
Judy Blumberg. "Info you Requested is all accurate." Received by John Pimentel, 24 Oct. 2016.
McCrary, M.D., R.L. McKernan, R.E. Landry, W.D. Wagner, and R.W. Schreiber. 1983. Nocturnal Avian
Migration Assessment of the San Gorgonio Wind Resource Study Area, Spring 1982. Report prepared
for Research and Development, Southern California Edison Company.
McCrary, M.D., R.L. McKernan, R.E. Landry, W.D. Wagner, and R.W. Schreiber. 1984. Nocturnal avian
Migration Assessment of the San Gorgonio Wind Resource Study Area, Fall 1982. Report prepared for
Research and Development, Southern California Edison Company.
McCrary, M.D., R.L. McKernan, and R.W. Schreiber. 1986. San Gorgonio Wind Resource Area: Impacts of
Commercial Wind Turbine Generators on Birds, 1985 Data Report. Prepared by Los Angeles County
Natural History Museum for Southern California Edison, Residential and Development, Rosemead.
NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. The National
Academies Press.
Palm Springs Fire Department (PSFD). Palm Springs Fire Department Homepage. 2016. Available at:
http://www.paimspringsca.gov/government/departments/fire-department. Accessed November 16, 2016
Page 22 of 23
Ver: 4/13
54
cAciE���
�CAHF
South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). 2012. Air Quality Management Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines.
Page 23 of 23
Ver: 4/13
55
Al
Subject Parcel !
T5000 t � �
t
a
" G
01)
` dci c
a' San Gorgonio Pass Site Map 0
N r ��
XQ Project Site .
CO Feet
� 1,000 2,000 3,000
D
mFlei aatir L .:;!Si,G6lPmject FflesWfarming-GenemAmxds)SanGorgonio Pass_SifeMap 20151205.mxd
PCC Pole
Existing SCE Po —�—`
#4806322E
as
IF
• r t
� J
g.
r
!
Service Layer Credits:CoVvnQht.Q20T3 Esrt, VTEQ.-tomlh
_J ' Approximate Property Boundary • Agua Caliente 3.0 M W Wind Turbine ���^^�yyy
r JJ- SCE 12KV Poppet Flats Circuit _ Downwind Setback It690') ��
X WO'O&M Roadway Improvements(12'Width,Gravel) - - - Setback Distance(Feet to Property Boundary TT) BieResuurc•Cenauk•nta Inc. N
2 OH Conductors • • • Turbine Access Road
— UG Conductors Feet
00
� 0 500 1,000 2,000
03 Proposed 500'Bore
FOUNDATION
WINDPOWER
Agua Caliente Wind Project Photo Simulations
AP
� t*
t. r
505 Sansome Street,Suite 450,San Francisco,CA 94111
EXHIBIT C 58
FOUNDATION
WINDPOWER
GE 3.0 MW Wind Turbine
337 ft, 103 m
1
279 ft, 85 m
Photo#1 Tipton Road and 110
r ,
a
►°'
a1 �'
{cp _
505 Sansome Street,Suite 450,San Francisco,CA 94111
59
FOUNDATION
WINDPOWER
Photo #2 Whitewater Rest Stop (Northside of 110)
Photo #3 Tamarack Road and Mesquite Road
505 Sansome Street,Suite 450,San Francisco,CA 94111
60
FOUNDATION
WINDPOWER
Photo #4 Snow Creek Community
a — —
�J
T
1
WOO,
.. -.}
v.;
i
ti
Photo#5 Snow Creek Road and 111
n'
F:k'
Y {
{ 4
1 1
505 Sansome Street,Suite 450,San Francisco,CA 94111 61
ti
X Y,r� ,2 f _ �f6�1 fPl ��Ni�,�� +� �e�1�1�1 . y -.^' ` /l i•.
r
U
y� N� '\�
Cc-
Lk
cc
ti A ,L1e
•� � �"i�lt�� �' A Ch
A
EXHIBIT D
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
Agua Caliente ReMat
South Coast AQMD Air District,Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage floor Surface Area. ;PopWatlon
User Defined Industrial 1.00 User Defined Unit 4.00 2,500.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Rural Wind Speed(mis) 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 31
Climate Zone 15 Operational Year 2017
Utility Company Southern California Edison
CO2 Intensity 630.89 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr) (IbIMWhr) (IbIMWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics-
Land Use-Wind Turbine on Uninhabited Lot
Construction Phase-General values from experience building single turbine project
Off-road Equipment- No Demolition Necessary
Trips and VMT-Typical Construction, Single Turbine
On-road Fugitive Dust- Paving right up to very end
Architectural Coating-No Coating
W
EXHIBIT E
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2O13.2.2 Page 2 of 31 Date: 1 O/1212016 8:52 PM
Table Name Colunin Name >Default value Newvalue
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential Exterior 250.00 i 0.00
----------------------9--.__.4.............................. ------------------._._
tblArchilecturalCoatin EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250.00 i 0.00
_____________________ .......4-----------.._._._.._________r_____________________________+_._._______._____.______--
tblArchilecturalCoatin EF_Residential_Exterior 100.00 1 0.00
......................9._.__.y-----------------------------r_____________________________+_.____.__._....-----------
lblArchitecturalCoatin EF_Residential_Interior 50.00 1 0.00
............................. ----------------------------- ------------------------------LandUseSquareFeet 0.00 i 2,500.00
.............................+----------------------------- -----------------------------
tblLandUse LotAcrea a 0.00 i 4.00
_____________________________�.___________9_.._____.____.__ _ +r___________________________ _ .._._._______..__.._____._
tbiOnRoadDust Haulin PercenlPave 100.00 i 99.00
_____________________________�_____.______9_.._____..___.__r_____________________________.t.._.._.______..___._______
tblOnRoadDust Haulin PercenlPave 100.00 99.00
_-------------I-------------- - ------------g.................1------------------------------�-------------------------
tblOnRoad Dust Haulin PercenlPave 100.00 i 99.00
tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercenlPave Y 100.00 -+ 99.00
---------ibl0nRoadDust--------- ------- VendorPercentPave-------r____________100.00__________--+--- -------99.00--_--------
tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 100.00 1 99.00
tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 100.00 1 99.00
.............
lOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 100.00
i
tblProjectCharactenstics OperationalYear 2014 i 2017
___________ __________________ -----------------------------r------------------------------- --------------------------
tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural
'---------------------------- - --------__--9-- -----_.------ ------------------------------ --------------------------
tblTripsAndVMT Haulin Trip Number 0.00 20.00
--'-------------------------y__'___...___g__p.............s-----------------------------t------------------------
tblTripsAndVMT Haulin Tri Number 0.00 10.00
--------- -------- --------
Hauling. Y
•...••. __-----__---- ---_---_--_- -i----------- - 00 ----------
tblTripsAndVMT ripNumber 0.00 1....Numb.._ _} _______ ;
tblTripsAndVMT Hauling7ripNumber 0.00 5.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
M
A
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2O13.2.2 Page 3 of 31 Date: 1 O112/2016 8:52 PM
2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG =,.NOx 'CO -S02' -Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 . :Fugitive 'Exhaust PM2.5 SI -CO2 11610-CO2 Tofa1CO2. CH4 I N2O. CO26
PM10 " PM10 Toted -PM2.5 PM2:5 Total
Year tonstyr MTlyr
2017 0.4211 3.7170 2.6368 3.7700a- 0.0954 0.2388 0.3342 0.0418 0.2238 1 0.2656 I 0.0000 337.6931 337.6931 0.0834 0.0000 339.4442
003 1
1
_______r_______-____.._------- _______ ----------------- ......
2018 0.0201 (T1838 0.1659 2.7000e- 0.0175 0.0111 0.0286 2.2900e- 0.0104 0.0127 1 0.0000 23.4327 23.4327 5.7600e- 0.0000 23.5538538
004 003 j 003
i
Total 0.4411 3.9007 2.8027 4.0400e. 0.1129 0.2498 0.3623 0.0441 0.2342 0.2782 0.0000 361.1257 361.1267 0.0892 0.0000 362.9980
003
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO -S02 Fug0ive_: Exhaust PMiD FugNva - . EMauat PM2.5 :Wo,CO2 .NBio-CO2 Toted CO2 C144 N2O CO2e..
PM10 i. PM10 Total PM2.5 PM26 Total
Year tonslyr MTlyr .
2017 0.4211 3.7170 2.6358 3.7700e- 0.0779 0.2388 0.3167 0.0401 0.2238 0.2638 1 0.0000 337,6927 337.6927 0.0834 0.0000 339.4438
003
____ _______r_______ .. ------------------------------ _______
2018 0.0201 - 0.1838 � 0.1659 T2.7000e- � 3.3700e-T 0.0111 � 0.0144 8.8000e- 0.0104 0.01 O.0000D000 23.4327 23.4327 57600e- O.0000 23.5537
004 003 004 j 003
Total 0.4411 3.9007 2.8027 4.0400e- ' 0.0813 0.2498 0.3311 0.0409 0.2342 0.2751 0.0000 361.1263 1 361.1253 , 0.0892 ' 0.0000 :.:99]75
003
-.ROG NOx 'CO Sol Fugigw Exhaust = PM70 FugiUw I Exhaust. Plita
Isla-0O2 I NBIo-Co2. Total CO2 CH4 -N20 'CO24
PeMO "PM10 Total... .PM2.6 ,:PM2.6 Total'
Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.02 0.00 8.72 7.15 1 0.00 1 1.13 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Retluctlon
0)
Ul
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG. NOx CO I S02. FugtWe " Exhaust PM70 Fugitive :.Exhaust PM2:5 BIo-C.02 NBio-CO2 -TCWCD2 CN4 N20 CO2e
.` . PM10: PM10 :Total PM2.5 PM2.5 7ofel
.,..,Category ;torretyr MTtyr...
Area 0.0119 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 2.00OOe- 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
005 005 005 005
i
_______ -------________________r_______y__ ______y_______y_______ _______t..
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ± 0.00000000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1
_______ ______ _____ l
__r_-_-__- .. ---_0_r______-_______ ---------
Mohile 0.0000 � 0.0000 T 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 r 0.0000 - 0.0000 0.0000 ± 0.00000000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
11
•
--------------------------------------r_______y.. ------�_______-_______-_______t.___._
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.0000OODO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1
_ l
Water --0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
l
Total 0.0119 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.00OOe- 2.0000e. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000e.
005 005 005 005
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 852 PM
2.2 Overall Operational
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugllhre I Exhaust PM10 Fug" Exhaust PM2.5, Bio-CO2- NBio-CO2 Toted CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e .:
PM10 PM70 Total -PM2.5 ,PM2':5 Total's
Category : tons/yr MTryr.
Area 0.0119 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
005 I DOS 005 005
. r1 ______ _______ _
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 T 0.0000
1
1
__ _------------------------------ ------- _______r______.,_______r_______y_.___._r______�------- -----------------------
Mobile D.OD00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1
1
waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1
wafer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000
1
1
Total 0.0119 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
005 005 006 005
ROG 'NOx-` -CO $02 Fugplva Exhaust PM10 Fugitive "Exhaust PM2.S Blo-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 'M20 002a
Ism" : PM10 Total PM2.6.. ,. PM2.6 Total
Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Reduction
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
M
CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
Phase Phase Name Phase Type. :... Stan Date I End Date ` Num Days:. Num Days Phase:Description
Number •:Week=
1 -Demolition :Demolition -11112017 :112712017 5: 20:
_____________
---------------------------------------j____________ ___________a--------;----------------------------------
2 •Site Preparation :Site Preparation '1/28l2077 :21312017 5' 9
• ______I ______________________
3 •Grading :Grading -2l412017 '2115I2017 ' S' 8'
4 •Building Construction :Building Construction '2/1612017 i1132018 5i 2301 Foundaiton Pour,Turbine
!Assembly and Erection
r_______________________I____________ ------------{--------4________+.._.____________.____._._
5 :Paving :Paving -11412018 112912018 5' 18'
6 -Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating •1/302018 •212212018 5. 18•
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 3,750; Non-Residential Outdoor: 1,250 (Architectural Coating—sgft)
OffRoad Equuipment
Cn
cc
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
Phase Name Offmad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours •Home Power ' Load Factor
Architectural Coating :Air Compressors 1 i 6.00: 78: 0.48
-------•-----------------------------------------------F------------- - i ~-------------
Paving •Cement and Mortar Mixers A 6.00� 9 0.56
-----------F----------------i-------------F--------------�------------
Demolition •Concrete/Industrial Saws 1: 8.00. 81: 0.73
-------------------------------------------------------F----------------i•------------t---------------------------
Demolition -Excavators 31 8.00. 162: 0.38
--------------------------------------------------------F------------ - i --l.------------- -------------
Building Construction -Cranes 1: 7.00- 226: 0.29
Building Construction -Forklifts 1 3; 8.00: 89' 0.20
-..-------------------------:-- ------------------------F------------ - i ---------- -
Grading :Excavators 11 8.00. 162' 0.38
---------------------------- ------------- -- i --l.-----—-----— --....
Paving -Pavers ii 8.00. 125' 0.42
---------------------------------------_----------------
�
Paving •Rollers F_______________2'__________6.00 F___________80 .........•.0.38
__i __________________________________________________F________________4__________._.F__
Demoltion :Rubber Tired Dozers 2� 8.00: 255' 0.40
--------------------------------------------------------F----------------i-------------F-----—----------------------
Grading -Rubber Tired Dozers 1i 8.00: 255• 0.40
............................ . -------------------------F----------------i-------------F------------ —-------- --
Building Construction •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3: 7.00- 97' 0.37
Building Construction •Generator Sets ill 8.00. 84• 0.74
---------------------•---...:--------------------------- -----------------1-------------�------------:......--------
Grading •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 31 8.00, 97: 0.37
i------------------------- -----------------------------F----------------
Paving •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 i 8.00. 97: 0.37
--------------------------------------------------------F----------------i-------------�------------.._:.........-•---
Site Preparation •TractorslLoatlerslBackhces 41 8.00. 97: 0.37
Grading ......................:Graders---------------------F----------------i------•--•-•.1-------------%--------------
1i 8.00. 174: 0.41
.-------------------------------------------------------F ________ -------------F--------------;--------------
Paving :Paving Equipment 2i 6.00- 130: 0.36
Site
___________________________________________F_______________ _________....F_.._....________;--------------
Preparat ion :Rubber Tired Dozers 3_1i 8.00 255: 0.40
Building Construction :Welders 1• 8.00: 46- 0.45
Trios and VMT
�f
;L7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
r >:Phase Name Ofrroad:Equipment- Worker Trip, .Vendor Trip Harding Trip- Worker Trip: Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip =Worker Vehicle Vendor I Hauling ;..
