The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/18/2003 - STAFF REPORTS (26) 1� Date: June 18, 2003 To: City Council From: Director of Planning & Zoning, and Executive Director of Airport CASE 5.0438 - INITIATION BY THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FOR A PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LOCATEDAT3400 E.TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY,ZONEA,O,M-1,M-1-P,W-A, AND CC, SECTION 7, 12, 13, AND18. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission and Airport Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to approvethe filing of a mitigated negative declaration,and approving the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Update, located at 3400 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way. SUMMARY Approval of the actions listed above will result in the replacement of the existing 1995 Airport Master Plan with the recently completed Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Update which will guide the future growth and development of the airport. BACKGROUND The Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan update was undertaken by the City of Palm Springs and Coffman Associates, Inc.,Airport Consultants with the assistance of a grant-in-aid from the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA). On May07,2003,the Palm Springs International Airport Commission approved the Master Plan Update and recommended the Planning Commission approve as drafted. At its meeting on May 28, 2003, the Planning Commission by a 7-0-0 vote, recommended the City Council approve the Master Plan Update. At its May 07, 2003 Study Session and May 28, 2003, public hearing, the Planning Commission voiced their concerns about the reconfiguration and inspection plaza project two way connection to EI Cielo. The Planning Commission wanted to know why a design solution could not be achieved for a west bound connection to El Cielo. Airport staff responded that during the design phase, efforts where made to find a solution such as, a fly overwhich would be cost prohibited, or use of vacant airport land for the connection. Such a use would be considered a non-airport use which is not allowable under federal regulations. Airport staff was also questioned about the timing of landscaping along Farrel and Vista Chino. Landscape plans are completed and readyto go to bid, however, a funding short fall due to 9/11 security needs are currently taking priority. An airport master plan is a comprehensive study providing an updated analysis of airport needs, defining its role within the regional airport system, and evaluating alternatives with the purpose of updating the direction for the future development of the airport. The subject Master Plan study updates the previous master plan which was completed in August, 1994. It is typical for airport sponsors to periodically update their airport's master plan to ensure that the airport can continue to adapt in providing adequate facilities to meet demands placed upon them. 414 Page 2 June 18, 2003 City Council Hearing The primary objective of the Master Plan Update is to re-examine and Update the long-term development program for the airport to ensure that it will continue to yield a safe, efficient, economical,and environmentally acceptable air transportation facility. The runway extension was completed from the previous Master Plan as well as the terminal expansion. The update concentrates first on security improvements generated from the events of September 11, 2001. Maintaining the existing infrastructure is also a priority, Airfield improvements concentrate on minor safety and efficiency improvements. Passenger terminal area improvement generally remain in line with the previous Master Plan. Plans for the northeast area of the airport have been revised slightly to consider opportunities for development that can provide revenue enhancement forthe airport and economic opportunities for the community. An important factor in any facility plan is a definition of the demand that it should reasonably be expected to accommodate during the useful life of its key components. In airport master planning, this involves projecting aviation activity indicators over at least a 20 year period. Forecast of passengers, cargo, based aircraft, and operations (takeoffs and landings)serve as the basis for airport facility planning. Aviation activity can be affected by many influences on the local, regional, and national level,making it virtually impossible to predict year-to-year fluctuations over twenty years with any certainty. Recognizing this,the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan update was developed to be "demand-based" rather than time-based. As a result, the reasonable levels of activities potential that are derived from the forecasting effort will be related to"planning horizon" levels ratherthan dates in time. These planning horizons will be established as levels ofactivitythat will call for consideration of the implementation of the next step in the master plan program. The major development items over the planning horizons include the following: Short Term: • Meet changing security needs; implement pavement rehabilitation and maintenance program;complete upgrades to terminal Gate 1,2,and 3,as well as general terminal interior renovations; continue to improve neighborhood compatibility with ongoing FAR Part 150 noise reduction recommendations(Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study);extend the terminal loop road;increase rental car ready/return lot; construct overflow parking lot; realign Taxiway B and construct high speed Taxiway N; develop newT-hanger area on northwest side of airfield;and construct airport maintenance facility. Intermediate Term: • Extend terminal baggage claim and ticketing wings;develop Federal Inspection Service(FIS) customs facility;construct employee and public parking additions;continue northeast area improvements with taxiwayaccess;develop westside corporate aviation parcel area with taxiwayaccess;provide service road on south side of Mid-Valley Expressway parcels;and implement pavement rehabilitation and maintenance program. 0 qAX Page 3 June 18, 2003 City Council Hearing Long Range: • Add highspeed exits north and south on primary runway; upgrade instrument approaches; continue parking improvements to meet demand; develop second terminal concourse; continue northeast area improvements; and implement pavement rehabilitation and maintenance program. Table 1: Surrounding General Plan Designations, Zoning, and Land Uses General Zone Land Uses Plan North L4, & IND N-R-1-C, & M-1 SINGLE FAMILY, & VACANT South RC, M15, PD-189, PD-193, P, & RETAIL, PROFESSIONAL OFFICES, P, & IND R2 APARTMENTS, & VACANT LAND East IND, & PD-195, W-M-1-P, & M- INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE PARKS, SINGLE LSR 1-P FAMILY, & VACANT West IND, CD, & M-1-P, R-1-C, CC, & INDUSTRIAL/PROFESSIONAL OFFICE M15 R2 PARKS, SINGLE FAMILY, & CIVIC CENTER GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY As the Airport is an existing use which has been addressed and considered in the City's General Plan, Final General Plan EIR, and Zoning regulations, implementation of the Master Plan Update does not conflict with these regulations. ANALYSIS The Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Update is evidencethatthe Cityof Palm Springs is committed to providing high quality air transportation services in the Coachella Valley. The City and the Palm Springs Airport Commission recognizes the importance of Palm Springs International Airport to the comm unity and the region,as well as the associated challenges inherent in providing for future aviation needs. By maintaining a sound,flexible Master Plan,the airport will continue to be a major economic asset to the area. Page 4 June 18, 2003 City Council Hearing In addition to the major development horizons listed under background of this report,thefollowing are key components of the Master Plan Update: 1. The Plan is demand-based. Designed to respond to actual demand. 2. Short-term improvements focus on security and infrastructure maintenance. 3. No changes proposed to the runways. 4. The Plan still allows for improving instrument weather approach minimums in the future. 5. Taxiway improvements designed to enhance safety and improve efficiency. 6. Passenger terminal building plan remains unchanged. 7. Terminal access and loop road plans modified to allow for security checkpoint away from terminal. 8. On-Airport land use footprint still allows for general aviation development, air cargo, and revenue-support uses within the existing property footprint. 9. While not required, the Plan allows flexibility for an aviation-related business park on northeast side as an economic opportunity for the community. 10. Airport improvements will continue to be funded with FAA grants from the Aviation Trust Fund, as well as airport user fees, and lease revenues. Many of the proposed improvements included in the previous study have been completed. Major improvements proposed bythe studies since completed included the extension of Runway 13R-31 L to 10,000 feet, Part 150 Noise Insulation Program (Phases I-IV insulated 50 residences), land acquisition (for noise compatibility purposes), the development of a new terminal building concourse, the construction of Mid Valley Parkway, and the re-alignment of Farrell Drive. Other projects of note include the construction of noise berm along south side of Vista Chino Road and the northwest extension of the noise wall located west of Runway 13R-31 L. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS An Initial Study(IS)was prepared for the project and mailed out to state and local agencies and interested parties. As identified in the IS,with incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the 1995 EIR/EAon theAirport Master Plan and 1994 FAR Part 150 Study,the projectwill not result in a significant impact to the natural environment. An impact summarytable located on page 24 of the IS compares existing conditions with the Plan Update by resource category. Upon completion of the IS,staff found thatthe proposed project could not have a significant impact on the environment,as the great majority of projects are being carried overfrom the previous Airport Master Plan,the mitigation measures identified during the earlier CEQA effort are also being carried over and are considered a part of this proposed Plan update. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council file a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subject project. a q A goo** Page 4 June 18, 2003 City Council Hearing NOTIFICATION A one eighth page legal ad and a newspaper interviewwith the Director ofAviation was published in the Desert Sun Newspaper. On May 07, 2003, a Planning Commission Study Session was conducted,followed by Planning Commission public hearing on May 28, 2003. As of the writing of this report,staff has received comments in writing and over the phone. One phone call was from a Mr.Harold Stone,property owner at2980 E.Plaimor Avenue. Mr.Stone was concern that he was not directly mailed a Planning Commission notice. In accordance with Government Code Section 65091(a)(3),the City posted newspaper display ads and posted at three public places. As a result of the request for notification, a City Council public hearing notice, as well as copies of the Master Plan and Initial Study has been mailed to Mr Stone(Government Code Section 65092). Written correspondence has been attached to this report. 62O� Director o Planni�ig and Zoning - a Execu ivewDire6 ,roof 46ort APPROVED: City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Initial Study and attachments (previously provided on June 06, 2003) 3. Initial Study comments and responses 4. Airport Master Plan, and Executive Summary(previously provided) 5. Resolution NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Case No. 5.0438, Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Update, and Environmental Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Applicant: City of Palm Springs NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of June 18, 2003. The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider Case 6.0438, a request by the City of Palm Springs for approval of the updated Master Plan for Palm Springs International Airport. The Master Plan is contained, in its entirety, on the internet at http://www.coffmanassociates.com. The City of Palm Springs Aviation Department has prepared an update to the existing Master Plan for Palm Springs International Airport. The Proposed Project constitutes replacement of the existing 1995 Airport Master Plan with the recently completed update. Major development items include the following: Short Term: Meet changing security needs; Implement pavement rehabilitation and maintenance program; Complete upgrade of terminal Gates 1, 2, and 3 as well as general terminal interior renovations; Continue to improve neighborhood compatibility with ongoing FAR Part 150 noise reduction recommendations(Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study); Extend the terminal loop road; Increase rental car ready/return lot; Construct overflow parking lot;Realign Taxiway B and construct high speed Taxiway N;Develop new T-hangar area on northeast side of airfield; Construct airport maintenance facility. Intermediate Term: Extend terminal baggage claim and ticketing wings; Develop Federal Inspection Service(F.I.S.)Customs Facility; Construct employee and public parking additions; Continue northeast area improvements with taxiway access; Develop west side corporate aviaition parcel area with taxiway access; Provide service road on south side of Mid- Valley Expressway parcels; Implement pavement rehabilitation and maintenance program. Long Range: Add high speed exits north and south on primary runway; Upgrade instrument approaches; Continue parking improvements to meet demand; Develop second terminal concourse; Continue northeast area improvements; Implement pavement rehabilitation and maintenance program. \An extended list of projects is contained within the Initial Study. The list of projects identifies which elements of the proposed project were also included in the previous master plan. As the great majority of projects are being carried over from the previous Airport Master Plan, the mitigation measures identified during the earlier CEQA effort are also being carried over and are considered a part of this Proposed Project. The City of Palm Springs (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the project under CEQA. The City is serving as the Lead Agency for this document,based on its jurisdiction over land use within the City's boundary. The City has determined through the preparation of an Initial Study that although the project has the potential to result in significant environmental effects, these impacts will not be significant in this case because the mitigation measures described in the detailed Initial Study have been added to the project.The Initial Study meets the requirements of the State of California CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Palm Springs Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. At its meeting, the City Council may recommend the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse with the review period ending on May 21,2003. The Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with responses to comments,and related documents are available for public review daily. Members of the public may view these documents in the Department of Planning and Zoning, City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, and submit written comments at or prior to the City Council hearing. . If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the City Council hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Lawrence A. Mainez, Principal Planner at (760)323-8245, or Allen F. Smoot, Executive Director-Airports (760) 318-3900. Patricia Sanders Publish: June 7, 22003 City Clerk The Desert Sun f l� VICINITY MAP re ro z hi�ey, m m � 3n ay 'm c N m N o m o Vista Chino Chia Road Tachevah Drive Tamarisk Road Ale"o 301h Road Avenue Palm Tah uitz Can on Wa ' Springs International Mission Airport'. . Drive u� Ramon Road Mesquite Avenue Palm Canyon Drive YAB CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO. 5.0438 DESCRIPTION APPLICANT City of Palm Springs Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Update, Section 18, Ronald E.Starrs Desert Water Agency President 1200 Gene AuiryTra l South William"Bill"Byrne PO.Box 1710 Vice President G DESERT WAT E R F. Jlar Boyd,Jr. Palm Springs,CA 92263-1710 Secretary/Treasurer `� Telephone 323-4971 EThomas Kieley,III �`■ Fax 760 325-65-6505 Patricia G.Oygar v www.dwa.org Dan M.Ainswor th General Manager Best,Best&Kreger E'U L�"�Y_ I General Counsel R IV E Krieger&SLewart 1 —� Consulting Engineers MAY 1 6 T003 May 5,2003 PLANNING p� g y Lawrence A.Mainez, Principal Planner PLANNING D9V+JIOiy City of Palm Springs P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 RE: Notice of Intent to Adopt the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan, Case No. 3.0829 Dear Mr. Mamez: Desert Water Agency has reviewed the above referenced document, and offers the following comments. At the time of the adoption of the 1995 Airport Master Plan, the groundwater supply in the upper Coachella Valley was in a state of long-tern overdraft. Today, despite the ongoing importation of water from the Colorado River Aqueduct,the overdraft situation remains. Increases in cumulative overdraft will result in declining groundwater levels and increased pumping lifts, thereby increasing energy consumption for groundwater extraction. Extreme cumulative overdraft has the potential of causing surface settlement and could also have an impact upon groundwater quality. As