`Court Number ..Number Number "length ' .'Length Length . Class. r, Vehicle Class Vehicle Class
Demolition 6i 15.00 0.001 0.00: 19.80, 7.90: 20.00-1D_Mix -HDT_Mix IHHDT
...........---------------------H----------;__.__.____;__________t-----------I----------;--------
__I______________I___ _ _ _______
Site Preparation 7: 18.00: 0.001 20.00: 19.80, 7.90- 20.00!LD_Miz �HDT_Mix iHHDT
________________________________ ----------;----------t---------__� ; _________' _ . .. .....Grading 61 15.00. 0.001 10.00: 19.801 7.90 20.00-LD Mix :HDT_Mi iHH
__H----------;_.._______;----------t-----------_____________________I______________I----------r_______.__
Building Construction 91 1.00. 0.001 100.00: 19.80. 7.901 20.00-LD_Mix -HDT_Mix :HHDT
-----------------________________H______ _.._.._.._;----------t-----------I-------------________I__------------
I...
Paving 8� 20.00 0.00: 5.00: 19.80: 7.90: 20.00-LD_Mix :HDT_Miz IHHDT
Architectural Coating 1 0.00. 0.00. 0.00. 19.80. 7.90• 20.00•1-D_Mix :HDT_Mix -HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
3.2 Demolition - 2017
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx I CO .S02- Fug0m I Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 > 8k-.0O2 NBlo-CO2 ?otal CO2 C114 N211 CO2e
PM10. . PM10 -Total PMZ5 PM2.5- Total
v'CategorY- tori MTiyr
Off-Road 0.0405 0.4270 0.3399 4.0000e- 0.0213 0.0213 0.0198 0.0198 i 0.0000 36.6182 36.6182 0.0101 0.0000 36.8292
004 y
y
Total •• 0.0406 0.4270 ' 0.3389 4.00009- , 0.0213 0.0213 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 36.6182 36.6182 0.0101 0.0000 36.8292
004
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
3.2 Demolition -2017
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
"ROG NOx. CO $02r Fugitive: Exhaust PM10: Fug{Ove Edmust PM2.5 Blo•O02>NBb CO2 Tote{CO2. CH4 - N20 CO2e
PM10 "PM10 Total. ,PM2.5 PM2:5 Total"
Category tonslyr MTNr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
!
_______ _______r______4_______r______-_______-_______'--------------- _,_______-_______r
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 o.D000 0.0000 � 0.0000 o.0000 o.0000 0.0000 '- _a.o0oo _
o.000D '.
a
_______r______ _______ _______r______r_______ ___.._.,_______-_______r______r______-_..____
Worker •• 6.0000e- 1.0500e- 0.0108 3.0000e- 2.2200e- 2.0000e- 2.2300e- 5.9000e- • 2.0000e- 6.0000e- 1 0.0000 1.9664 1.9864 1.D000e- • 0.0000 1.9685
004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 1 004
i
Total 6.0000e- 1.05000- 0.0108 3.000Oe- 2.2200e- 2.0000e. 2.2300e• 5.9000e- 2.00000- 6.0000e- 0.0000 1.9864 1.9864 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.9885
00/ 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004
Mitigated Construction On-Site
NOx I CO S02 Fugitive. Exhaust :.PM10 Fugtdw Exhaust PM2.6 8io•.0O2 NBio-CO2 :Total CO2 -'.CH4 '. N20' CO2e
PM10` PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total -'
r Category ,. tonatyr MTlyr
Off-Road 0.0405 0.4270 0.3389 4.0000e- 0.0213 0,0213 • 0.0198 0.0198 + 0.0000 36.6182 36.6182 0,0101 0.0000 36.8291
004 i
L
Total 0.0405 0.4270 0.3389 4.0000e- 0.0213 ' 0.0213 0.0198 0.0198 1 0.0000 36.6182 ' 36.6182 0.0101 0.0000 36.8291
004
M
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
3.2 Demolition -2017
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG- NOx . 00 S02 Fuglhve' E10uust PM10 FugiBve.170-uel PM2.5 Bo-CO2 N610-0O2 TOtaICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
PM10 PM10 `?oral -PMZS PM2:5 Total
Cfty _ . ._. 'tonstyr MTryr
Hauling 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 A 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000
1
1
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 A, 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1
1
----------- -------,P______ _______r______ ____Oe-r2.-----r-2300e- ______4_______r_______Y____.__--------------------------------
t..98
Worker •� 6.0000e- • 1.0500e- � 0.0108 • 3.000Oe- � 2.2200e- • 2.0000e- � 2.2300e- � 5.9000e- - 2.0000e- • 6.0000e- 1 0.0000 1.9864 1.9864 � 1.0000e- � 0.0000 1.9885
004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 I 004
1
Total 6.0000e- 1.0500e- 0.0108 3.0000e- 2.2200e- 2.0000e• 2.2300e• 5.9000e- 2.00009- 6.0000e- 0.0000 1.9864 1.9864 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.9885
004 001 005 003 005 003 004 006 004 004
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
' ROG. NOx. CO - S02.. FuglOve .. Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Eodlaual PM2;5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 ToteICO2 `CH4 N20 CO20
?.. PM10. PM10 - Total PM?6 PM2.5 Total'
Category .. tons/yr MTryr.
Fugitive Dust 0.0452 0.0000 0,0452 0.0248 0.0000 0.0248 + 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i
___ _______ ______ _______ ______ i __1_______ ______ _______ _
i r �- r Y r i
Off-Road 0.0121 � 0.1294 0.0985 � 1.0000e- � 6.8900e- � 6.8900e- � � 6.3300e- � 6.3300e- + 0.000000 0 � 9.0769 � 9.0789 � 2.7800e- � 0.0000 � 9.1373
004 003 003 003 003 y 003
i
Total 0.0121 0.1294 0.0985 1.0000e• 0.0452 1 6.8900e- 0.0521 0.0248 6.3100a- 0.0312 0.0000 9.0789 ' 9.0789 2.7800e- 0.0000 9.1373
004 003 003 003
N
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOz CO S02 Fugrdve:-: Exhaust' "PM70 FuOrd" Exhaust I PM2.5. . Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 TotetCO2 CH4 I N20 I CO28
PM10.' PM10 TOM PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
,Category tonstyr MT/yr
Hauling 1.7000e- r 2.6500e- 2.1100e- i 1.0000s- r 2.8600a r 4.0000e- r 2.9000e- • 3.2000, 4.0000e- 3 5000e- 0.0000 0.6625 r 0.6625 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 0.6626
l
004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004
. r r r r i � r r r
. r
Vendor a.0000 o.0000 o.00aa o.0000 o.0000 o.00ao o.0000 o.000a o.0600 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 �o.ouoo
. r r r � r r r
t r r
r r r r r r r
Worker 1.8000e- 3.2000e- r 3.2500e- r 1.0000e- 6.6000e- 1.0000e- . 6.7000e- 1.8000e- r 0.0000 1.8000e- 0.0000 0.5959 0.5959 3.0000e- r 0.0000 0.5966
004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 004 005
Total 3.6000e- 2.9700e- 5.3600e- 2.0000e- 3.5200e- 6.0000e. , 3.5700e- 1 5.00000- 4.000Oe- 5.3000e- 0.0000 1.2684 1.2584 J.000Oa- ' 0.0000 1.2591
004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 006 004 006
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive: Exhaust.: P6110:- Fugitive Exhaust- PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e
PM10 PM10 Total, PM2.5 - .PM2:5 Total'`
Category tonsyr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0452 0.0000 0.0452 0.0248 0.0000 0.0248 ± 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
r . r � r r.. r r
. i r r r . r
_...... ---�--i
+ 7- i r l + 7- i r Y. r + + + t ..
....r
OH-Road 0.0121 � 0.1294 . 0.0985 r 1.000Oe- r 6.8900e- r 6.8900e- . r 6.3300e- 6.3300e- + 0.0000 9.0786 r 9.0788 2.7800e- 0.0000 9.1373 '
004 003 003 003 003 y 003
i
Total 0.0121 0.1294 , 0.0985 1.0000e- 0.0462 6.8900e- r 0.0521 , 0.0248 6.3300e- 0.0312 0.0000 9.0788 ' 9.0788 2.7800e- 0.0000 9.1373
004 003 003 003
t:.7
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx --CO S02 Fugrive I Exhaust PM10 Fugieve :Exhaust PM2.5 E 2 1 Nab-0O2 Total CO2. . CH4, - N20 -. CO20
PM10 "' MID Total ,PM2.5 PM2.5 Total:
Category tonOr MTlyr
Hauling 1.7000e- 2.6500e- 2.1100e- r 1.000Oe- 1.7000e- • 4.0000e- 2.1000e- 5.000Oe- 4.000Oe- B.000Oe- 0.0000 0.6625 O.fi625 0.0000 0.0000 0.6626
004 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 005 t
I
Ventlor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1
r i
..--.---.- _______ _______ __00ODe- 6.-----r-GDOGe- --_____ _______r______r_______�-------_______r______
Worker � 1.8000a � 3.2000e- � 3.2500e- � t.0000e- � 6.6000e- - t.0000e- � 6.7000e- � 1.8000e- r 0.0000 � 1.8000e- t 0.0000 0.5959 0.5959 • 3.000Oe- � 0.0000 0.596fi
004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 004 1 005
r
Total 3.500Be- 2.9700e- 6.3600e- 2.0000e- 8.3000e. 6.0000e- 8.8000e. 2.3000e- r 4.0000e- 2.6000e- 0.0000 7.2664 r 1.2584 r 3.000Oe- 0.0000 1.2591
004 003 003 005 004 ON 004 004 005 004 005
3.4 Grading -2017
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NC CO I S02. -FuglOve ' Exhaust 'PM10 FugiOve Exhaust 11 PM2.5. +. Blo-0O2 NBIo-CO2 Tota1CO2 CH4 N20 1 CO2e
PM10 PM10 Total '•PM2.5 PM2.5 TOW
.Category _.tonslyr MTtyr
FugBive Dust 0.0262 0.0000 0.0262 0.0135 0.0000 0.0135 1 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
r
----------..r______-_______-_______�__-----r------------------------------r------r_______+.-.----;_______r______�_______-------ter....--.
Off-Road 0.0138 0.1439 0.1015 1.2000e- r 8.1600e- 8.1600e- r 7.5000e- 7.5000e- 0.0000 11.0447 11.0447 3.3BOOe- 0.0000 11,1157
004 003 003 003 003 i 003
r
Total •• 0.0138 0.1439 ' 0.1016 ' 1.2000e. r 0.0262 ' 8.1600e- ' 0.0344 r 0.0135 • 7.5000e- 0.0210 0.0000 11.0447 r 11.0447 ' 3.3800e- ' 0.0000 ' 11.1167
004 003 003 003
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
3.4 Grading - 2017
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
' ROG NO. CO S02. Fugrdw,[Exhaust PM10" FuMw Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 C144 I N20 I CO20
PM70 PM10 Taw PM2.51 PM2.5 ToW
..Category, tonnyr MT/yr:
Hauling 8.0000e- 1.3200e- 1.0500e- D.0000 1.4300e- . 2.0000e- 1.4500e- 1.6000e- 2.0000e- 1.8000e 1 0.0000 0.3312 0.3312 0.0000 0.0000 0.3313
005 003 003 003 005 003 004 005 004 1
--.......-_ _______ _______r______ _-_____ _______r______ ------- -------r______y--------y-------_______r______r
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 y 0.0000 T 0.0000 -
1
i
-------.---:_______y_______Y______ _______r______ _______ _______y_______r______r_______y--____________r______-_______y_______r--
lNarker 2.4000e- 4.2000e- 4.3400e- 1.000Oe- 8.9000e- 1.000Oe- 8.9000e- 2.4000e- . 1.000Or 2.4000e- + 0.0000 0.7945 0.7945 4.000Oe- 0.0000 0.79547954
004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 y 005
i
Total 3.2000e. 1.7400e- • 6.3900e. 1.0000e- , 2.3200e- 3.000Oe- 2.3400e- 4.0000e- , 3.0000e- 4.2000e- 0.0000 1.1258 1.1258 4.0000e- 0.0000 1.1267
004 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx 7 CO - S02 -. Fughin Exhaust PM10: ':Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bb-0O2. NBIo-.0O2 TOW CO2 I CH4 N20 CO2e
PM10` -PM10 Total. PM2.5 - PM2.5 Total
.Category ,;., tonsyr MT/yr
Fugaive Dust 0.0262 0.0000 0.0262 0.0135 0.0000 0.0135 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
a
1
_______ _______r______ _______y_8.__0e- 8._____ _______�_______r_______A 0.000 ..; __ ___;_______;_______r______t- 1.1157
00-Roatl 0.0138 . 0.1439 0.1015 • 1.2000e- 8.1fi00e- 6.1600e- 7.5000e- 7.5000� 0.0000 11.0447 11.0447 3.3800e- 0.0000 11.1157
004 003 003 003 003 1 003
I
Total 0.0138 0.1439 0.1015 1.2000e- 0.0262 8.1600e- ' 0.0344 0.0136 7.5000e- 0.0210 1 0.0000 11.0447 ' 11.0447 3.38000- 0.0000 11.1157
004 003 003 003
CJ1
CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
3.4 Grading - 2017
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx '.CO S02 fugitive I Exhaust <.PM10 Fughl" Exhaust I PM2.5 Bio-CO2.; NBio-CO2 TotWO02 'CH4- N20 I CO2e