a means of reducing overdraft,Desert.Water wishes to continue discussions with the City regarding adopting a predominant water-efficient landscape theme for this Plan. hn addition, the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation should be considered when it becomes available. Sincerely, DESERT WATER AGENCY t�7� an M. Ains orth General Manager DMA/jds c/rou>✓r IU 2003 1 RECEIVED _ AIRPORT PLANNING IS OUR ONLY BUSINESS 0f�:i an www.cofmanassociates.com soci tee Ai port Consultants May 27, 2003 PLANNING DIVISION Mr. Dan M. Ainsworth General Manager Desert Water Agency 1200 Gene Autry Trail South P.O. Box 1710 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Re: Initial Study for Palm Springs International Airport.Master Plan Dear Mr. Ainsworth: This letter is in response to your letter dated May 5, 2003 regarding the Initial Study which was prepared for the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan. We-, appreciate your taking the time to comment on the document. A copy of your letter has been forwarded to Mr. Allen Smoot of Palm Springs International Airport to make him aware of your request for the use of recycled water for landscaped irrigation at the Airport. Detailed landscape plans were not included as part of the Airport Master Plan; however, management at the Airport is aware of your request for the use of a water-efficient landscape. Sincerely, 0. Molly A. Waller Airport/Environmental Planner Enclosures cc: Jim Harris, Coffman Associates Steve Benson, Coffman Associates Allen Smoot, Palm Springs International Airport Larry Mainez, City of Palm Springs Kansas City• Phoenix 237 N.W Blue Parkway, Suite 100, Lee's Summit, MO 64063 Phone: 816 524.3500 FAX: 816 524.2575 t�,AENT OFr Hsu o United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road RECEIVED j y� / y Carlsbad,California 92009 R E C E I V E D i In Reply Refer To:FWS-ERIV-3523.1 MAY 2 7 2003 City of Palm Springs MAY 2 12003 Attn: Lawrence A. Mainz PLANNING DIVISION Principal Planner P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan, Case No. 3,0829 Dear Mr. Mainez: This letter responds to the above referenced notice and request for comments on the Initial Study for Improvements Outlined Within the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan (Initial Study). We have two areas of concern, as follows: Page 12 of the Initial Study states that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was consulted regarding mitigation for the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard and that all impacts to this species have been fully mitigated, including the payment of mitigation fees. However, this consultation appears to have been based upon the project as proposed in the 1995 Environmental Impact Report (EIR). As noted on pages 29-30 of the Initial Study,the revised Master Plan includes new and modified projects that were not considered in the 1995 EIR. If these new and modified projects involve impacts on the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard not previously considered, such as additional disturbed habitat, additional fees or consultation between the Service and the Federal Aviation Administration under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act may be required to address these issues. The 1995 EIR identified a population of Coachella Valley milk-vetch in the infield areas around the runways. According to the Initial Study, this site has been resurfaced with gravel, prior to the listing of this species. The Initial Study therefore concludes that this plant is no longer present (page 12). The Service does not agree with this conclusion. Potential suitable habitat for this species appears to be extant within the Master Plan boundaries, especially in the area northwest of the existing runway. The Service believes that new, current surveys are required to ascertain if this species is present or absent from the project site. If this species is present and may be adversely affected by projects anticipated under the Master Plan, consultation with the Service may be necessary. 01 � / Lawrence A. Mainez FWS-ERW-3523.1 2 Thank you for coordinating this project with the Service. If you have any questions,please contact Chris Otahal of my staff at (760) 431-9440. Sincerely, Peter C. Sorensen Acting Assistant Field Supervisor cc: Mr. Howard Yoshioka, FAA Western Region AIRPORT PLANNING IS OUR ONLY BUSINESS C0 n www.coHmanassociates.com Associates May 27, 2003 Airport Consultants Mr. Chris Otahal Fish and Wildlife Biologist Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92009 Re: Initial Study for Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Dear Mr. Otahal: This letter is in response to your letter dated April 28, 2003 and email sent on May 23, 2003 regarding the Initial Study which was prepared for the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan. We appreciate your taking the time to comment on the document. A copy of your letter and email has been forwarded to Mr. Allen Smoot of Palm Springs International Airport and will be included within the file for the Initial Study. Prior to the development of the northeastern portions of Airport property, your office will be contacted per the contents of your email. Thanks again for your assistance. Sincerely, Molly A. Waller Airport/Environmental Planner Enclosures cc: Jim Harris, Coffman Associates Steve Benson, Coffman Associates Allen Smoot, Palm Springs International Airport Larry Mainez, City of Palm Springs 13 Kansas City•Phoenix 237 N.W. Blue Parkway, Suite 100, Lee's Summit, MO 64063 Phone: 816 524.3500 FAX. 816 524.2575 +" ti M' RECEIVED South Coast ! ,2 7 2003 Air Quality Management Dist ict m21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 9 1 765-41 82 p�.Af'J� NG D�ViS1ON p (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov FAXED: MAY 23, 2003 May 23, 2003 Mr. Lawrence A. Mainez, Principal Planner City of Palm Springs P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Improvements—City of Palm Springs The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND). Please provide the AQMD with written responses to all conunents contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. The AQMD would be happy to work with the Lead Agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Gordon Mize, Air Quality Specialist—CEQA Section, at (909) 396- 3302, if you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, ^ Steve Smith, Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development&Area Sources Attachment SS:GM RVC030423-02 Control Number Mr. Lawrence A. Mainez, -1- May 23, 2003 Principal Planner Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Improvements—City of Palm Springs 1. In the Initial Study under Section VI. Project Description page 2 of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft MND), it is assumed that the lead agency's Draft MND tiers off of the original 1995 Airport Master Plan EIR/EA CEQA document pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15152. CEQA Guidelines §I5152(f)(3) states, "Significant effects have been adequately addressed if the lead agency determines that: ...(b) they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions,the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project..." Although some annual operational summary emissions information is supplied in Attachment C,no previous analysis information is included in the Draft MND for short and long terns emissions for the projects listed on pages 29 and 30 (Draft Airport Master Plan—Capital Improvement Program Projects). Further,the Capital Improvement Program Projects on pages 29 and 30 simply lists the name of new projects specifically described as not being included in the 1995 EIR. It is therefore nuclear whether the previous project considered in sufficient detail site-specific impacts from the currently proposed project or whether additional site specific analysis is warranted. Consequently, since information from the previous CEQA document or a more detailed site-specific analysis was not included in the Draft MND,the lead agency has not demonstrated that the proposed project will not generate significant adverse construction or operational air quality impacts. It is also recommended that the lead agency.quantify construction and operation impacts for these projects not included in the 1995 Airport Master Plan EIR. Methodologies for quantifying air quality impacts can be found in the AQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Other approved methodologies can be used as long as there is sufficient justification and documentation supporting their use. J AIRPORT PLANNING IS OUR ONLY BUSINESS Coif*pan www.coffmanassociates.com Associates Airport Consultants May 27, 2003 Mr. Steve Smith, PhD Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development&Area Sources South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 Re: Initial Study for Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Dear Mr. Smith: This letter is in response to your letter dated May 23, 2003 regarding the Initial Study which was prepared for the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan. We appreciate your taking the time to comment on the document. A copy of your letter has been forwarded to Mr. Allen Smoot of Palm Springs International Airport and will be included within the file for the Initial Study. For informational purposes I have enclosed a copy of the air quality analysis which was completed for the 1995 Airport Master Plan EIR. This analysis contains site-specific impacts resulting from the implementation of the project components contained within the previous Master Plan for Palm Springs International Airport, adopted in 1995. The new Master Plan is similar in scope to the previous Master Plan and contains a number of projects which were included in the previous Master Plan and were not completed over the past seven years. New projects (i.e. not included in the 1995 Master Plan) primarily consist of refinements to the previously analyzed projects. For example, a number of taxiway improvements were proposed in the 1995 plan. These taxiway improvements were not completed and were carried forward into the new plan, with a slightly different alignment. Additionally, some of the projects evaluated as part of the 1995 plan were not carried forward into the new plan such as the construction of hotel facilities in the southwestern portion of Airport property. Air quality impacts resulting from the proposed development, not included within the 1995 EIR, would be primarily construction-related, as the forecasted air traffic activity has not significantly increased over what was previously analyzed. The previous air quality analysis evaluated a "worst case" scenario for construction related impacts. Results of this analysis indicated that the construction-related impacts would exceed only the NOx threshold. The remaining pollutants were well below the threshold of significance. Our analysis indicated that the impacts associated with the proposed development would not be greater than what was analyzed under the "worst case" scenario as some of the improvements proposed within the 1995 plan are not being carried forward into the new plan. The mitigation measures outlined on page C-67 and C-68 of the attached document outline the mitigation measures which will be utilized with project implementation. h Kansas City•Phoenix a l�' 237 N.W. Blue Parkway, Suite 100, Lee's Summit, MO 64063 Phone: 816.524.3500 FAX: 816.524.2575 Mr. Steve Smith, PhD May 27, 2003 Page Two If after reviewing the attached air quality analysis, you have additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at(816) 524-3500. Sincerely, a. � Molly A. Waller Airport/Environmental Planner Enclosures cc: Jim Harris, Coffman Associates Steve Benson, Coffman Associates Allen Smoot, Palm Springs International Airport Larry Mainez, City of Pahn Springs AIRPORT PLANNING IS OUR ONLY BUSINESS COff-sna--h www.coffmanassociates.com Associates Airport Consultants May 27, 2003 Ms. Kathleen DeRosa Public Affairs, Region Manager Southern Cal Edison . 36100 Cathedral Canyon Drive Cathedral City, CA 92234 Re: Initial Study for Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Dear Ms. DeRosa: This letter is in response to your letter dated April 28, 2003 regarding the Initial Study which was prepared for the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan. We appreciate your taking the time to comment on the document. A copy of your letter has been forwarded to Mr. Allen Smoot of Palm Springs International Airport and will be included within the file for the Initial Study. Sincerely, Molly A. Waller Airport/Environmental Planner Enclosures cc: Jim Harris, Coffman Associates Steve Benson, Coffman Associates Allen Smoot,Palm Springs International Airport Larry Mainez, City of Palm Springs Kansas City•Phoenix 237 N.W. Blue Parkway, Suite 100, Lee's Summit, Mo 64063 Phone: 816.524.3500 FAX: 816.524.2575 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Kathleen DeRosa EDISON® Region Manager An EDISON INTERNATIONALO Company April 28, 2003 WHGEIVED Mr Doug Evans LMAY City of Palm Springs Planning Dept 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way - 1 2003 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan PLANNING DIVISION Subject: NOI to adopt the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Dear Sirs: Thank you for including Southern California Edison (Edison) in the review process for the above referenced document. Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan is located within the service territory of Edison. Edison's power distribution system is prepared to deliver the power by the State's electricity market to this area. The California Independent System Operator is the agency now responsible for managing the State's electric grid and securing power supplies. The relocation, reconstruction, extension or under grounding of Edison's electrical distribution system,that may be necessitated within the proposed area will be performed by Edison in accordance with Edison's effective Tariff Schedules approved by and filed with the California Public Utilities Commission. Please include the following comment in your report. • Please be aware that SCE facilities that may be impacted by the project and may require relocation will be relocated at the customer expense unless a recorded land right on private property contains a relocation clause to move- facilities at SCE expense. • The integrity of any and all SCE land rights will be maintained and the developer at no cost will secure all replacement land rights to SCE. • Identified SCE properties may require relocation, please make sure REO is provided 5 sets of street improvements plans showing all SCE facilities, at no less then 50scale drawings 20 or 30 is preferred. It is critical to provide SCE plans as soon as possible, to: Mark Metzner Manager of Real Estate Operations Corporate Real Estate Southern California Edison 14799 Chestnut Street Westminster, CA 92683 If you have any question or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760)202-4211. Sine ely, athleen DeRosa ublic Affairs gion Manager 36100 Cathedral Canyon Dr. Cathedral City,CA 92234 760-202-4211 Fax 760-202-4136 AIRPORT PLANNING IS OUR ONLY BUSINESS www.coffmanassociates.com Associates May 27, 2003 Airport Consultants Mr. David J. Barakian Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re. Initial Study for Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Dear Mr, Barakian: This letter is in response to your memorandum dated May 12, 2003 regarding the Initial Study which was prepared for the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan. We appreciate your taking the time to comment on the document. In response to your comments on the Initial Study, a hydrology study was not conducted for during the preparation of the Airport Master Plan or the Initial Study. As stated on page 8 of the Initial Study, the City will revise the current Airport Storm Drain Master Plan prior to the construction of proposed improvements. The proposed improvements are not anticipated to have a significant impact on drainage. Additionally, it is not guaranteed that all of the improvement outlined within the Master Plan will be undertaken; therefore, the Airport Storm Drain Master Plan will be modified as the various projects are undertaken. The impacts of the proposed improvements as they relate to the intersection of Farrell Drive and Vista Chino were evaluated within the 1995 EIR. It was found that the impact of the proposed improvements on traffic at this intersection was negligible as it resulted in a one percent increase in traffic at this intersection. Due to the small impact of the project on this intersection, no specific mitigation measures were proposed as part of the 1995 EIR. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact Steve Benson or myself at (816) 524-3500. Sincerely, Molly A. Waller Airport/Environmental Planner Enclosures cc: Jim Harris, Coffman Associates Steve Benson, Coffman Associates Allen Smoot, Palm Springs International Airport Larry Mainez, City of Palm Springs Kansas City• Phoenix 237 N.W. Blue Parkway, Suite 100, Lee's Summit, MO 64063 Phone: 816 524 3500 FAX: 816.524 2575 r r r r r INITIAL STUDY r FOR IMPROVEMENTS OUTLINED WITHIN ' THE PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN r PALM SPRINGS, CA r Prepared By ' COFFMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. r April 2003 r r 1 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING tINITIAL STUDY ' Application No(s:): Case No. 3.0829 Date of Completed Application: April 16,2003 ' Name of Applicant: City of Palm Springs Project Description: Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Location of Project: Palm Springs International Airport- area is generally bounded by ' Vista Chino, Gene Autry Trail, Ramon Road, and Farrell Drive ' General Plan Designation(s): Airport, Industrial Proposed General Plan Designation(s): Airport ' Present Land Use(s): Airport, Undeveloped Existing Zoning(s): Airport (A), Open Land (0), Service/Manufacturing (M - 1), Planned Research and Development Park (M - 1 - P), Watercourse (W-A), Civic Center District (CC) ' Proposed Zoning(s): Same 1 ' lnIISldy.frm I ' I. Is the proposed action a"project' as defined by CEQA? (See section 2.6 of State CEQA Guidelines. If more than one project is present in Yes the same area, cumulative impact should be considered). II. If"yes" above, does the project fall into any of the Emergency Projects No ' listed in Section 15269 of the State CEQA Guidelines? III. If"no"on II.,does the project fall under any of the Ministerial Acts listed No ' in Section 15268 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines? IV. If"no"on III., does the project fall under any of the Statutory Exemptions No 1 listed in Article 18 of the State CEQA Guidelines? V. If "no" on IV., does the project qualify for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines? (Where there is a reasonable probability that the activity will have a significant No effect due to special circumstances, a categorical exemption does not apply). ' VI. Project Description: The City of Palm Springs Aviation Department has prepared an update to the existing Master Plan for Palm Springs International ' Airport. The Proposed Project constitutes replacement of the existing 1995 Airport Master Plan with the recently proposed update. Attached is a list of the capital improvement projects proposed for the ' Airport and an exhibit illustrating the location of these projects. The list of projects also identifies which elements of the proposed project were also included in the previous master plan. As the great majority ' of projects are being carried over from the previous Airport Master Plan, the mitigation measures identified during the earlier CEQA effort are also being carried over and are considered a part of this ' Proposed Project. This Initial Study is intended to evaluate, identify and provide mitigation for any new significant environmental impacts VII. resulting from the Proposed Project. 1 Surrounding Land Uses: ' North: Residential ' South: Residential, Industrial East: Undeveloped, Industrial,Residential ' West: Residential, Commercial ldfS[dy f— 2 ' VIII. Surrounding General Plan: ' North: Residential South Commercial, Residential, Industrial East: Industrial ' West: Residential, Commercial IX. Is the proposed project consistent with: If answered yes or not applicable, no explanation is required) City of Palm Springs General Plan ®Yes []No ON/A ' Applicable Specific Plan []Yes []No sN/A City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance ®Yes []No ON/A ' South Coast Air Quality Management Plan sYes []No ON/A Airport Part 150 Noise Study sYes ONo ON/A Draft Section 14 Master Development Plan DYes oNo sN/A X. Are any of the following studies required? ' 1. Soils Report OYes sNo 2. Slope Study []Yes sNo 3. Geotechnical Report OYes sNo ' 4. Traffic Study sYes []No 5. Air Quality Study sYes []No ' 6. Hydrology []Yes sNo ' 7. Sewer Study []Yes sNo 8. Biological Study []Yes sNo ' mnseay.fMI 3 t Potentially significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 9. Noise Study ®Yes ❑No 10. Hazardous Materials Study ❑Yes ®No 11. Housing Analysis ❑Yes ®No 12. Archaeological Report ❑Yes ®No ' 13. Groundwater Analysis ❑Yes ®No 14. Water Quality Report ❑Yes ®No ' 15. Other ❑Yes ®No ' XI. Incorporated herein by reference is the Final Environmental Impact Report on the General Plan Update, Previous Final Environmental Impact Report for the Palm Springs International Airport; General Plan; and Previous Airport Master Plan. ' l LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal: ' a) Conflict with general plan designation or ❑ ❑ ❑ zoning? (Source#'s) I b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans ❑ ❑ ❑ or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ' c) Be incompatible with existing land use in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the vicinity? ' d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. ❑ ❑ ❑ impacts to soils or farmlands,or impacts from incompatible land uses)? I�! e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ❑ ❑ ❑ ! established community(including a low-income ' or minority community)? tnitStdy.f m 4 ' Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 1. (a)and(b) - As the Airport is an existing use which has been addressed and considered in the City's General Plan,Final General Plan Elf, and Zoning regulations,implementation of the Proposed Project does not conflict with these regulations. Nor does the project conflict with any other applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. (c) - The greatest land use/planning impact resulting froman airport's operations is that of noise. For the purpose of this analysis, anupdated noise analysis was completed. The results are provided in Attachment C,Air Emissions and Noise Analyses. Briefly, ' noise from the airport will continue to leave the physical boundaries of the airport. As modeled,the existing noise exposure for 2000 is less than the 1999 noise exposure anticipated in the 1994 FAR Part 150 Study and utilized within the 1995 EIR/EA. Mitigation measures approved in the 1995 EIR/EA included noise abatement and land use measurement measures;control hours of operation for construction equipment with mufflers;locate stationary equipment such that noise is directed away from noise ' sensitive receivers;and locate stockpiles and vehicle staging areas away from noise sensitive receptors.In addition,after runway is extended and noise bean is constructed,complete noise monitoring at selected sites in residential areas shielded by the berm to determine the actual level of noise reduction in comparison to the modeled predictions presented in the EIR/EA. The long-range noise exposure for 2020 is also less than that projected for 2015 as contained within the 1995 EIR/EA. This is likely due to the ' improvements in the FAA's noise model,as more operations are projected for 2020 than for 2015. The update of the Airport Master Plan does not eliminate the continued implementation of the 1994 FAR Part 150 Study. Also, as identified in the Capital Improvement Program,the Proposed Project includes further noise abatement efforts,including the installation of a noise buffer of East Civic Drive and Phase VI of the noise mitigation efforts recommended in the 1994 FAR Part 150 Study. Additional discussion of noise impacts is included within Section 10-Noise,of this report. (d) - According to the 1995 EIR/EA,the area around the Airport has already been committed to urban development. In addition, the project area itself is not currently in farmland production. No impacts to agricultural resources or operations are,therefore, anticipated. (e) - No changes to roadways are proposed and the land to be acquired is currently undeveloped;therefore,the project will neither divide nor disrupt the physical arrangement of an established community. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or directly or indirectly(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially ❑ ❑ ❑ ' affordable housing? 2. (a) - PSP has been in operation since 1939 with air carrier service beginning in 1964. As a result,this use has been considered li in regional and local population projections for some time. Using industry standards,the demand for an airport is largely determined on the socioeconomic projections prepared by others- the airport itself is not considered to generate the demand but, rather, ' InilSrdyfrm 5 Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact supports and serves local and regional aviation needs. That said,as businesses prefer to locate where aviation services are available, the airport contributes to some degree to economic growth. As there are no standards for measuring the degree of this contribution, the presence of an airport is just one factor of many considered by a business,the impact is considered less-than-significant. (b) - The Proposed Project does include the development of currently undeveloped areas as either aviation or non-aviation-related revenue support. As the Airport Master Plan reflects a long-range scenario,it is intended to reflect and identify where and how demand can and will be accommodated on the airport in a manner compatible with the airport's primary functions and on an as- needed basis. There is no presumption that the entire area will be built-out over the course of the planning period. (c) - No houses will be acquired or displaced as part of the Proposed Project. The 1995 EIR/EA did evaluate the planned acquisition ofhomesunder the 1994 FARPart 150 Studyand amifigation measurewas included in the EIR/EA document regarding this action(Measure S-2). The update to the Airport Master Plan does not create any new significant impacts and does not eliminate nor amend this existing mitigation measure. t3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ❑ ❑ ❑ I b) Seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Seismic ground failure,including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Seiche,tsunami,or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ 29 ' e) Landslides or mudflows? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Expansive soils? ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 j) Is a major landfurn, ridgeline, canyon, etc. 0 El El involved? ' 3. According to the 1995 EIRIEA:"the site is deemed not likely to experience fault rapture due to its location(in excess InitStdyfnn 6 Potentially significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ' of four miles)from any known active faults. The site is also not considered subject to liquefaction due to its granular soil characteristics and the fact that depth to groundwater is in excess of 200 feet. Lurching is also unlikely to impact the site since it is associated with liquefaction and/or ground rupture,which are unlikely. The airport's inland location ' precludes tsunami hazards. There are no active volcanos or evidence of recent volcanism in the Palm Springs area. Although the water table in Palm Springs has been in a state of overdraft since the 1950's, there is no evidence of ground subsidence in the airport's vicinity." ' Mitigation measures identified in the 1995 EIR/EA and included in the Proposed Project by reference include four measures(G-1 through G4)to address impacts related to ground shaking and unstable soil conditions from excavation (during construction). As these are already incorporated into the project,the impact of the project does not create any ' new potentially significant impacts. ' 4. WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ rate and amount of surface mnoft? b) Exposure of people or property to water related ❑ ❑ ® ❑ hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ' surface water quality(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ' d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ❑ ❑ ❑ water body? e) Changes in currents,or the course or direction of ❑ ❑ ❑ water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either ❑ ❑ ❑ through direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations,or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ otherwise available for public water supplies? Inasrdy.frm 7 ' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant hnpact Impact Incorporated Impact ' j) Are there any on-site or any proposed wells? Dyes ®No 4. (a) - Implementation of the Proposed Project will result in increased areas of impermeable surfaces-both buildings and pavement, however,there will be no significant difference from projects which were addressed in the 1995 EIR/EA. Mitigation measures identified in the 1995 EIR/EA (WQ-1 and WQ-2) require that the Airport Sponsor address the requirements of the National ' Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit forboth construction at and operation of the airport and related facilities, as well as require that best management practices be incorporated into project design. These measures are intended to capture surface water runoff,reduce erosion,and preserve or enhance surface water quality. These measures are included in the Proposed Project and no new potentially significant impacts have been identified. ' (b)through(e) - Per the 1995 EIR/EA,the eastern boundary of the airport is located within the Whitewater River's 100-year floodplain. This area has been identified for aviation-related revenue support uses. Two mitigation measures were identified in the 1995 EIR/EA to address potential flooding impacts. These are FP-1 and FP-2 and are included as part of the Proposed Project. ' FP-2 identifies that the City,as Airport Sponsor,shall provide any additional on-site stormwater retention facilities which may be required to reduce off-site flooding impacts as a result of implementing the Proposed Project. The extent of these facilities will be determined at the time of project engineering for the individual airport improvements. For those projects not considered in the current Airport Storm Drain Master Plan,prior to their construction the City shall revise the drainage plan to ensure consistency with the City's Flood Drainage Prevention Ordinance and any other City flood control standards. As mitigation has been previously outlined for projects relating to the floodplain,the impact of the project does not create any new potentially significant impacts. See discussion above regarding measures WQ-1 and WQ-2 from the 1995 EIR/EA,which have been incorporated into the Proposed ' Project. Implementation of these measures are expected to protect surface water quality in the vicinity of PSP. (f)through(i) - The Proposed Project will result in no direct additions or withdrawals of local groundwater,nor will it alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater beneath the Airport. No on-site wells are proposed. A detailed groundwater study was completed as part of the 1995 EIR/EA. Of the three projects originally identified that were considered to have the potential to impact groundwater quality,two have already been implemented:the runway/taxiway extension and the construction of two infiltration basins to accommodate surface water runoff. The third,expansion of the aircraft parking apron in the vicinity of the proposed terminal addition,was found to pose no threat to groundwater quality because"the apron will be relatively impermeable and any surface water runoff will be directed to an existing oil/water separator." 5. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: ' a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ® ❑ ❑ to an existing or projected air quality violation? ' b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Alter air movement, moisture, or ❑ ❑ ❑ temperature,or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ❑ ' hdtStdy.frm 8 1 ' Potentially Siguficant Potentially Unless Less Than No significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 5. (a) According to SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook,projects with daily operational emissions that exceed anyof the long- term operational significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD(e.g.CO(550 pounds/day,ROC(75 pounds/day),NOx(100 pounds/day), SOx(150 pounds/day),and PM 10(150 pounds/day))should be considered significant;however, the airport is an existing facility and has,therefore,been incorporated in the development of the various air quality management plans within the region. The airport will continue to operate in the manner in which it has in the past. The proposed airport improvements are expected to have no notable affect on the level or quantity of operations that will occur in the future at the airport. An air quality assessment,for the existing and future conditions,was prepared using the FAA and EPA approved Emission Dispersion Modeling System(EDMS),version 4.04. (Attachment C,Air Emissions and Noise Analyses, contains an overview ' of the input materials and summary of the analysis.) Results indicated that SCAQMP Standards are currently,and will in the future,be exceeded by the airport for CO,ROC,and NOx regardless of whether or not airport improvements are undertaken. A dispersion analysis was done for the 1995 EIR/EA. Allowable I-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide pollutant levels were not exceeded at any of the 30 receptors evaluated nor at eitherthe intersections of Gene Autry Trail and Vista Chino or Gene Autry Trail and Ramon Road. The document concluded that"the relevant carbon monoxide standards will not be exceeded as a result of this project" As the Proposed Project is similar to the 1995 project,it is reasonable to make the same conclusion. Results from the 1995 EIR/EA concluded that implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to increase the generation of air pollutant emissions over existinglevels. The previous FIR found that Carbon Monoxide levels are expected to increase from 4.2 tons/day to 6.9 tons/day;reactive organic compound(ROC)levels will increase from 0.68 tons/day to 0.73 tons/day;nitrogen oxides will increase from 0.85 tons/day to 1.8 tons/day;sulfur oxides will increase from 0.05 tons/day to 0.1 tons/day;and particulate matter(PM 10)will increase from 0.05 tons/day to 0.09 tons/day. Since the potential air quality impacts are similar to those analyzed within the 1995 EIR/EA,the mitigation measures enacted as part of that document will be continued,thereby lessening the impacts of the potential airport improvements on the surrounding ' areas. (b) -Based on the dispersion analysis completed for the 1995 EIR/EA,the Proposed Project will not result in significant airquality impacts to any of the nearby sensitive receptors. The project does not introduce new impacts,therefore,no new significant air ' impacts are created. Air quality levels modeled for the year 2015 remained well within federal and state standards on-airport, indicating that areas off-airport would also have levels below the level of significance. 