PM10 PM10 -Total . PM2.5 -PM2.5" Total
-Category .. ,: tonslyr MT/yr
Hauling •' 8.0000e- ' 1.3200e- ' 1.0500e- ' 0.0000 ' 9.0000e- 2.000Oe- ' 1.0000e- ' 2.0000e- 2.0000e- ' 4.0000e- 1 0.0000 0.3312 ' 0.3312 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 • 0.3313
005 003 003 005 005 004 005 005 005
1
----------- __ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______r______ _______ _______r_______9 0.000--r______ _______-_______-_______-._-0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ± 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1
i i
I_______r__ r_______ _____._ ______-_______-_______-_______--- _
Worker • 2.4000e- ' 4.2000e- ' 4.3400e- ' 1.000Oe- ' 8.9000e- � 1.000Oe- ' 8.9000e- ' 2.4000e- ' 1.0000e- ' 2.4000e- 0.0000 0.7945 0.7945 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.7957954
004 004 003 006 004 005 004 004 005 004 1 005
1
Total 3.2000e• 1.7400e• 5.3900e. 1.0000e. 9.8000e. 3.0000e- 9.90000- , 2.6000e- 3.000Oe- 2.8000a- 1 0.0000 1.1258 1.1258 4.0000e- 0.0000 1.1267
11 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 006 004 005
3.6 Building Construction - 2017
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CO -$02 - Fugal" ' Exhaust Pluto Fugltiva . Exhaust PM2.6 'BIo-0O2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 _ CO2e -
PM10: PM10 Total. ` -PM25 PM2.5. -Total
Category, lonalyr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.3521 2.9970 2.0577 ' 3.0400e- ' 0.2022 0.2022 0.1899 0.1899 0.0000 271.8088 ' 271.8088 ' 0.0669 0.0000 ' 273.2136
003 1
1
Total 0.3521 2.9970 2.0577 3.0400e- 0.2022 0.2022 0.1899 0.1899 0.0000 271.8088 271.8088 0.0669 0.0000 273.2136
ON
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
3.5 Building Construction - 2017
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx I CO I S02 I FugMm E)Maust : PM10 FuMM .Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Totelco2 CH4 1 N20. CO2e
PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM25 Total
i Category ,`tonsyr MT/yr
Hauling 8.3000e- 0.0131 0.0104 • 4.0000e- 0.0143 2.0000e- • 0.0145 1.5800e- 1.8000e- 1.7600e- y 0.0000 3.2690 3.2690 2.0000e- • 0.0000 • 3.2695
004 005 004 003 004 003 j 005
1
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 T 0.0000
. • • i f
Worker • 4.6000e- • 6,0000e- 8.2000e- • 2.000Oe- 1.6800e- 1.0000e- 1.6900e- 4.5000. 1.0000e- • 4.6000e- 1 0.0000 1,5030 1.5030 • OM00e- • 0.0000 1.5046
004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 { 005
1
Total 1.2900e- 0.0139 0.0186 6.0000e- 0.0160 2.1000e- 0.0162 2.0300e. 1.9000e. 2.2200e. 0.0000 4.7720 4.7720 1.0000e- 0.0000 4.7742
003 005 004 003 004 003 004
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx. CO S02. PugiOve:. Exhaust- PM10 Fugitive E1dlauat PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBIo-CO2 Total CO2 CN4 N20 CO2e
PM10
PM10 Total PM2.5. M. TOW:
Category tonsyr _ MTyr
Off-Road 0.3521 2,9970 2.0577 3.0400e- 0.2022 0.2022 • 0.1899 0.1899 0,0000 271.8085 271.8085 0.0669 0.0000 273.2133
003 y
i
Total 0.3621 2.9970 2.0677 3.0400e- 0.2022 0.2022 0.1899 1 0.1899 0.0000 271.8085 ' 271.8085 0.0669 0.0000 273.2133
003
v
CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
3.5 Building Construction - 2017
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG .NOx CO $02. FhhgNve -Exhaust PMIO. Fugrd" . Exhaust. PM2.5. Blo-.0O2 NBIo-CO2 �T i CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
PM10 PM ID Total ,.PM2.5 PM2:6 TOW"
Category-:.. ,tm*r MTtyr-
Hauling •• 8.3000e- 0.0131 • 0.0104 h 4.0000e- • 6.5000e- 2.0000e- 1.0400e- 2.3000e- • 1.8000e- i 4.1000e- + 0.0000 3.2690 • 3.2690 2.0000e- 0.0000 3.2695
004 005 004 004 003 004 004 004 y 005
• r I • • + ______ _
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 a 0.0000 T 0.0000
n i Y i Y 1 i Y i r Y 1 1 i
Wodcer 4.6000e- 8.0000e- 8.2000e- 2.0000e- 1.6600e- h 1.000Oe- h 1.6900e- 4.5000e- 1.0000e- 4.6000e- + 0.0000 1.5030 1.5030 8.0000e- h 0.0000 1.5046
004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 y 005
i
Total 1.2900e- 0.0139 0.0186 6.0000e• 2.6300e- 2.1000e- 2.7100e- 6.6000e- 19000e- 8.7000e. 0.0000 4.7720 4.7720 1.0000a- 0.0000 4.7742
003 005 003 004 001 004 004 004 004
3.5 Building Construction - 2018
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG -NOx- CO - S02 Fugitive. Exhaust PM10 :FugiUva Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2. NBio-CO2. TOW002 ^CH4 N20 ' CO28
PM70:. -PM ID Total PM2.5 PM2.5; Total' ..
Category tonstyr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.0000e- • 0.0349 0.0263 4.0000e- 2.2400e- • 2.2400e- h 2.1100e- • 2.1100e- + 0.0000 3.5516 3.5516 8.7000e- 0.0000 • 3.5698
003 005 003 003 003 003 j 004
+
Total 4.0000e- • 0.0349 0.0263 4.0000e- ' 2.2400e• • 2.2400e- 2.1100e- 2.1100e- 1 0.0000 5.5516 3.5516 h 8.7000e- ' 0.0000 • 3.S698
003 005 003 003 003 003 004
00
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
3.5 Building Construction - 2018
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG < NOx CO S02 I Pugilive: Exhaust PM70 FugIfte: Exhaust PM2.5 Bto-0O2. NBio-CO2 TotWCO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e
PM10 PM10 Total - PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tonshrr MTlyr
Hauling 1.0000e- 1.6000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 0.0141 0.0000 • 0.0141 1.5000e- 0.0000 1.5000e- 1 0.0000 0.0425 0.0425 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0425
005 004 004 003 003 j
____ 1
a i
........_�_______-_______-_______ ___ _______ _______r______ _______ _______r_______y......._______ _______-_______-_______-.-.----
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.D000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1
1
Worker 1.0000e- r 1.0000e- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 2.000Oe- 0.0000 2.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 • 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0191 0.0191 0.0000 0.0000 0.0191
005 005 004 005 005 005 005 1
1
Total 2.0000e. 1.7000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 0.0141 0.0000 0.0141 1.5100e- 0.0000 • 1.5100e. 0.0000 0.0616 0.0616 0.0000 0.0000 0.0616
11 006 004 004 003 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive. Exhaust -:^PM10 'Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 E
NBb-:CO2 TotaI CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO28
PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5. PM2.5 Total
'.Category tonsyr MT/yr.