6 TRANSPORTATIONURCULATION Would the proposal result in: a) Estimated Average Daily Trips ❑ ❑ ® ❑ generated by the project?(S.F = 10; tM.F. = 6; or from ITE): b) Increased vehicle trips or traffic ❑ ❑ ® ❑ congestion? 1 c) Hazards to safety from design features ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)? ' IniisNdy.frm 9 1 ' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated hnpact ' d) Inadequate emergency access or access ❑ ❑ ❑ to nearby uses? ' e) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or ❑ ❑ ❑ off-site? f) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or ❑ ❑ ❑ bicyclists? g) Conflicts with adopted policies ❑ ❑ N ❑ supporting altemativetransportation(e.g. bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? h) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ N ❑ I6. (a) - A detailed traffic study was completed in November 2002 as part of the 1995 EIR/EA. This traffic study remains suitable in terms of traffic generation as the areas identified for the various land uses remain substantially the same. A cursory examination of average daily trips(ADT),as assigned using the ITE Trip Generation, 0 Edition for commercial service and general aviation airport use,identified that existing ADT is approximately 26,747 and,in 2015,these trips would increase to 53,520 ADT. The previously completed study projected that ADT in 2015 would be approximately 44,650. This difference is because(1)the 2020 estimates reflect an increase in aircraft operations over 2015 and(2)the proposed hotel has been replaced with parking,thereby eliminating those projected average daily vehicle trips. ' (b) -Afocused traffic study was completed in November 2002 to determine the impacts of closing Mid-Valley Parkway to thru-traffic. Mid-Valley Parkway was constructed as a result of the 1994 Airport Master Plan. The purpose of the development of the road was to allow airport traffic to bypass a portion of Ramon Road;however,after construction it ' was realized that a substantial portion of the current traffic on the Mid-Valley Parkway,through the airport property,is thru-traffic which is not airport-related. Since the events of 9/11,it has been determined that Mid-Valley Parkway now needs to be closed to westbound thru-traffic for security purposes. The focused traffic study was completed to determine the impacts of the closure of Mid-Valley Parkway to thru-traffic on El Cielo Road,Tahquitz Canyon Way,and Ramon Road. Theprimary traffic impact associated with the project is the elimination of the existing non-airport thru-traffic from the westbound movement on the Mid-Valley Parkway within the airport property. After proposed improvements along the Mid-Valley Parkway are completed, westbound non-airport thru-traffic would be diverted from the Mid-Valley ' Parkway through the airport property to Ramon Road and El Cielo Road. Tlreproposed modification of the airport access and internal circulation system would cause the redistribution of 431 existing mid-day peak hour trips and 442 existing evening peak hour trips through key intersections. Of that total,only nine percent of the trips represent airport-related traffic. Ili Results of die focused traffic study indicate that there is adequate capacity on Ramon Road and El Cielo Road to accommodate the traffic that will divert from the airport extension of the Mid-Valley Parkway in conjunction with the new site access and internal circulation plan required to improve airport security. Following project completion,the peak j hour levels of delay at the key intersections in the study area during the peak season are projected to remain representative of LOS C or better. No significant impacts on local circulation or access is expected to accompany the development of the proposed project. Westbound traffic will be routed back onto Ramon Road and El Cielo Road(where it existed prior to improvements to the Mid-Valley Parkway on the airport site). Eastbound traffic will be generally unaffected by ' the proposed project. [nitS(dyfrm 10 ' Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact For the traffic impacts located outside the focused study area,the 1995 EIR/EA was utilized to determine project impacts. Impacts and mitigation are described in the following paragraphs. The 1995 EIR/EA identified eight traffic-related mitigation measures(T-1 through T-8);these have been incorporated by reference into the Proposed Project. In T-1,the City,as Airport Sponsor,has contributed fair share funding for improvements to the area's circulation system,including 29.7%toward the cost of adding a left-turn lane to the existing ileft-turn lane for each approach at the intersection of Ramon Road and Gene Autry Trail(this component of the project has already been completed); 13.9%toward the cost of adding one thm-traffic lane for all four approaches and one additional left-turn lane for three approaches(north,south,and eastbound)to the intersection of Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trail;and 12.6%toward the cost of providing one additional through travel lane(east and westbound)and one i additional westbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Vista Chino and Sunrise Way. In addition,T-6 provides that, prior t o the issuance ofbuilding permits,the Airport Sponsor or lessee shall pay the designated Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee(TUMF),as required by CVAG,to pay for regional transportation system improvements. This mitigation measure addresses project impacts to the Gene Autry Trail/I-10 Freeway interchange and to ensure project consistency with the Regional Mobility Plan. Also,T-7 requires, concurrent with development of the area on the northeast comer of the Airport,that the Airport Sponsor shall provide an improved access route between Chia Road and Campana Way or another equivalent measure to allow left-tum access onto Vista Chino Road or Gene Autry Trail for the existing residential development on the southwest comer of these two roadways. i (g) - Regarding alternative transportation,measure T-2 provides that,as development progresses toward buildout of the Proposed Project,the Airport Sponsor shall include provisions forjoint pedestrian/bicycle pathways adjacent to General Plan roadways surrounding the airport,in accordance with the City's General Plan Circulation Policy. Also,measure i T-8 provides that project roadways shall reflect all provisions for pedestrian access that are required by the General Plan, including sidewalks,streetlights,wheelchair curb cuts,and signalized pedestrian crossings,where warranted. Provisions for pedestrian access shall be provided which connect transit routes to airport facilities and Circulation Element roadways.The Proposed Project shall include safe connections between bicycle routes and airport facilities. i (h) - No impacts to rail or waterborne transportation systems will occur as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project. As the project reflects a masterplanfor an airport,it identifies air traffic-related demand(passenger enplarements and aircraft operations)and measures to accommodate that demand;implementation of the Proposed Project is expected ito result in a beneficial impact to air traffic. i7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the proposal result in impacts to: 1 a) Endangered,threatened,or rare species El ® ❑ or their habitats(including but not ' limited to plants,fish,insects,animals,and birds)? ib) Locally designated species? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Locally designated natural ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ' communities(e.g.oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? iInilStdy.frnt 1 1 i Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ' d) Wetland habitat(e.g.marsh,riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ and vernal pool)? 1 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration ❑ ❑ ❑ corridors? - rf) Is consultation with the California Fish ®YES ONO and Game or the Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, as a trustee agency, 1 required? 7. (a)and(b) - During a site survey completed as part of the 1995 EIR/EA,two plant species then classified as Candidate species forlisting in the Federal Endangered Species Act:the Flat-seeded(spurge)and Coachella Valley(milk vetch)were found on airport property. The milk vetch has since been listed as an endangered species by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,though it is not listed by the State of California. The spurge has been removed from the federal list of candidate 1 species and is not listed by the state;however,the California Department of Fish and Game has classified the species as rare and identified that it is subject to protection under the Native Plant Protection Act. In addition,several Palm Springs ground squirrels and one individual ofthe Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard(CVFTL)was observed within theperimeter fence of the airport. At the time,the squirrel was listed as a candidate species for the Federal ESA and the CVFTL was listed as threatened by the federal government and endangered by the State of California. The squirrel has since been removed from the federal candidate species list. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service was consulted regarding mitigation for the CVFTL. All impacts to the species have 1 been fully mitigated,including the payment of mitigation fees. No new impacts will be created at Palm Springs International Airport;therefore,no new potentially significant impacts will be introduced. ' The 1995 EIR/EA identified a mitigation measure for the CVFTL. Measure B-1 identified that"prior to commencement of rough grading forgovemmentpublic works projects for areas otherthan those depicted as"Govemment/Public Works" on the Fringe-toed Lizard,Airport Map dated October 1986,the Airport Sponsor shall obtain a Section 10(a)permit and consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to modify the existing agreement so that new areas proposed for ' development strictly for public works projects associated with FAA operations ofthe air traffic control and safety systems at the airport will be exempt from payment of fees to acquire replacement habitat[this area is illustrated on Exhibit 6-22 of the 1995 EIR/EA]. Those properties proposed for development within the proposed Airport Master Plan for other uses such as commercial or industrial development shall be required to pay a fee to acquire adequate replacement habitat." Since publication of the EIR/EA and prior to the milk vetch's listing,the infield area was resurfaced with gravel and the plant is no longer located at the facility. As discussed in the 1995 EM/EA,as the flat-seeded spurge is found within the Coachella Valley Preserve system established by the CVFTL Habitat Conservation Plan, no further mitigation was ' recommended at that time. The currently proposed Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, intended to replace the CVFTL Habitat Conservation Plan,expands on the goals and policies of the original plan. (c) - The airport site is largely comprised of creosote scrub habitat. Implementation of the Proposed Project has the ' potential ofeliminating approximately 395 acres of this habitat at buildout.As this habitat is widespread in the southwest, the loss of this habitat on the project site does not result in a significant negative impact to the continued existence of this plant community. 1 (d) - According to the 1995 EIR/EA,a site survey identified that"there are no naturally occurring springs,permanent aquatic habitats or drainages on the project site. Groundwater lies in excess of 210 feet below the surface. No plant IniLStdy,frm 12 Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact species associated with wetland environments were found on the project site." (e) - According to the 1995 FIRMA,"The manmade features that surround the airport site have created physical barriers to the dispersal of most plant species and terrestrial animals both on and off the project site. Thus,the project site is rapidly becoming an ecological island with little recruitment of individual plant and animal species." (f) - As federal grant funding is used to enhance the airport and its facilities,the City of Palm Springs is required to coordinate and consult with the U.S.Department ofFish and Wildlife(USFWS). Also,the mitigation measures that were included in the 1995 EIR/EA and are incorporated by reference into the Proposed Action,requires consultation with the USFWS to obtain a Section 10(a) permit for work done at the Airport. In addition, as part of this environmental evaluation,the California Department of Fish and Game was contacted for input. 8 ENERGY AND MINERAL 1 RESOURCES Would the proposal create: a) Conflict with adopted energy ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ known mineral resource that would be of a future value to the region and the residents of the State? 8. (a) -According to the City,there is no adopted energy conservation plan for the City of Palm Springs. (b)-The 1995 EIR/EA identified seven mitigation measures(ES-I through ES-7)which address the design ofbuildings, ' landscaping,and other features to ensure energy and water conservation. These measures have been included byreference into the Proposed Action. (c) - There is no energy production or supply facilities on the project site. 9 HAZARDS Would the proposal: a) Be at risk of accidental explosion or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ release substances (including, but not limited to: oil,pesticides, chemicals, or radiation? ' b) Create possible interference with an ❑ ❑ ❑ ' Iettsrdyfrm 13 1 potentially Significant 1 potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ' c) Create any health hazard or potential ❑ ❑ ❑ health hazard? d) Create exposure of people to existing ❑ ❑ ❑ sources of potential health hazards? e) Increase the risk of fire hazard in areas ❑ ❑ ❑ with flammable brush,grass or trees? 1 9. (a) - The Proposed Project involves private uses that provide fuel and maintenance services. For the most part, an incident such as a fire, equipment failure, or an accident which would ignite the stored fuel are regarded as catastrophic events that are possible,although their probability of occurring at any given time or geographic point is remote and cannot be directly anticipated. Regulations regarding the design and operation of fuel facilities and the use of hazardous materials exist on the federal,state,county,and local levels. Patin Springs International Airport operates under an FAA-approved Airport Emergency Plan,in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation(F.A.R.)Part 139. This plan identifies the appropriate action to be taken in the event of real or potential emergencies. In addition,the operators of fuel storage facilities maintain disaster plans for response to many situations. In addition,the 1995 EIR/EA identified two mitigation measures(RU-1 and RU-2)to address the installation and removal of fuel storage tanks on the property. (b) - As a transportation facility,Palm Springs International Airport is a critical factor in any emergency response or evacuation plan. Implementation of the Proposed Project further supports this function by ' maintaining a safe and efficient aviation facility. (c) and (d) - The Airport's presence, function,and use do not create a health hazard or a potential health hazard,nor does it expose persons to an existing health hazard. ' (e) - Vegetation at the Airport is sparse and does not pose a significant fire hazard. Implementation of the Proposed Project replaces much of the existing vegetation with buildings and pavement,further reducing this hazard. to NOISE ' Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels? ' InitStdy.frm 14 1 ' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ' c) Will the project be compatible with the ®YES ONO noise compatibility planning criteria according to Table 7D of the Palm ' Springs Municipal Airport F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility study? 10. (a) - Aircraft operations at the Airport are expected to decrease when compared with those of the existing condition. As a result,sound levels(noise)associated with the additional operations will also decrease. This is expected to occur even though the number of operations at the facility is expected to increase. A comparison was made of the existing 2000/01 noise contours with those of the then forecasted 1999 noise condition,as described in the F.A.R.Part 150 Study. The comparison shows that the 65 CNEL noise contour of the existing condition(2000/01)is slightly smaller,in terms of total area,than that forecasted for 1999(640 acres compared with 803 acres). This decrease is largely due to two factors:an improvement in the FAA-approved noise model and a further decline in the number of noisier Stage II businessjet aircraft inthefleetmix. Attachment C provides a briefnoise study ofthe existing and long-term noise scenarios developed using the aviation demand forecasts from the Airport Master Plan Update. (b) - Based on the changes in the aviation demand forecasts,as described in the Airport Master Plan Update,the long- term 65 CNEL contour,the area of significant impact,will actually encompass a smaller area(576 acres)than that of the existing condition and is also smaller than the area encompassed by the 2015 noise contour as illustrated in the 1994 F.A.R.Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. Attachment C provides a brief noise analysis of the existing and long- term noise conditions given the aviation demand forecasts included in the Airport Master Plan Update. It is important to note,however,that theprojects identified in theProposed Project arenot direcdyresponsible for the forecasted increase inactivity. Rather,socioeconomic growth within the service region is primarily responsible for generating the increased demand. 1 (c) - Table 7D is a summary of the recommended Noise Compatibility Plan from the 1994 Noise Compatibility Program report. It identifies nine noise abatement measures, 14 land use management measures,and three program management measures. No items identified in the Proposed Project will prohibit implementation of any noise abatement, land use management,or program management measure identified in the table. No change to the existing airfield is proposed. Planned land uses on airport property are consistent with those identified in the previous Airport Master Plan and are compatible with the continuing operation of the airport. No new impacts will be created at Palm Springs International Airport;therefore,no new significant impacts will be ' introduced. 11 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? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Distance to nearest fire station 0 Feet. i ' b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ InitSidy fnn 15 ' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ' c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ' d) Maintenance of public facilities, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ including roads? e) Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 11. (a) - The Airport property is within thejurisdiction of the Palm Springs Fire Department. Fire Station#422 serves the airport operations(e.g.,Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting[ARFFj facility)and emergencies in the area. This facility is located on airport property. The Proposed Project includes an allowance for ARFF equipment,allowing it to be replaced or upgraded on an as-needed basis. Implementation of other measures in the Proposed Project will result in additional structures for the City Fire Department to serve.Development at the Airport is required to be consistent with the City Fire Department Standards,the Uniform Fire Code, as expressed in the 1995 EIR/EA mitigation measure PS-1,which is 1 incorporated into the Proposed Project by reference. (b) - The Airport is within thejurisdiction of the Palm Springs Police Department,located half a block from the Airport. The City also maintains an airport security force on airport property. According to information included in the 1995 EIR/EA,staff of the Palm Springs Police Department and the Airport indicated that implementation of the Proposed Project would"not create a significant impact on police services." (c) - Calculations made at the time of the 1995 EIR/EA estimated that the project would generate approximately 200 ' students. As identified in the 1995 EIR/EA,students generated by the project will not create a significant impact on the Palm Springs Unified School District(PSUSD)facilities. Payment by theproject proponent of the existing mandated state school impact fees will cover the costs of school facilities. No further mitigation was proposed. ' The Proposed Project is expected to generate a similar number of students as that identified in the 1995 EIR/EA. As before,payment by the project proponent of the existing mandated state school impact fees will cover the costs of school facilities and no mitigation is proposed. ' (d) - The City of Palm Springs,as the Airport Sponsor,will maintain all public facilities,including roads,at and in the immediate vicinity of the Airport. Revenue for maintenance of on-airport facilities will be derived from user fees and lease fees at the Airport. Revenue for maintenance of off-airport facilities will be derived from sales taxes. (e) - Public transportation is provided to and in the vicinity of the Airport by the SunLine Transit Agency. Increased development of the airport property is expected to result in an increased demand for public transportation services. This will not create a significant increase,however,due to the small proportion of project generated users to total ridership. ' In addition, users of the bus service generated by the Proposed Project will offset any impacts they may cause on SunLine's facilities through payment of sales taxes and user fees. New bus stops may be required along the Airport's boundary. As identified in the 1995 EIR/EA,mitigation measures PS-2 provides that"prior to the issuance of building permits,the Airport Sponsor shall meet with SunLine Transit to review development plans as they come on-line for the location of additional bus stops,where necessary." This measure is incorporated by reference into the Proposed Project. i 7naSidy.jrm 16 1 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact htcorpormed Impact ' 12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the proposal result in a need for new ' systems or supplies,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: ' a) Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ' c) Local or regional water treatment or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ distribution facilities? 1 d) Sewer or septic tanks? El El 0 ❑ ' e) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Solid waste disposal? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ' g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 12. (a) - Electric service at the Airport is provided by Southern California Edison Company(SCE). Based on the analysis ' provided in the 1995 EIR/EA,SCE indicated that it can serve the site with no significant impacts on its facilities. No off- site improvements other than a connection to existing facilities will be required. The project proponent will be required to pay for a part of the costs associated with locating infrastructure underground. Providing required infrastructure will ' reducepotentially significant adverse impacts to a level which is less-than-significant.Three(3)mitigation measures were identified in the 1995 EIR/EA(PU-6 through PU-8). These are included and adopted by reference in the Proposed Project. These measures address contributions toward the costs of improvements necessary to provide electricity to the project,the undergrounding of all proposed electrical lines on-site which are under 35 kV,and demonstration that the proposed structures are in compliance with Title 24(State Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Natural gas is provided to the Airport by Southern California Gas Company(SCG). According to the 1995 EIR/EA, implementation of energy efficiency standards of SCG and the state will reduceproject natural gas consumption to a level ' which is not significant. Development of the project will require additional development and extension of natural gas transmission facilities from gas mains adjacent to the project site to provide the site with service. The project applicant is responsible for all on-site natural gas infrastructure required to serve the project. Two(2)mitigation measures were identified in the 1995 EIRIEA:PU-9 and PU-10. These are incorporated by reference into the proposed project and address that the Airport Sponsor and each lessee shall(1)utilize energy efficient technologies for heating and cooling wheneverpossible by complying with Title24 and the energy efficiency requirements of SCG,and pay their fair share basis for the costs of system improvements,which SCG identifies,to serve the project. li (b) - Telephone service is provided by GTE Telephone Operations West Area and cable is provided by Time Warner Cable. No significant impact to existing services is expected by the proposed project. It will be necessary,however,to coordinate installation of any extended lines to serve the new development so that the lines are located properly and that planning and scheduling of construction occurs so that joint trenches of these utilities can be utilized. This issue is ' addressed in mitigation measurePU-ll ofthe1995 EIR/EA,which is incorporated byreference into the Proposed Project. ' InitStdy.fnn 17 ' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact (c) - The treatment and distribution of potable water is provided by the Desert Water Agency(DW). As part of the initial agency coordination on this project,the DW indicated they had`no comments." ' (d) - Wastewater disposal in the project area is provided by the City of Palm Springs. The 1995 EIR/EA identified that the then-proposed project would generate an additional estimated 964,912 gallons of sewage per day in the peak season. This represented 16 percent of the City's sewage treatment plant capacity after 1997. As stated in the document,"Since the project is expected to phase construction over the next 20 years,it is anticipated that sewage treatment plant capacity will be sufficient to accommodate theproject's requirements. Mitigation measure PU-3 from that documentprovides that, `other than public works,any private development ofleased Airport land shall pay all sewer facility/sewer service charges as their fair share to expanding the treatment facilities." This measure is included by reference in the Proposed Project. ' (e) - The Airport is located within the Riverside Flood Control Agency's Palm Springs area and stornwater drainage improvements are described in their Master Drainage Plan for the Palm Springs Area,Zone Six. In addition,the Airport itselfhas prepared and is implementing an Airport Storm Drain Master Plan. The 1995 EIR/EA provided two mitigation measures to address potential flooding impacts from the then-proposed project. FP-1 identified that the Airport Sponsor would provide any additional on-site stormwater retention facilities which may be required to reduce off-site flooding impacts as a result of implementing the Proposed Project,the extent of which would be determined at the time of project engineering for the individual airport improvements. FP-2 provided that the Airport Sponsor would revise the 1990 ' Airport Storm Drain Master Plan Update prior to the construction of those individual projects not considered in the document.The document would berevised consistent with the City's Flood DrainagePrevention Ordinance and any other City flood control standards. These mitigation measures are included by reference in the Proposed Project. ' (f) - Solid waste collection is provided by Palm Springs Disposal Services(PSDS). The City of Palm Springs presently mandates trash pick-up for all uses within the City. Trash from Palm Springs is currently taken to the Edom Hill Landfill in Cathedral City. Riverside County is currently developing a transfer facility to serve the City once Edom Hillis closed. As identified within the 1995 EIR/EA, PSDS stated that the project will have no significant impacts on PSDS; the ' company would expand as required. Proper access,noise screening,and roadways able to handle hauling truck weights will be required of project design,in order to facilitate waste disposal service. The 1995 EIR/EA identified two(2) mitigation measures,PU-4 and PU-5,to address solid waste impacts. One measure provides that the Airport Sponsor and each lessee shall participate in the City's curbside recycling and green waste collection program for the life of the project. ' The other provides that, during the life of the project, the Airport Sponsor and each lessee shall comply with the requirements of the CVAG Integrated WasteManagement Plan Source Reduction and Recycling Element(SRRE).These are incorporated into the Proposed Project by reference. (g) - As stated,DW is the agency responsible for water supply. At the time of the 1995 EIR/EA,it was determined that the projected increase in water consumption from implementation of the then-proposed project represented less than one percent of the total consumptive use for the Upper Coachella Valley. This was seen as potentially significant. It was 1 identified that Oils impact could be reduced to a level below significance by reducing project groundwater demand as much as feasible. This was achieved by installing water efficient fixtures and appliance and complying with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and obtaining DW input on proposed landscape plans. These efforts were incorporated into mitigation measures PU-1 and PU-2 of the 1995 EIR/EA,which have been made apart of the Proposed ' Project by reference. 1 ' /nitSidy.frm Ig Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ' 13 AESTHETICS Would the proposal: ' a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic ❑ ❑ ® ❑ highway? ' b) Have a demonstrable negative ❑ ❑ ® ❑ aesthetic effect? ' c) Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 13. (a) - Ramon Road,Vista Chino,and State Highway I I 1 (Gene Autry Trail)have all been designated by the City as a Scenic Corridor. A detailed visual and aesthetic analysis was completed as part of the 1995 EIR/EA and considered the development proposed throughout the Airport property. As the proposed development is similar to that previously evaluated,reliance is made on this analysis in evaluating the Proposed Project. Eight(8)viewpoints were evaluated. As identified in the 1995 EIR/EA,"Due mainly to its large circumference,the project site is exposed to a substantial and varied number of viewpoints. Importantly,nearly all important viewpoints are within close proximity of the airport. Because of the level terrain,foreground interference obstructs views from nearly all of the more distant viewpoints. As a result,surrounding development forms theproject viewshed boundaries."The assessment concluded that no significant adverse impacts were identified. Five(5)mitigation measures were,however,identified in order to lessen visual impacts. Three of these(A-1 through A-3)addressed the noise berm on Vista Chino Road,which has since been built. One(A-4) addressed the hotel which is no longer included in the Proposed Project. The remaining measure,A-5,identified that as the airport property is developed,the perimeter fence be relocated in accordance with the approved Airport Layout Plan. ' This measure is adopted by reference into the Proposed Project. (b) - Development of projects along Gene Autry Trail and Vista Chino will occur on currently undeveloped property and will limit the view of and across the airfield in these areas. These views result in the perception of openness. As the ' Airport is located in an urbanized area,this is not considered to be a significant negative aesthetic effect;however,it may affect perceptions of development density in the area. (c) -The Proposed Project will introduce additional airfield and landside lighting into the area. This lighting will include a Medium Approach Lighting System that is aligned with the runway(MALSR)and additional taxiway lighting along the proposed high speed exit taxiways and new access taxiway to the new T-hangar area and air cargo facilities,as well as to the west corporate parcel area and the northeast parcel. In addition to these airfield lights,new landside lighting sources will be located throughout the facility. This lighting is primarily related to security. The proposed airfield lights ' are located some distance from residences and are effectively blocked from the residences by the development of the taxiways that would be lighted are planned to serve. The project site is within a zone where night lighting can affect astronomical observations at the Palomar Observatory.In response,the 1995 EIR/EA included amitigation measure,LE- I,which provided that the Airport Sponsor and each lessee shall comply with Section 9306.00.C.4 of the City's Zoning ' Ordinance,dealing with lighting,during the development and operation of all landside development. Airfield lighting is specifically exempted from this requirement due to their function. ' mrrsrdy.frm 19 ' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact incorporated Impact 14 CULTURAL RESOURCES ' Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Affect historical resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Have the potential to cause a ' physical change which would affect ❑ ❑ ❑ unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses ❑ ❑ ❑ ' within the potential impact area? ' 14. (a) - According to the"Prehistoric Archaeological Resources Areas map of the Palm Springs General Plan, the Airport is not located in an area likely to have paleontological resources. The Airport is located in a low lying area,removed from any geology that would potentially contain fossils. ' (b)through(e) - A historical and cultural resources study was completed for the 1995 EIIUEA. The survey included a records search, coordination with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and other Native Americans,and a field survey. The survey area,or area of potential effect(APE),incorporated land beyond the physical boundaries of the project and included most,but not all,of the current planned acquisition area. The findings of the study are summarized as follows. - No archaeological sites have been recorded in the project area or within a one-mile radius of the ' project area. No cultural resources were identified during the on-foot survey of the project area. - Within the APE,only two structures,the Bird Hangar and the airport's Warehouse#4,were over 45 years old and subject to assessment as to their qualifications for the status of"historic properties" subject to protection under the National Register of Historic Places. Based on the analysis completed,the historical integrity of both structures had been greatly compromised by the extensive alterations in the structures and their surroundings since their period of significance(194147)and were not eligible for listing. The California Office of Historic Preservation concurred with this determination. - No structures are located on the parcel proposed for acquisition; therefore,no historical resources would be impacted. - Following a site visit with the Cahuilla Indian historian,the property was determined to have a very low sensitivity for cultural resources because of its distance from permanent water. Regardless of the anticipated lack of impact,the 1995 EIR/EA included a mitigation measure,HC-I,which identified that if evidence of subsurface historic properties is found during grading,said grading would cease InitSldy.frm 20 Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact or be diverted to allow inspection of the finds by a qualified archaeologist and for consultation with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Tribal Council. This measure is incorporated into this Proposed Project by reference. 1 15 RECREATION Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ' or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ opportunities? 15. (a) - While the project does not propose residential uses,which would result in a direct demand for recreational facilities, ' it will result in newjobs which will,in turn,result in increased population growth. The recreational demands for these persons will be addressed through related subdivision and housing plan review. (b) - The Airport has no direct or indirect impact on existing or known planned recreational opportunities. 16 PUBLIC CONTROVERSY a) Is the proposed project or action environmentally controversial in nature or can it reasonably be expected to become controversial upon disclosure to the public? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 16. Based on experiences during the 1995 EIR/EA process,the Proposed Project has the potential to be controversial with the public-at-large. This is largely in response to noise impacts from aircraft operations. As discussed in Section 10 of this Initial Study and as further described in Attachment C,the anticipated 65 CNEL noise contour,the threshold of significant noise impact,will be smaller in 2020 than that identified for the year2015 in the 1994 F.A.R.Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. ntrsedy,/ra 21 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife ❑ ❑ ® ❑ population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce thenumber or ' restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of long-term,environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ' cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means ❑ ❑ ® ❑ that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and effects of probable future projects.) ' d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Affect environment-(General description of area. Provide more detailed information on environmental factors likely to be affected by the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ' proposal.) f) Environmental Consequences - ]. Summary of impacts (Include a table summarizing the potential impacts by ❑ ❑ ® ❑ alternative. As much as possible, quantify the impacts. All of the BLM ' "critical elements" must be addressed whether or not they are affected by the InitSidy.jrm 22 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact impact Incorporated Impact proposal. Affected elements will be discussed in further detail in the following section. 17. (a) - As identified throughout this Initial Study,with incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the 1995 EIR/EA on the Airport Master Plan and 1994 F.A.R Part 150 Study,the project wi11 not result in a significant impact to the natural environment. Implementation of the Proposed Project elements will require participation in the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan or the proposed replacement Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan which will reduce impacts to rare,endangered,or threatened plants and animal species. The project will have no impact on important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. (b) - As identified throughout this Initial Study,implementation of the Proposed Project is not expected to result in any significant direct or cumulative environmental impacts. As the Project reflects a long-term development plan,individual ' elements will likely occur in small increments. Opportunities will exist throughout the planning period should accepted long-term environmental goals change. (c) - A cumulative impact analysis was completed as part of the 1995 EIR/EA. No area was identified as having significant,unmitigatable cumulative impacts. Mitigation measures were identified which are either already included in those measures specified for the Proposed Projector they were recommended planning and policy efforts for the region to consider,adopt,and implement. (d) - The Proposed Project accounts for a projected increase in aviation demand at Palm Springs International Airport. As a result, it accounts for off-site noise impacts. Some persons residing in the vicinity of the Airport are likely to consider these off-site impacts to be annoying orvery annoying. Studies have shown,however,that health impacts within the 65 CNEL noise contour are not significant as the length of high decibel noise exposure is below OSHA's standards. Also,as described in the 1994 F.A.R.Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program and the 1995 EIR/EA,sound insulation of homes was recommended within the 1999 65 CNEL noise contour. The Proposed Project includes the continuation of this program. Sound insulation of homes results in a compatible use with the Airport. ' (e) - Detailed discussions of the affected environment are included in the sections throughout this Initial Study. Greater descriptions of the affected environment are in Chapters 5 and 6 the 1995 EIR/EA. (f) - Impact summary: 1 LeflSrdyfrnr 23 1 1 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE-2002 Resource Existing Condition 2002 Master Plan Mitigation Category Update Measures Noise 65 CNEL=640 acres 65 CNEL=576 None required acres Compatible Land Five phases of sound All phases of sound None required ' Use insulation insulation will be as Phase VI of (recommended in the completed;therefore, sound FAR Part 150 Study) all uses within 65 insulation have been completed to CNEL contour will program is convert noncompatible be compatible with included in the residential uses into the airport. Proposed compatible uses. Project. ' Social Impacts Not applicable Acquisition of+32 1995 EIR/EA acres which are currently undeveloped ' Induced Not applicable Less-than-significant None required Socioeconomic Impacts Air Quality Water Quality Not applicable Increase in 1995 EIR/EA ' pavement results in an increase in stormwater runoff U.S.Dept of Not applicable Less-than-significant None required Transportation Act,Section 4(t) ' Historical, Two historical Less-than-significant 1995 EIR/EA Architectural, buildings,neither Archaeological, eligible for listing in ' Cultural Resources the National Register of Historic Places. No archaeological or ' paleontological sites. ' InitSidy jnn 24 Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ' IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE(continued) PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE-2002 Resource Existing Condition 2002 Master Plan Mitigation Category Update Measures Biological Coachella Valley Loss of habitat 1995 EIR/EA Resources Fringe-Toed Lizard (Federally listed as Less-than-significant Endangered) ' Flat-seeded spurge (State-listed as Rare) Wetlands and None None None required Waters of the U.S. Floodplains/ Eastern portion of Proposed aviation- 1995 EIR/EA Flood Control property in Whitewater related revenue 1 River's 100-year support uses in floodplain floodplain. Increase in Iimpervious surfaces. Less-than-significant Coastal Zone Not applicable None None required Management Program and Coastal Barriers ' Wild and Scenic Not applicable None None required Rivers ' Farmland Not applicable None None required Energy Supply and Maintenance and Improvements at the 1995 EIR/EA Natural Resources operation of facility Airport will result in ' requires manpower, greater areas for electricity,fuel,gas, maintenance, water,and other forms resulting in a greater of energy supply and demand for 1 natural resources. electricity,fuel,gas, water,etc. Less-thin-significant InitStaly frm 25 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact incorporated Impact ' IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE(continued) PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE-2002 ' Resource Existing Condition 2002 Master Plan Mitigation Category Update Measures Light Emissions Night lighting Landside facilities 1995 EIRIEA 1 restrictions shall comply with night lighting standards. Airfield lights are exempted ' from this requirement. Construction Not applicable Short-term and 1995 EIR/FA ' Impacts spread out over 20 years. Compliance with local,regional, and state standards ' regarding best management practices to reduce air emissions,noise 1 impacts,and water quality impacts. Geology Seismically active Airport location not 1995 EIR/EA j region likely to experience a fault rupture due to its distance from any known,active faults. Soil liquefaction and lurching are also unlikely. On-site ' soils are likely to be subject to hydroconsolidation and will need to be - recmnpacted prior to construction. Aesthetics Desert Mountain views Less-than-significant 1995 EIR/EA ' from urban area Risk of Upset Fuel deliveries. Less-than-significant 1995 EIR/EA Airport owns Runway Protection Zones. Demographics Not applicable 1995 FIRMA ' InitStdyfnn 26 ' Potentially Significant Potentially unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ' IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE(continued) PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE-2002 ' Resource Existing Condition 2002 Master Plan Mitigation Category Update Measures Traffic and Airport is served by Less-than-significant 1995 EIR/EA Circulation Mid-Valley Parkway, impact as determined Ramon Road,El Cielo by the 1995 EIR/EA Road,and Tahiquitz as well as the Canyon Way recently prepared ' focused traffic study. Public Services Not applicable Less-than-significant 1995 EIR/EA impact to fire and ' police services, public transportation services,and school facilities Public Utilities Not applicable Increase in demand 1995 EIR/EA for potable water, wastewater disposal, ' solid waste disposal, electricity,natural gas,telephone and cable services Less-than-significant 1 1 ' LtitStdy.fnn 27 1 ' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ' 18 LISTED BELOW ARE THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO PREPARED OR ' PARTICIPATED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY: Coffman Associates Kathryn W.May,AICP,Airport/Environmental Planner Molly Waller,Airport/Environmental Planner David Fitz,AICP,Associate Steve Benson,P.E.,Principal James Harris,P.E.,Principal City of Palm Springs Barry Griffith,Assistant Director of Aviation,Palm Springs International Airport Larry Mainez,Principal Planner,Palm Springs Department of Planning and Zoning ' Alex Meyerhoff,Principal Planner,Palm Springs Department of Planning and Zoning Doug Evans,Director,Palm Springs Department of Planning and Zoning ' 19 DETERMINATION ' On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the ' environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X 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 of the mitigation measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. ' I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ' I find that the proposed project is consistent with the Program EIR on: Date: I O Douglas R, vans Director of Planning& Building '6rilSidy.fnn 28 1 t PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Draft Airport Master Plan- Capital Improvement Program Projects Project Included Project# Project Description in 1995 EIR Security ' 3-1 Revise Loop Road Modified Location 3-2 Centralized Vehicle Inspection Facility No ' 4-1 Harden Terminal Front No 4-2 East Access Relocation/Fence and Road Reconstruction No Safety 3-3 FAR Part 130 Operations Database&Record Management No System ' 5-1 Replace Runway Sweeper Yes 5-5 Realign Taxiway B No L-4 MALSR-Runway 31L Yes I-16, L-15 ARFF and Airfield Equipment Allowance Yes Environmental 4-2 Install East Civic Drive Noise Buffer No 6-6 Install Noise Monitoring System No ' 6-7 Phase VI Noise Mitigation Yes Maintenance 3-4 Terminal Renovations (Replace Wall Covering) No 4-5 Terminal Renovations (Painting) No ' 5-7 Terminal Renovations (Carpet Replacement) No 6-8, 7-4 Terminal Renovations(Furniture Replacement) No ' I-17, L-16 Terminal Renovations Allowance No 4-6,5-8, 6-9, Pavement Rehabilitation Yes 7-5, 1-18, L-17 ' Demand 4-3 Relocate Segmented Circle and ASOS No 5-2 Construct Overflow/Remote Parking No 5-3 Relocate East Perimeter Service Road No 5-4 Tachevah Drive Access No 5-6 Terminal Holdrooms-Gates 1,2& 3, Phase II Yes 6-1 Expand Rental Car Ready/Return No ' 6-2 Construct High Speed Taxiway N Modified 6-3 T-Hangar Taxiways Relocated ' 6-4 Construct Two T-hangars(28 units) Relocated 6-5 T-hangar Utilities fire service Relocated ' 29 PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Draft Airport Master Plan- Capital Improvement Program Projects, continued M Project Included Project# Project Description in 1995 EIR 7-1 Install Loading Bridges Gates 1, 2, &3 Yes ' 7-2 Extend Terminal Loop Road East No I-1 Extend Baggage Claim Wing Yes I-2 Expand Airline Ticketing Area Yes I-3 Develop F.I.S./Customs Facility Yes I-4 Expand Employee Parking Yes I-5 Construct Parking Structure Yes I-13 T-hangar Taxiway Paving Phase 11 Relocated I-14 Construct One T-hangar(14 units) Relocated L-1 Install South/West Side High Speed Exit Yes ' L-2 Install South/East Side High Speed Exit Modified L-3 Install Mid/East Side High Speed Exit No ' L-5 Parking Structure -Phase II Yes L-6 Construct Second Concourse Yes ' L-7 Extend Terminal Ramp East Yes L-8 Relocate F.I.S. Customs Related to I-3 L-9 Air Cargo Ramp Phase I Relocated tL-10 Air Cargo Building Relocated L-11 Air Cargo Access Road Relocated ' L-12 Air Cargo Parking-Phase I Relocated L-13 T-hangar Taxiway Paving Phase III No ' L-14 Construct Two T-hangars(24 Units) No Opportunities ' I-6 Construct West Corporate Parcel Taxiway Relocated I-7 Extend West Corporate Parcel Access Road Relocated ' I-8 Extend West Corporate Parcel Utilities Relocated I-9 Acquire Northeast Parcel (32 Acres) No I-10 Complete North Access Road to Vista Chino No I-11 Construct North Hammerhead Taxiway No I-12 Prepare North Aviation Parcels with Utilities No ' n roject numbers beginning with a number indicate that they are scheduled for the short-tenu(FY 2003 through FY 007). Project numbers beginning with"I"indicate that they are scheduled for the intermediate horizon,generally Y 2008 through FY 2012). Project numbers beginning with"L"indicate that they are scheduled for the long anee horizon,eenerally FY 2013 throueh FY 2022. 30 1 r rya /� r1K,Tl 3N1'r 41 'Vrift .�f�'y 'y( =� -� .o .C:h3' \ ."K4'�•. �•rM,f ` .,`'�, ./„ V c;.t .�,.r. a P. ao �F`- ,` r�\!pd'LS� r`o a m p m m m .. R,� M. fS}.. - a w o m _ �f •� L,IS.A�V �.F a�i" 1'r s ti 'yMf,� ,�' 3 0, ro a rof ` +'�nv �. 7. m O// r• w S a rn m w o o M a u � � I � '. �ny�'Dt�twwy33 ,r .' ',� . I 1`� �r. � ,ryi ,;�'�•'',�� 5'�'�� l _�••I R I ' k `r '.,'F`r' ✓�, � ', \ r, '�, biter)�F�j'ilR, r•��{�,/ �y ' � "! r� 12��'r� '�k�/r,�-4/ a ��' rV <.� b„ C? r' � � y"y"�^�4�` ca.•�` 'Q —r o?'{,�.,,-� tE - P9,,y '�.� c�R � ry.^ 1 � � cR1 'CJr� ' / N r , P Ilk,r�7'� Fit ' r � 0 f It it T � , 3 , , �1 iY „f J\ li♦ it � c� I rca I , 4 f' / r• •'�;. ' 3 � /�,+P sir �,��h� .: J' �/ � �ti-) t I� eo -I i / •c ♦ ��,�'? �h 7 fir`, yr v t� y �, t^,� v �,. »/ -�i r•. ' / 1`ti,' � I. � i/� .ep t�',j�,l�cx�.F �� '1¢,�,�'l, -?�+tj.''v'�'.x r.. = III l AR . It w I I d I, 1 Ate � I �I � � (' I "i / f %/ �'+yry�y{ rJ'�✓ �� y 1' �`i{?r'�r'S {�. argil/rCY .. r� I�Ar J � 'T/,n 7<,• x�r . lit' .AFr✓J •`\;.A'�!,<i'u ii \ 3 1, 'y' . yq".y �� tqi(+� gN�. t Fr '�, •.; Al t ' .� 1 �� l�I l'�J S - ��A� ( ", �'�, ,yR icy �SrX' ( \�� ♦ �y'��1� �-�� i t7,x�'�?<\.F '�„ _ f./ I r. to. �. ]r � r ^✓ '" xt.a t l/"5 n�.' !/ � //Tt/ � '^ r J i �I i - � ::�i✓' /� �xtiw�4 oKc`"F\t �tj` .r'ir '�4 t. . Z,r it ad�.. Ni t ( J �•l� lr fly, '�"r�� % Y �� z N / III'. r, J• ��t II Ai , %jt 'h�'r g ov6�g �` d•' f. � M / _ .'� �2' r e �C,. vat ' r f � yy 1 S A d •�t� v.`/ Sw vj t(t+ S ', El" '�.0.f(/�/t� "< � 'd�rl�'r� f >< r ` '�*�t r • r't`q 4ry,� '' '•, �., ti '"" n�'SSi 'iy n," Ar,.J1:� dl.�r`"�' a%' � } � t �, f � 4 +. • �/. ��nl� � �1`rr Llt, !;')- t"+1 C�Z,(? Ur�'��_. � ,.r,,. ., .,�„ ,r` r\�'F 4��.',,Ygr ��•- II r /`•,,RV r /fir,f, �.1 IC.^tr �.'��/` ". �� ' }� v', rr \' `+, 'V*w .R r .. 3 �! ;-, 4a '�� 'F✓ l ti ,� tirf i-t� ¢ 5 /rn• ,t ✓�rr-tS. 0� �i�v� .a I ��. Est y�.`1.' ✓�.