Off-Road 4.0000e- 0.0349 0.0263 • 4.000Oe- 2.2400e- 2.2400e- 2.1100e- 2.1100e- 1 0.0000 3.5515 3.5515 8.7000e- • 0.0000 3.5698
003 005 003 003 003 003 j 004
1
Total 4.0000e- 0.0349 0.0263 4.000Oe- 2.2400e- 2.2400e- 1 2.11000- 2.1100e- 0.0000 3.5515 3.5615 8.7000e- 0.0000 3.5698
003 005 003 003 003 003 004
C.0
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
3.6 Building Construction - 2018
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx I CO 1 $02 Fug0lve Exhaust I PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Slo-CO2 NBio-CO2 'TotatCO2 CH4 I N20. I CO28
PM70.. PM10 S-Total 'PM2.5 PM2.6 Total -
Category tonslyr MT/yr
Hauling 1.0000e- • 1.6000e- 1.3000e- • 0.0000 6.4000e- 0.0000 • 6.5000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 1 0.0000 0.0425 0.0425 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0425
005 004 004 004 004 004 004 i
1
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0AM00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
11
_..________ _______ _______ _______t_______
Worker 1.0000e- ' 1.0000e- 1.000Oe- • 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 • 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0191 0.0191 0.0000 0.0000 0.0191
005 005 004 005 005 005 005 1
1
Total 2.0000e- 1.7000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 6.6000e- 0.0000 6.7000e- 1.7000e- 0.0000 1.7000e• 0.0000 0.0616 0.0616 0.0000 0.0000 0.0616
006 004 004 004 004 004 004
3.6 Paving - 2018
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx I CO ,_S02. FugiOve I Exhaust I PM10 Fugitive Exhaust I PM2.5. Blo-0O2 kl io-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e
PM10 ,PM10 Total 7.PM2.6 PM2.5 Total
Category tDn*r MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1289 0.1104 1.7000e- 7.4500e- ' 7.4500e- 6.8700e- 6.8700. 1 0.0000 15.0641 ' 15.0641 4.5600a 0.0000 15.1599
004 003 003 003 003 1 003
1
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1
1
Total 0.0127 ' 0.1289 0.1104 , 1.7000e• ' , 7A500e- ' 7.4500e- 6.8700e- 6.8700e- 0.0000 16.0641 16.0641 , 4.5600e- , 0.0000 15.1599
004 003 003 003 003 003
ao
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 19 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
3.6 Paving -2018
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO 502. -FugiBve Exhaust' PM10 Fugm" Exhaust PM2.5: Bio-CO2 NBb CO2 `rotarCO2 CH4. N20 CO2e..
:.PM10.- PM10 Total PM2.5 : .PM2:5 7oW
. .,Category. tonaryr MT/yr
Hauling 4.0000e- 6.1000e- 5.2000e- 0.0000 7.2000e- 1.0000e- 7.3000e- 8.0000e- I0000e- 9.0000, t 0,0000 0.1629 0,1629 : 0,0000 • 0.0000 • 0.1629
005 004 004 004 005 004 005 005 005 1 i
1
i
----------- _______ _ ____ _______ _______ ____ 0-�---- 0-r----0- -----__ ----------------..__...---------------- r______t..
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.00000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000000
I
1
Worker 6.5000e- 1.1500e- 0.0118 3.0000e- 2.6600e- 2.0000e- r 2.6800e- 7.1000e- 2.0000e- 7.3000e- t 0.0000 2.2947 2.2947 - 1.1000e- • 0.0000 2.2970
004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 D04 j 004
1
Total 6.9000e- 1.7600e- 0.0123 3.0000e- 3.3800e- ' 3.0000e- • 3.4100e- 7.9000e- 3.000Oe- 8.2000e- 0.0000 2A575 2.4575 1.1000e- 0.0000 2.4599
004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 001
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO $02:. Fugitive 'ExhauaC 'PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5. Bio•:CO2 Neio-CO2 -7oteI:CO2 CH4 N20 0020
'PM70 PM70 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total'.
Category. .. tanalyr MTlyr
7-Road 0.0127 0.1289 0.1104 1.7000e- • 7.4500e- 7.4500e- 6.8700e- 6.8700e- 0.OD00 15.0641 15.0641 • 4.5600e- 0.0000 15.1599
004 003 003 003 003 j 003
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0127 ' 0.1289 ' 0.1104 ' 1.7000e- ' 7.45000- 7.4500e- 6.8700e- ' 6.8700e. 0.0000 15.0641 1 15.0641 4.5600e- 0.0000 15.1599
004 003 003 003 003 003
00
I+e
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 20 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
3.6 Paving - 2018
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
'ROG NOz CO 502 ,. Fuglave =Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5. Bio-CO2 NBb-0O2 TotWCO2 CN4 1 N20 1 CO20
PM10.. PM70 Total PM2.5 - PM2.5 Total,'
Category ton" MT/yr
Hauling 4.0000e- 6.1000a 5.2000e- 0.0000 4.0000e- 1.0007 5.7m. 1.0000e- 1.0000e- i 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.1629 0.1629 0.0000 0.0000 0.1629
005 004 004 005 005 005 005 005 005 1
1
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1
1
Worker 6.;WO • 1.1500e- 0.0118 3.0000e- 2.6600e- 2.0000e- 2.6800e- 7.1000e- 2.0000e- 7.3000e- 1 0.0000 2.2947 2.2947 1.1000e- 0.0000 2.2970
004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 I 004
1
Total • 6.9000e- 1.7500e- 0.0123 3.0000e- 2.7000e- ' 3.0000e- 2.7300e- 7.2000e- 3.0000e- 7.5000e- 0.0000 2.4675 2.4576 1.1000e- 0.0000 2.4699
004 003 005 003 DO6 003 004 005 004 004
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2018
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO $02-,. ,Fugitive ::Exhaust PM10 FugNve Exhaust PM2.6. . Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
PM10 PMtO Total PM2.5 PM2:5' Total'"
<-Category ton" MT/yr
Ar hit Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000
1
1 _ _
O0-Road 2.6900e- 0.0181 0.0167 3.0000e- 1.3500e- 1.3500e- 1.3500e- 1.3500e- 1 0.0000 2.2979 2.2979 2.2000e- 0.0000 2.3025
003 005 003 003 003 003 j 004
1
Total 2.5900e- 0.0181 0.0167 3.0000e- 1.3600e- 1.3500e- 1.3500e- 1.3500e- 0.0000 2.2979 1 2.2979 ' 2.2000e- ' 0.0000 2.3026
003 005 003 003 003 003 004
N
CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 21 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2018
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SM Fugdim I Exhaust ' : PM10 Fugltl Exhaust PM2.5-.: Bb-0O2' NBiv CO2 4otel CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
PM10 PM10 Tole) ve PM2.5 'PM2.5 Toter.
catwry i tonsyr MTlyr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.000D 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 O.D000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 a 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 T 0.0000
1
-....... _______ _______ _______4_______4_______ _______4_______ _______r_______a__ : ______-_______-_______�_
worker 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 o.0000 000a 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000
1
1
r-7o717
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated Construction On-Site
-BOG NOx CO S02. FuglOva. . Exhaust PM10- =Fugitive I Exhaus-tj PM2.6,- Blo-CO2 NB6 CO2 Total CO2 CFM N20 CO2e
'PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total
Category tonslyr MTtyr...