� r p? •� �, � AZ I r. �) /• •'fr. r ' t � '� ! ? ^t l tt,4 n. �:�, +, �7' � a•^, rtl"� n� r /, w � tT '�'1 +.'i � earun�mdwoa ' Agency Coordination List ' Palm Springs International Airport State Clearinghouse Palm Springs Unified School Dist. 1400 Tenth Street 333 South Farrell Drive Sacramento, CA 95814 Palm Springs, CA 92262 ' Mr. Hans Krentzberg Corky Larson Office of Historic Preservation CVAG P.O. Box 942896 73-710 Fred Waring Drive ' Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Native American Heritage Comm. Southern CA Edison Company ' 1400 Tenth Street Environmental Affairs Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 800 ' F.B. Fryman Rosemead, CA 91770 BIA General Telephone Co. 2800 Cottage Way 195 South Sunrise Way Sacramento, CA 95825 Palm Springs, CA 92262 SCAG So. California Gas Company 818 West 71h Street, 121h Floor 211 North Sunrise Way Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 Palm Springs, CA 92262 ' Riverside County Flood Control/ Bureau of Indian Affairs Water Conservation District P.O. Box 2245 ' 1995 Market Street Palm Springs, CA 92263 Riverside, CA 92501 Mr. Richard Milanovich ' Mr. Cecil A. Karenson Tribal Council Riverside County Transportation and 600 East Tahquitz Canyon Way ' Planning/CA Dept. of Trans. Palm Springs, CA 92262 464 W. Fourth St., 61h Floor, MS727 San Bernardino, CA 92401 Mr. Tom Davis Agua Caliente Tribal Council Regional Water Quality Control Board 600 East Tahquitz Canyon Way 73-721 Highway 111 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Ms. Aleta Laurence ' Desert Hospital Riverside County Planning Dept. 1150 North Indian Canyon Drive 4080 Lemon Street, 9`h Floor Palm Springs, CA 92262 Riverside, CA 92501 A-1 1 Air Resources Board BLM-U.S. Dept. of Interior ' P.O. Box 2815 P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95814 N. Palm Springs, CA 92258 1 Dept. of Parks & Recreation Archaeological Research Dept. 1416 Ninth Street University of CA at Riverside Sacramento, CA 95814 44400 ' (Could never get an address for this) Coachella Valley Riverside, CA 92521 Mountain Conservancy 1721 2nd Street, #203 Resources Agency Sacramento, CA 95814 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 ' Planning Director City of Cathedral City State of CA Dept. of Conservation P.O. Box 5001 Division of Mines & Geology ' Cathedral City, CA 92235 801 K Street, MS 12-30 Sacramento, CA 95814 ' Mr. Robert W. Cervantes Office of the Governor Environmental Review Division Local Government Affairs U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services 1400 101h Street 2730 Looker Avenue West Sacramento, CA 95814 Carlsbad, CA 92008 ' Water Resources Control Board Mt. San Jacinto Winter Park Auth. 1416 Ninth Street, Room 615-2 1 Tram Way Sacramento, CA 95814 Palm Springs, CA 92262 ' Dept. of Forestry Mr. Ernest Maxwell 1416 Ninth Street Izaak Walton League of America Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 1758 Idyllwild, CA 92349 Region 8 Env. Services Division CA Department of Fish & Game Ms. Joan Taylor 350 Golden Shore Drive, Suite D Sierra Club ' Long Beach, CA 90802 1800 S. Sunrise Way Palm Springs, CA 92264 Fish & Game Inland ' Fisheries-Region 5 Citizens/Better Environment 47-800 Madison St., #233 P.O. Box 1215 ' Indio, CA 92201 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Regulatory Branch Coachella Valley Ecological Res. ' LT.S. Army Corps of Engineers Foundation P.O. Box 2711 P.O. Box 1738 Los Angeles, CA 90053 Palm Desert, CA 92261 A-2 1 ' Ms. Katie Barrows Convention & Visitors Bureau Coachella Vly Mountain Preserve 69-930 Hwy. 111, #201 ' P.O. Box 2855 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Sunline Transit Mr. Jim Deforge 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail Bighorn Research Institute Thousand Palms, CA 92276 P.O. Box 262 ' Palm Desert, CA 92261 Southern CA Edison Co. 1700 E. Tahquitz Canyon, 91 ' San Gorgonio Chapter Sierra Club Palm Springs, CA 92262 568 N. Mt. View #130 San Bernardino, CA 92401 Waste Disposal Services 4690 S. Mesquite Coachella Valley Preserve Palm Springs, CA 92264 Management Team ' 47 Bird Farm Road Planning Director Chino, CA 91709 City of Desert Hot Springs 65950 Pierson Blvd. ' Mr. Jeff Close Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 POST ' 113 Camarillo St. Ms. Opal Maletta Palm Springs, CA 92264 President Desert Protective Council Mr. Kenneth Glassman P.O. Box 4294 Friends of the Env. Palm Springs, CA 92263 P.O. Box 9560 ' Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs Cemetery District 69920 Ramon Road Mr. Jim Condon Cathedral City, CA 92234 Save our Santa Rosas 38251 Charlesworth Mr. John J. Benoit Cathedral City, CA 92234 Cpt./Indio Area Highway Patrol Coachella Valley Mosquito 79650 Varner Road ' Abatement District Indio, CA 92203-9704 83733 Avenue 55 Thermal, CA 92274 AMR Ambulance 539 Williams Road Dept./Public Social Services Palm Springs, CA 92264 44-700 Palm Indio, CA 92201 League of Women Voters P.O. Box 4039 Mission Springs Water District Palm Springs, CA 92263 ' 66575 E. 2n1 Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 A-3 1 College of the Desert EIR Reviewer, District 8 43-500 Monterey Road CALTRANS ' Palm Desert, CA 92260 P.O. Box 231 San Bernardino, CA 92402 General Telephone Co. 295 N. Sunrise Way SCAQMD Palm Springs, CA 92262 21865 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 ' GTE California, Inc. Executive Offices Riverside C. Admin. Office ' One GTE Place 4080 Lemon Street Thousand Oaks, CA 91362-3811 Riverside, CA 92501 1 Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside Co. Assr. Office 73-721 Highway 111 3255 E. Tahquitz Canyon Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Springs, CA 92262 ' Palm Springs Unified School District. Mr. Roy Wilson 333 S. Farrell Drive Riverside County Palm Springs, CA 92262 46-209 Oasis, Rm. 414 Indio, CA 92201 Banning Unified School District ' 161 W. Williams Road Riverside County Health Dept. Banning, CA 92220 46-209 Oasis Street ' Chamber of Commerce Indio, CA 92201 IN W. Amado Road Capt. Bloomquist Palm Springs, CA 92262 Riverside County Sheriff Dept. 73520 Fred Waring Drive Coachella Valley Water Conservation Palm Desert, CA 92260 District P.O. Box 1058 Ms. Marlene Hagman ' Coachella, CA 92236 Riverside County ALUC P.O. Box 1180 Warner Cable TV Riverside, CA 92502 810 N. Farrell Drive t Palm Springs, CA 92262 Riverside County Health Dept. P.O. Box 7600 Desert Water Agency Riverside, CA 92513 1200 S. Gene Autry Trail Palm Springs, CA 92264 Riverside County Trans. Dept. 4080 Lemon St., Szh Floor R.A. Barnstetter Regional Eng. Riverside, CA 92501 So. Pacific Transportation Co. ' 1200 Corporate Center Monterey, CA 91754 A-4 ' Riverside County Flood Control Mr. Howard Yoshioka Water Conservation District FAA Western Region [995 Market Street 15000 Aviation Blvd., 6th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Lawndale, CA 90261 ' CA Heritage Preservation Committee Attn: Planning IL020 "O" Street, Room 130 Riverside County Waste Management ' Sacramento, CA 95814 1995 Market Street Riverside, CA 92501-1719 State of California Housing and Community Development 1800 Third Street Sacramento, CA 95814 1 1 1 1 1 A-5 DAVID P.ZAPPE ou8 r r1p 1995 MARKET STREET eral Marmger-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE,CA 92501 909.955.1200 ' 909.788.9965 FAX �f�OA o`ste 78049.1 s£RVAT 1a� ' RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRI D ' rAugust 7, 2002 AUG 1 2 20(12 Ms.Kathryn W. May Airport/Environmental Planner Coffman Associates 4835 E. Cactus Road, Suite 235 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 ' Dear Ms. May: Re: Pahn Springs International Airport- Airport Master Plan Update CEQA/NEPA Review This letter is written in response to the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Update CEQA/NEPA review. The proposed Update would include security improvements, terminal building renovations, internal roadway redesign, revised locations for future high speed runway exits, 26 additional T-Hanger storage units, and the acquisition of 32 acres for aviation-related users (revenue support, assisting the Airport in maintaining ' self-sufficiency). The proposed project is generally located south of Vista Chino, north of Ramon Road, east of Farrell Drive, and west of Gene Autry Trail in the city of Palm Springs. ' The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) has the following comments/ concerns that should be addressed: I. The District has existing facilities within the proposed project area that may be impacted. Any work that involves District right of way, easements or facilities will require an encroachment permit from the District. To obtain further information on encroachment permits or existing facilities, contact Ed Lotz of the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 909.955.1266. ' 2. The proposed project area is located within the District's Master Drainage Plan (MDP) for the Palm Springs area. When fully implemented, these MDP facilities will provide flood protection to relieve those areas within the plans of the most serious flooding problems and will provide ' adequate drainage outlets. To obtain further information on the MDP and.the proposed District facilities, contact Jason Uhley of the District's Planning Section at 909.9551345. 3. The proposed project has the potential to significantly alter existing drainage patterns. The ' potential diversion or concentration of storm flow and any related impacts should be fully addressed. The proposed project also has the potential to significantly increase storm runoff and erosion downstream of the project area. The potential for increased runoff and any impacts that may result should be discussed. In addition, potential impacts to groundwater recharge that may ' be caused by increases in impervious areas within the proposed project site should also be addressed. ' 4. The proposed project may contribute to increases in urban pollutant runoff. The Colorado River Basin Regional Drainage Area Management Plan (CR-DAMP) describes the overall stormwater management strategies planned by Riverside County. The CR-DAMP has been prepared to meet the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater ' Permit issued by the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board to the municipalities in the Whitewater River basin of Riverside County. 1 ' B-1 78049.1 Ms.Kathryn W. May -2- August 7,2002 Re: Palm Springs International Airport- Airport Master Plan Update ' CEQA/NEPA Review ' The District pnd the NPDES Co-Permitees also prepared Supplement "A" entitled "New Development Guidelines" and the attachment to Supplement "A" entitled "Selection and Design of Stormwater Quality Control". These documents complement the DAMP by providing additional guidance in the selection and implementation of best management practices (BMPs). The above documents (available for downloading from the District website at www.co.riverside.ca.us/dents/flood/watergualitvnpdes.asp) should be used during the evaluation of ' potential stormwater quality impacts and appropriate mitigation measures that may be needed to address such impacts. Any questions regarding the above documents or the District's NPDES program should be directed to Steve Stump of the District's NPDES section at 909.955.1273. 5. A portion of the proposed project area is currently shown on the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of Palm Springs (Community Panel Number 060257 007) issued in conjunction with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Any impacts to the floodplain ' within the project area should be discussed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. Please forward any subsequent environmental documents regarding the project to my attention at this office. Any further questions ' concerning this letter may be referred to me at 909.955.1233 or Marc Mintz at 909.955.4643. V ruly your , / 77 ZULLY SkTH Senior Civil Engineer c: Ed Lotz Jason Uhley ' Steve Stump MAM:s1J ' B2 AUG 1 2 2002 OUTHERN CALIFORNIA ' July 19, 2002 Coffman Associates Kathryn May, AICP 4835 E. Cactus Rd., Suite #235 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 SSOCIATION of OVERNMENTS Re: Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Review ' Main Office Dear Ms. May: IS West Seventh Street Thank you for giving the Southern California Association of azth Floor Governments (SCAG) the opportunity to comment on the proposed os Angeles.California improvements at the Palm Springs International Airport. SCAG is ' 90017-3435 committed to meeting the air travel needs of all Southern California residents. The projects included in the master plan are all evidence t(213)236-L800 that Palm Springs is actively working to meet future aviation ' f(u3)236-L835 demand. www.scagxa.gov The attached page has some general comments and points of ' Pendem.Cdunmlmemn<rHil&ture.. inquiry regarding the master plan projects. These comments are p Brta First 5emnd Vice president 5upmlmr the professional opinions made only by SCAG aviation staff and do imnh,Oran,'Cuvmy-Immedum Pm supernwr Inn Kiddz,An&n—duoo not necessarily reflect the views or policies of SCAG or SCAG. ' lC...q Hsnk K..,,hrn,nrl C-1,- management. Projects that are not included in the list are projects r Brawl" SCAG aviation staff has `no comment' on. Since many of the da Couur-: ,,y.e ...lnw.ee Berke ro ects were included in the last EIR the comments from SCAG Ies Cnum And—. . Cruise InsM r,ry projects •Md+me Mdrewz. Compm� H.rry I" 1 SrnG.brid•M1mdeBumws,0nnd,- are fairly brief and should be taken as largely points of inquiry. s,&II•Hrl Benuou,Los Myda-Ken d,lomiu•Retire,Brurrcn.Rosmind- re, Prrrmouno Run Grhnmr, Ins Eric Gr hn.loc `'I's- If you have any questions regarding the comments or need A Mgeln e piers Hahn,Iav Mgda ' An Wr Jte,rier NS, Hdlden, Ins runs Aurg pcnhs. n 5egnnn .True additional information please do not hesitate to contact Ryan Hall at Lie Mgsla•gonme 1r uud - Inng SCAG. C tu,ne KrzCin Inglewood Keith N. O-C Cindy Mrsdkowskt. Ins hie O'Connor Srnn Minn. Nick dr�- tor M'el.• eFrw.Prcd N%err Than^^k�L you,N r IerAn,ees• Ksren Berr Crre re,n - Dick AzuSi-Turn S,ke,Walnm-ruul Tilent. Sidney Tyler,Is,Pmdcm-IXmnrs Calrnsss- Wss,Lie Angdn- rum.Glendile- proms 1 r P.Lns, lnz num):Chrrlc Smnb,Onn"County lns Namms•9,1,h eruc[Hunnngldn itB.—.Priem Prrk•Le,gone Td.dn Ryan Hall ' e Cowm,Cosu Mm•Gthp-npeYowg, lgud•Wehard p„on.cken Forest ""h'".ir Southern California Association of Governments Prlmr•fiu" MCCC"", Ce - Bier•TodRldgewrgNewPdn&rcn Aviation Planning Counry:Eob M1uslcr,Rlvrnlde Counry rugs,lu—nde•Gey M1W.Cnhedril 213-236-1987 ' ce Aolem.Tcmcculr • pn Rudmm. Charles Whpr.Mdseno Vilpr hall@scag.ca.gov nardmo Counry: ,on rlikdv. Ere a Counry • Rill Alcvnder, Rrnchis e•Ice Mn GseE.Grrnd T... •Bob ry 11e-Swrn Len.San Bernudrno- onuelo•pelesRdbvesdn,Wilm Attachment 1: Review of PSP Master Plan Projects uo,lady Mikdz.Venus Coumy- a,51m,Ville,•C 1 Morehouse San urr•Tom Young,Port Hucncme Cdu�ry Trrrn,d,,,adn Gdmmusiom B-3 ' Counry Trwyn mmssmo.oruoo Coa S�mwrlley Attachment 1: Review of PSP Master Plan Projects Project # De9cription ' 3-1 Revise Loop Road PSP should consider having a wider loop road running in front of the existing and planned terminals. If security requirements call for vehicle inspections or other measures that slow the traffic flow there may be eventual congestion on to El Cielo Road or even Ramon Road. ' 4-1 Harden Terminal Front ' Adequate set back for curb side check in needs to be taken into account. In addition, bringing the terminal closer to the roadway may cause security issues. ' 5-2 Construct Overflow/ Remote Parking What types of impacts will the overflow parking lot have on the level of service ' provided by the airport? Given that the distance from the remote parking lot to the main terminal is about 2000ft will there be a shuttle to take passengers to the terminal? If not, what types of pedestrian safety will be implemented. Given the e weather in Palm Springs the airport should be especially concerned with distance and pedestrian health/safety. ' 5-4 Tachevah Drive Access This access road could create noise issues in the future for the development ' along Gene Autry Trail. This new road would create another entrance to the airport on the north side of the airport. Given the uncertainty of future security requirements this may be premature. From a clarity and wayfinding standpoint ' limiting the number of airport entrances would be preferred. Access can also be more easily controlled. ' 6-1 Expand Rental Car Ready/ Return Expanding a non-aviation facility on land that could be used for aviation uses needs to be thoroughly considered. The site for the rental car expansion could be a potential site for a third terminal, hangars, cargo handling, etc. Considering locating the rental car facility in proposed parking structure (Project 1-5) may be prudent. 1 B-4 1 1 L-5, L-6 Parking Structure Phase II and New Terminal 1 These projects should be considered to be linked via pedestrian bridges. It may be safer than having pedestrians cross at grade on the street level. Removing 1 pedestrians from the street would also improve the flow of traffic on the Loop Rd. 1-9 thru 1-12 Northeast Parcel and Accompanying Projects 1 There are residential land uses very close to the Northeast land parcel. Aviation uses may not be appropriate with a buffer of only 200 to 300 ft. Additionally, the 1 taxiway (1-11) to the northeast parcel is quite long. This taxiway would increase air pollution and diminish operational efficiency. There may be other locations on airport property better suited for development. An option could be to make the 1 development closer to the runway and leave a larger buffer with the residential properties. 1 1 72912 v1 RH i 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 B-5 fflMISSION SPRINGS JUL 22 2002 WATER DISTRICT PRO\'IIII\o,PROTEMNG,AND PU-SFRCIS(1 ol'R MOST Vu.nni f R}sOl'RCt....WMR 1 too=of DIREMORS July 18, 2002 i%L CYGIHSOS I'Nf:1111f C1 IQ.II T%VRIc1I r 1 11( e MUM\I Doi Cot to\ Kathryn W. May DoRo1 cl.h\ rY Y m Nl.a:V5n.at. ' Coffman Associates 4835 E. Cactus Road, Suite 235 orlutR. Scottsdale AZ 85254 Jot Boast l:u 1 1.1111M VIN1141s 1 Tin INNo Re: Palm Springs International Airport- Airport Master Plan Update- CEQA/NEPA Review Dear Ms. Way: ' Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above environmental document review of the Airport Master Plan Update. At this time, the District has "No Comments." Sin erely, George hacker 1 District Engineer 1 1 1 1 J�a TEA i` 1 pPoiale Member B-6 Since 1997 1 66575 Si omi St.Rltl•Di,tRi Iint Sreivl.v•Cki mR.Nit 92240-3711 •TII.760-3'196413•Ftv 769-329-2482 �iVENT Op J� UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS ._. M'R°N �'"�� Palm Springs Field Office ' IN REPLY REFER M: P. O. Box 2245 Palm Springs, CA 92263 IR [EIED� l� � `� AUG - 9. 