Archit Coating 0.0000 0.0000 O.OD00 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1
Oft-Road •- 2.6900e- 0.0181 0.0167 3.0000e- 1.3500e- 1.3500e- 1.3500e- 1.3500e- 1 0.0000 2.2979 2.2979 2.2000r 0.0000 2.3025
003 005 003 003 003 003 y 004
1
Total 2.6900e- ' 0.0181 0.0167 3.000Oe- , 1.3600e• 1.3500e- ' , 1.3500e- 1.3600e- 0.0000 2.2979 1 2.2979 ' 2.2000e- 0.0000 2.3025
003 005 003 003 003 003 004
cc
w
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 22 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2018
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
t. ROG NOx. CO 502 I Fugitive'- Exhaust PMtO Fugl#W Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 N&o-0O2 ToteICO2 CH4" N20 002e
PM10 Pb110 TOW PM2.5 PM2.5 Total �i
Catmory tonslyr MT/yr -
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
_____--r-0.0000 ..____________-_______r______ _______t_.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 T 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 r 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
i
i
Worker 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1
1
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG I NOx - CO 1 $02-: Fugitive Exhaust PM70 Fugitive Exhaust PM2,5 1310-C NBIo-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO20
- PM70 PM ID Tote) >:PM2.5 _ MIS Total
category tonsNr. MTyr
Mitigated 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000
i
unmitigated 0.0000 Y 0,0000 T 0.0000 T 0.0000 T 0.0000 T 0.0000 T 0.0000 T 0.0000 T 0.0000 T 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 T 0.0000 T 0.0000 Y 0.0000 T 0.0000
00
A
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 23 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip.Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday -Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00 i 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles --Trip% .. Trip Purpose% :.
- Land Use H-W or C-W N-S or C•C I ;M or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C vH-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
User Defined Industrial 18.50 10.10 7.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
LDA I LDT1 - LDT2 MDV I LHD1 I LHD2. MHD HHD OBUS UBUS I MCY I SBUS MH
0.512163: 0.060173; 0.180257- 0.139094, 0.042244- 0.006664: 0.016017: 0.031880: 0.001940: 0.002497; 0.004356- 0.000592- 0.002122
§.g ApjW%K,petail
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
00
rr
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 24 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
ROG - NOx CO 502- Fugitive Exhaust: PM10- Fugitive Exhaust PM2S 13Ia.CO2 NBic-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e
PM10 PMtO .Total -PM2.5 r.PM2.6 Toter
Categm tonstyr MTyr
Electricity •' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0aoo
Mitigated y
y
Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 19 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated y
y _______ _____ _____ _ _
NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 r 0.0000 0.0000-T 0.0000
Mitigated y
1
..________.M______ ______ ______ ______T______T______T______T______r______T_______�__.____�______r______t______T______.�_.000 ..
NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
6.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa ROG I NOx I CC S02 _ ,.FugRive: Fxhawtc °PM10 Fugitve Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2.NBio 002 ToMI CO2 - CH4 N20 CO2e
sUae ':PM70 PM10 Total. PM2.5 PM2.5= Total
Lard Use kBTU/yr tonsyr MT/yr
User Defined 0 0.0000 0.0000 • 0,0000 ' 0.0000 ' • 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ± O.OD00 0.OD00 ' O.000O ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000
Industrial A. y
A. i
Total 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000
00
C)
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 25 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PIM
6.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Mitigated
NIUMIGa ROG :'NOx 'CO :.' S02 Fu9We'. Exhaust " PM10 FugMvs: Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBb CO2 TotsI CO2 CH4:. -N20 CO2e
Use
PM10 PM10 'Total PM2.5'. `PM2.5 Total
Land Use I:kBTUyr lwu/yr.. MTyr
User Defined 0 1. 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Industrial
� t
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
6.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Elechr" Total 002 CH4 :;N20 CO2e
Use
Land Use:. kw*r MTyr
User Defined 0 i. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Industrial
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.22 Page 26 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Mitigated
Electdctty Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e
Use
-,Lard Use :kWhfyr MTIyr
User Defined 0 b 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000
Industrial r,
r.
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG -INOx CO 802. .Fugitive. Exhaust PM10 :Fuglti" Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-:CO2 Total'CO2 CH4 I N20 -.CO2e
PM70 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Tomb
;Caftory :_tonslyr MTJyr
Mitigated 0.0119 0.0000 • t.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.000Oe- • 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
005 1 005 005 005
Unmitigated D.0'119 0.0000 1.0000e- � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- � 0.0000 -' 0.0000 ? 3 000Oe-
005 005 005 005
Co
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 27 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG - NOx <.GO 'S02 .Fugitive Exhaust PM10'. -Fugiive :.Exhaust PM2.5 ' Blo•CO2 I NBio-002 :Total CO2 -:C114 I N20 I CO2®
PM10 PM70 >Tote] P PM2.5 S`PM2.5 Total.
SubCategory tonslyr MT/yr
Architectural 2.9000e- 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000
Coating D03 y
_________ _______ _______ _______ ______ _______ ______ _______ _______ ______ _______i__ __ ________ ______ _______ _______ ____
• _n Y i Y i i Y r Y 1 Y 1 i t
Consumer 9.0300e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Products 003 y
i
_______Y______ _______ Y______r_______ .. _______Y______ _______ _______t
Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 1.000Oe- • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + O.0000OD00 2.0000e- • 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 • 3 OOOOe-
005 y 005 005 005
i
Total 0.0119 0.0000 1.0000e• , 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e• ' 2.0000e• 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
005 005 005 006
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO S02 :Fugitive Exhaust PM10> Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio•CO2 TotsICO2 CH4': N20 CO2e
PM70 ' 'PM1a Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Subcategory tona/yr MTlyr.....
Architectural 2.9000e- r . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Coating 003 1
............ _______ _______Y______ _______,^-----------------------Y______ _______r_______ --.-_._,_______-_______-_______Y______t-.0000
Consumer 9.0300e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Products 003 j I
.-..-caping „_______ -------r______ _______Y______ _______ _______Y______ _______r_______ ..0000 _______-_______-_______Y______t-..-.__
Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 • 1.0000e- � 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 2.0000e- � 2.0000e- � 0.0000 0.0000 � 3.0000e- it
005 t 005 005 005
i
Total 0.0119 ' 0.0000 ' 1.0000e- , 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 3.000Oe-
005 005 005 005
7.0 Water Detail
00
cv
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 28 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N20 E02e-
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated .. 0.0000 T 0.0000 T 0.0000 0.0000
7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Incloor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 I CO20
do"Use
..Land Use Maw MT/yr
User Defined 0/0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Industrial
r,
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO
0
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 29 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
7.2 Water by Land Use
Mitigated
Indoor/Out TotalCO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e
door Um
.Land Use Mgal MTjYr
User Defined 010 i- 0.0000 0.0000 OMOO 0.0000 '.
Industrial A.
r
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
CategoryNear
Tofal CO2 '- CH4 N20 - CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated .. 0.0000 T 0.0000 T 0.0000 ? 0.0000
�.Q
r
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 30 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste Total CO2 1 CH4 I N20. ---Co2e
Disposed
Land Use tons MTryr
User Defined 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Industrial
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
Waste Total CO2. CH4 N20 CO2e
Disposed
=LandUse tons Miryr
User Defined 0 A. 0.0000 O.DOaO 0.0000 - 0.0000
Industrial
t.
r.
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
9.0 Operational Offroad
EquipmentType Ntunber HoursNay Days/Year Horse Power Load factor Fuel Type
rp
N
CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 31 of 31 Date: 10/12/2016 8:52 PM
10.0 Vegetation
w
_ ���_ a
rai[ PARCEL[8 L 9 uc PARCEL 110 PARCEL 11 PARCEL 12 PARCEL 13
11
T\
- `MFRSf1�IC R/M I�OLfMo I
SEE SHEET 3 I \" `"'� 10
\ 1M O E
mm
IU 61F .s Y QG \\
�\ APN 516-090-011
�oMEar
APN 516-070-022
\ I \ SEE SHEET 2 1 APN 516-090-010
-A IV
narc YL' x 1690 FEET
1 ' DOWNWIND INFLUENCE
\Id rlw6 \\ 1
�4 W W _ SE /
SEC 9
L+N011 p �.
PROJECT
OMNOW
INDEX MAP
�1��., SCALE: � 1"=400'
�No 23323 Z FF
, COOK & ASSOCIATES INC. AGUA CALIENTE WIND TURBINE
Exp. 12/31/17 GINEERS LAND SURVEYORS GE 3.0 MW 103, 85 M
* * 800' 400' 0 400' 800' LAND PLANNERS
ry CIVIL �� 7177 Brockton, Ave. Ste 339, Riverside, CA 92506
�TFq.G,L1F Telephone 9951) 788-8092
DATE: OCT 2016 SCALE: 1"=400' 1 W.O. 2571 IsFrr 1 OF 3 SHTS
94
FLOON CONTROL CHANNEL EXISTING PROJECT BOUNDARY
UNDER EEWAY \ INTERSTATE 10 R/W AND INTERSTATE 10 R/W
PROPOSED \ \\
SIGN ORE PIT \ 20' SC GAS
POLE I a \\ —
II \\ UNDERGROUND SEE SHEET 3 \\ 0/H E
ELECTRICAL \`�
1C0NDCTORS \ti`�\ c 16.5' SC GAS
o GTE
IGN
TELE \y� 16.5' SC GAS
CABLE III ^o
\, APN 516-070-022
y `GTE �O/H E OR T III \\
III
POLE 3 /FIBER OPTIC
\
CL PROPOSED WIND TURBINE
UNDERGROUND GE 3.0 MW 103, 85 M
\ ELECTRICAL
\c + CONDUCTORS LATITUDE:
\\ III ALIGNMENT OF 33'55'09.43204"N
\ 10, GTE PETROL MARKERS LONGITUDE:
ALIGNMENT OF \ 116'40'10.13915'W
F{y FIBER OPTIC
9GQ` MARKERS 1506' 670'
y
PROBABLE LOCATION OF
EASEMENT 50' SO C PIPELINE
PROPOSED
O/HII E \ \ 12' WIDE
/ UINESIIICONNECTING 10, pryer \\0\\ ro °O GRAVEL ROAD
S 1/4 / �� \ ^ O&M ACCESS ROADWAY
SEC 9 COMM °\ SE CDR
EXISTING PROJECT
25' STATE �� _ 10' GTE SEC 9
- \ BOUNDARY
_UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD EXISTING PROJECT .
_ ` BOUNDARY
AEI — _ ;;1:50RR R/W —�
s9 `0 A. — _
_ E7177
BEL, COOK & ASSOCIATES INC. AGUA CALIENTE WIND TURBINE
Ex'p�123331/t7 SCALE: 1"=200' L ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS GE 3.0 MW 103, 85 M
* * CD LAND PLANNERS
01V1L �p z Brockton, Ave. Ste 339, Riverside, CA 92506
�,GL1 400' ' 200' 400' phone (951) 788-8092
16 SCALE: 1"=2DO' W.O. 2571 SHT 2 OF 3 SHTS
95
\ CENTER
� SEC 9
TAMARACK RD � T
GAS UNE SCE 12 KV POPPET
-- _,.__' FLATS CIRCUIT
— LATS
EXISTING CE ° e c e a —c — "—'
POLE NO 4806322E OOD CONTROL MT
PCC POLE
PARCEL 8 I P L 9 PARCEL110 I PARCEL 11 PARCEL 12 PARCEL 13
OVERHEAD \ GM LINE
ELECTRICAL I
CONDUCTORS c
CAS UNE
— GAS LINE I
\ PROPOSED I�
`INTERSTATE 10 R/W \EMNG PIT\
PROPOSED
500' BORE \ \ INTERSTATE 10 R/W
\ \ � INTERSTATE 10 R/W
EXISTING PROJECT BOUNDARY
FL00 CONTROL CHANNEL \ \ AND INTERSTATE 10 R/W
UNDER REEWAY
EXISTING PROJECT BOUNDARY / — a— �`�__, 16.5' SC GAS
AND INTERSTATE 111 R/W v SIGN \\
J \
SC
POLE '� 2SEEASSHEET 2PROP � �z� 0/H E
BORE PIT II O \ I UNDERGROUND
ELECTRICAL
CCONDUCTORS
y� 10' GTE
16.5' SC GAS
kIGN
�j TELE I III Esslq� � CABLE
fig= FDATE.
LABEL, COOK & ASSOCIATES INC. AGUA CALIENTE WIND TURBINE
►. 23323 SCALE: 1"=20D CIVILENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS
P. 12/31/17 o GE 3.0 MW 103, 85 M
LAND PLANNERSCryIV �! 400' 200' 0 200' 400' 177 Brockton, Ave. Ste 339, Riverside, CA 92506
grGl Telephone (951) 788-8092
2016 SCALE: 1"=200' W.O. 2571 SHT 3 OF 3 SHTS