2002 August7, 2002 Kathryn W. May, AICP Airport/Environmental Planner Coffman Associates 4835 E. Cactus Road, Suite #235 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254 1 Dear Ms. May: Thank you for the letter dated July 11, 2002, "RE: Palm Springs International Airport—Airport Master Plan Update — CEQA/NEPA Review." Please let this letter serve as a request for one copy of the above report. We wish to receive pertinent information regarding your progress. If you have any questions, please contact Bruce Beyal at (760) 416-2133, extension 226. Sincerely, John Rydzik Acting Director B-7 ' AT Eq ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY O�STRIGZ COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ' POST OFFICE BOX 1058• COACHELLA, CA LIFO RNIA 92236 -TELEPHONE(760)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS JOHN W.McFADDEN,PRESIDENT THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERAL MANAGER�CHIEF ENGINEER RUSSELL KITAHARA,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON.SECRETARY TELLIS CODEKAS AugustI 2002 STEVEN B.ROBBINS,ASSISTANT TO GENERAL MANAGER PATRICIAA LARSONo REDWINE AND SHERRILL.ATTORNEYS PETER NELSON File: 0163.1 0 ME Kathryn W. May AUG 14 � Coffman Associates ' 4835 East Cactus Road, Suite 235 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254 ' Dear Ms. May: Subject: Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Update We have reviewed the above-referenced document and have no additional comments. We appreciate the opportunity to review this report. If you have any questions please call Georgia Celehar, stormwater engineer, extension 288. Yours very truly, Gw� in Levy ' General Manager-Chief Engineer GQ dd\eng\dom\aug\may 1 B-8 TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY emor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION j} DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION �[JJ P.O.BOX 942896 SEP 3 0 2002 SACRAMENTO.CA 94296-0001 ' (916)653-6624 Fox (916)653-9824 coishpo@mci]2.quiknet.com September 23, 2002 Refer To: FAA020715A 1 Kathryn W. May, Airport/Environmental Planner Coffman Associates 4835 E. Cactus Road, Suite # 235 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254 ' Re: Palm Springs International Airport— Master Plan Update, Palm Springs, Riverside County, California ' Dear Mrs. May: On behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration, you have made the following determination about the undertaking cited above: A. [ ] There are no historic properties that may be affected by the undertaking. B. [ X ] The undertaking will not affect historic properties. I am unable to comment on your determination in a timely manner. Therefore, 36 CFR 800.4(c) and 36 CFR 800.4(d) apply to Item A., above, and 36 CFR 800.5(b)applies to Item B., above. Sincerely, i Ix r. K Mell P JIGilG1iIJIVIi '1� IyOGI V4lIVIi VIIiVf.1 B-9 raid E.Slarrs Desert Water Agency sident 1200 Gene Autry Trail South Iliam'Bill"Byrne 1710 e President DESERT WATER PO.Box Palm Springs, ;illar Boyd,Jr. CA 92263-1710 retary/Treasurer 6 Telephone 760 323-4971 homas Kieleg III "00Fax 760 325-6505 roa G.Oygar www.dwa org i M.Ainsworth neral Manager Best&Krieger i D G[E U n eral Counsel v Eger&Stewart nsul[ing Engineers AUG 21 20�2 August 19; 2002 Kathryn W. May, AICP Coffman Associates 4835 E. Cactus Road, Suite #235 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 ' RE: PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ' Dear Kathryn: Per your request of July 11, 2002, this Agency has completed its review of the Airport Master Plan Update, and offers no additional comments or recommendations relative to the project's known environmental resources and sensitivities. If you have any questions, please call me. Cincerely DESERT WATER AGENCY Wood Adams Senior Service Planner SGA/jlt G/KT/STAFF/AOAMS/Coffman Assoc B_10 f MA •.,�i..0 L � 4 1 F� �,;7, Il L � �.v�y = Wealth ,I,-.�, Rlverslde County Gary M. Feldman, M.D., FAAP, FAWOG Director ' August 12,2002 ' Ms.Kathryn W. May,AICP AirporUEnvironmental Planner 4835 E.Cactus Road, Suite 235 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 ' VIA: Facsimilic602.993,7196 ' Regarding: Palm Springs International Airport—Airport Master Plan Update—CEQA/N$PA Review Dear Ms. May: ' On behalf of the County of Riverside Community Health Agency, Department of Public Ilcalth ' Emergency Medical Services Division, we are hereby responding to proposed changes related to security requirements stemming from September 11, 2001 and requesting consideration of access of emergency vehicles. ' Both Emergency Medical Services and Palm Springs Fire Chief, Bary Freet, recommend a design which allows emergency vehicles access without diversion through a large vehicle control center. We recommend "head knockers" be raised to allow emergency vehicle access; automatic large vehicle barricades be installed which arc set of by vehicle weight but can be electronically disabled in the event of an emergency. We do not recommend traffic signal pre-emption as a solution as transponders are not routinely installed in ambulances, additionally the signals can be inadvertently interrupted by police vehicles. Current access for through Gate 7 for ambulances which allows access to tarmac, runways and flight centers is appropriate and this level of access should be extended regardless of any improvement. If you wish to discuss our recommendations, please feel free to contact Randy Kinkade of the Emergency Medical Services Agency at 909.358.5029. ' Sincerel , ' M et Sz zcpaniak Ad mistrative Director bw cc:Randy cc: Randy Kinkade,EMS Chief Bary Frwl,Patin Springs Fire 1 4065 County Circle Drive, Riverside,California 92503 ' phone 909.358.5030, fax 909,358.4529,tdd 909.358.5124 ' 10 'd 'ON yea B-11 wa 50.z1 Now zooz-zt-One 1 1 1 1 ' Aircraft Noise Analysis Palm Springs International Airport The following discussion describes the methodology, input assumptions, and results of ' aircraft noise analysis for the Palm Springs International Airport. AIRCRAFT NOISE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ' The standard methodology for analyzing the prevailing noise conditions at airports involves the use of a computer simulation model. The Federal Aviation Administration (:FAA) has approved the Integrated Noise Model (INM) for developing noise exposure contours at civilian airports. The model is designed as a conservative planning tool, tending to slightly overstate noise. The model and its database are periodically updated based on the philosophy that each version should err on the side of over prediction while each subsequent update moves closer to reality. Version 6.Oc is the most current version of the INM at this time. It is the version used for the noise analysis described in this chapter. INM describes aircraft noise in either the Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) or the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). DNL accounts for the increased sensitivity to noise at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and is the metric preferred by the FAA, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), among others, as an appropriate measure of cumulative noise exposure. In California, however, these agencies accept the use of CNEL which, in addition to nighttime sensitivities, also accounts for increased sensitivities during the ' evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.). CNEL is defined as the average A-weighted sound level as measured in decibels during a 24-hour period. A 10 decibel weighting is applied to noise events occurring at night ' C-1 and a 4.8 decibel weighting is applied to those occurring during the evening hours. CNEL is a summation metric which allows for objective analysis and can describe ' noise exposure comprehensively over a large area. In addition to being widely accepted, the primary benefit of using the CNEL metric is that it accounts for the average community response to noise as determined by the actual number and types of ' noise events and the time of day they occur. The INM works by defining a network of grid points at ground level around the airport. It then selects the shortest distance from each grid point to each flight track and computes the noise exposure for each aircraft operation, by aircraft type and engine thrust level, along each flight track. Corrections are applied for air-to-ground acoustical attenuation, acoustical shielding of the aircraft engines by the aircraft itself, and aircraft speed variations. The noise exposure levels for each aircraft are then summed at each grid location. The cumulative noise exposure levels at all grid points are then used to ' develop noise exposure contours for selected values (e.g., 60, 65, 70, and 75 DNL or CNEL). Noise contours are then plotted on a base map of the airport environs using the DNL or CNEL metrics. ' In addition to the mathematical procedures defined in the model, the INM has another very important element. This is a data base containing tables correlating noise, thrust settings, and flight profiles for most of the civilian aircraft, and many common military aircraft, operating in the United States. This data base, often referred to as the noise curve data, has been developed under FAA guidance based on rigorous noise ' monitoring in controlled settings. In fact, the INM database was developed through more than a decade of research including extensive field measurements of more than ' 10,000 aircraft operations. The database also includes performance data for each aircraft to allow for the computation of airport-specific flight profiles (rates of climb and descent). t INM INPUT ' A variety of user-supplied input data is required to use the INM. This includes the airport elevation, average annual temperature, a mathematical definition of the airport runways, the mathematical description of ground tracks above which aircraft fly, and the assignment of specific aircraft with specific engine types at specific takeoff weights to individual flight tracks. In addition, aircraft not included in the model's data base ' may be defined for modeling, subject to FAA approval. For the purposes of this analysis, computer input files were prepared for the existing ' (2001) noise condition and long range future forecast condition as determined in the 2002 Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan. 1 C-2 OPERATIONS AND FLEET MIX The number of aircraft operating at the airport on an average day is the result of a compilation of all recorded operations during the base period divided by the number of days in the period. The distribution of these operations among various categories, ' users, and types of aircraft is part of the basic input data required for the model. Operational and fleet mix shown in Table 1 is based on a consolidated commercial flight schedule, airport traffic control tower records, and interviews with Airport staff. DATA BASE SELECTION The INM describes several different versions of the 737 aircraft. For the 737- 300/400/700 the 737400 INM descriptor was used. The INM 737500 was used to ' represent the B-737-500 series aircraft. The 767, 757, and 717 aircraft are modeled with the 767300, 757PW, and 717200 respectively. For the MD-80 aircraft operating in the current year at the airport, the MD38 from the data base was selected. For the ' 1\4D-90 aircraft, the MD9028 from the INM data base was chosen. The Airbus 319 and 320 aircraft were modeled with INM descriptors A319 and 320. The F10065 was selected to represent the Fokker 100 aircraft forecast to operate into Palm Springs. For the B-727 and B-737 hush kit aircraft, the 727EM2 and 737N17 from the data base was used to represent these aircraft. The Canadair Regional Jet and Embraer 135 modeled ' with the CL601 and CL600 respectively. The commuter turboprops were modeled using the DHC8, SF340, and EMB 120 INM designators. ' For the general aviation aircraft, the FAA has published a Pre-Approved List of Aircraft Substitutions. The list indicates that the general aviation single engine fixed pitch propeller and variable pitched models, the GASEPF and GASEPV, represents a broad range of single engine general aviation aircraft. The list recommends the use of EIEC58P for the light twin-engined aircraft. The CNA441 was used to represent the small turboprop aircraft. The LEAR25, LEAR35, CNA5513, GIV, AND GV were used to model the range of the business jets at the airport. General aviation and military helicopters were modeled with the Bell 206L and Bell ' 212 downloaded from the Helicopter Noise Model (HNM). All substitutions are in accordance with the Pre-Approved Substitution List and are commensurate with published FAA guidelines. TIME OF DAY The time-of-day at which operations occur is important as input to the INM due to the ' penalty weighting of evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) operations. In calculating airport noise exposure, one evening operation has the same noise exposure level as three daytime operations and one nighttime operation is equivalent to ten daytime operations. ' C-3 f ' The distribution between day, evening, and night operations for the air carrier and commuter operations were drawn from the consolidated flight schedule. General ' aviation evening and nighttime operations were developed based upon discussions with airport staff and local operators. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the day, evening, and night ' operations by aircraft type assumed for this analysis TABLE 1 Aircraft Operations Palm Springs International Airport 2001, Long Range'' INM Annual Daily Annual Daily Activity Designator Operations Operations Operations Operations B767-300/ER 767300 0 0.00 730 2.00 ' B757-200 757PW 40 0.11 2,609 7.15 B737-300/700 737400 4,376 11.99 8,687 23.80 B727-200 727EM2 111 0.30 0 0.00 ' A320 A320 274 0.75 3,652 10.01 MD-80/83 MD83 3,063 8.39 240 0.66 MD-90 MD9028 0 0.00 1,826 5.00 A319-131 A319 4 0.01 1,643 4.50 B711/-200 717200 0 0.00 365 1.00 B737-200 737N17 6 0.02 0 0.00 B737-500 737500 716 1.96 365 1.00 Fokker100 F10065 0 0.00 183 0.50 CR7 CL601 1,018 2.79 2I,710 59.48 EMB-135 CL600 0 0.00 4,676 12.81 DASH8 DHC8 4,060 11.12 3,507 9.61 SAAB 340-A/B SF340 7,434 20.37 0 0.00 ' EMB-120 EMB120 13,602 37.27 3,507 9.61 LR-35/35A LEAR35 2,199 6.03 600 1.64 Lear25 LEA25 1,666 4.56 220 0.60 Citation 550 CNA55B 2,619 T17 7,040 19.29 G-IV GIV 714 1.96 2,640 7.23 G-V GV 238 0.65 1,760 4.82 Single Engine Var.Pitch GASEPV 500 1.37 600 1.64 Single Engine Fix Pitch GASEPF 28,586 78.27 44,600 122.14 ' Multi-Engine Piston BEC58P 9,945 27.27 17,470 47.85 Turboprop CNA441 3,576 9.80 8,670 23.75 Civilian Helicopter B206L 1,565 4.29 3,300 9.04 Military Helicopter B212 748 2.05 1 2,000 5.48 Total Itinerant 87,059 238.49 142,600 390.63 Local Operations Single Engine Vac Pitch GASEPF 10,419 28.50 18,700 51.20 Multi-Engine Piston BEC58P 1,225 3.40 2,200 600 Total Local 11,644 31.90 20,900 57.20 TOTAL OPERATIONS 98,703 270.39 163,500 447.83 September 1,2000-August 31,2001 ' Airport Master Plan for Palm Springs International Airport C-4 1 ' TABLE 2 2001 Aircraft Operations By Time Of Day Palm Springs International Airport September 1,2000-August 31,2001 Daily Arrivals Daily Departures Aircraft Total Day Evening Night Total Day Evening Night B767-300/ER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 B757-200 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 ' B737-400/800 5.99 3.99 2.00 0.00 5.99 5.99 0.00 0.00 B727-200 0.15 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.12 0.02 0.01 A320 0.39 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.00 MD-90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MD-80 4.20 3.17 I.02 0.01 4.20 4.17 0.02 0.01 ' A319-131 001 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 B717/-200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 B737-200 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 B737-500 0.98 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.99 0.98 0.00 0.00 ' Fokker I00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 �CRI 1.39 139 0.00 0.00 1.39 1.39 0.00 0.00 EMB-135 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 DASH8 5.56 4.61 0.00 0.95 5.56 4.61 0.00 0.95 ' ISAAB 340-A/B 10.18 7.18 1.50 1.50 10.18 7.93 1.50 0.75 EMB-120 18.63 12.33 4.50 1.80 18.63 14.13 1.80 2.70 Lear 35 3.01 2.38 0.45 0.18 3.01 2.38 0.45 0 18 !Lear 25 2.28 1.80 0.34 0.14 2.28 1.80 0.34 0.14 Citation 550 3.59 2.83 0.54 0.22 3.59 2.83 0.54 0.22 GIV 0.98 0.77 0.15 0.06 0.99 0.77 0 15 0.06 13-V 0.33 0.26 005 0.02 033 0.26 0.05 0.02 Single Engine Var.Pitch 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.68 0.00 Single Engine Fix Pitch 53.42 41.67 7.91 3.85 53.42 41.67 8.59 3.17 ' Multi-Engine Piston 15.30 12.09 2.29 0.91 15.30 12.09 2.29 0.91 Turboprop 4.90 3.87 0 73 0.29 4.90 3.87 0.73 0.29 Civilian Helicopter 2.14 1.69 0.32 0.13 2.14 1.69 0.32 0.13 Military Helicopter 1.02 • 0.87 0.15 0.00 1.02 0.87 0.15 0.00 ' Total Daily Orations 135.20 101.50 2296 10.75 135.20 10802 17.65 9.53 1 G5 ' TABLE3 Aircraft Operations By Time Of Day ' Palm Springs International Airport Long Range Planning Horizon Daily Arrivals Daily Departures Aircraft Total Day Evening Night Total Day Evening Night B767-300/ER 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 B757-200 3.57 2.22 1.35 0.00 3.57 2.75 0.82 0.00 B737-400/900 11.90 9.20 2.70 0.00 11.90 9.62 2.29 0.00 B727-200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 A320 5.00 3.65 1.35 0.00 5.00 3.70 1.30 0.00 MD-90 2.50 250 000 0.00 2.50 1.87 0.63 000 MD-80 033 0.26 0.05 0.02 0.33 0.26 0.05 0.02 A319-131 225 1.60 0.65 0.00 2.25 1.60 0.65 0.00 B717/-200 0.50 050 000 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 B737-200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 B737-500 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 Fokker l00 0.25 0 25 000 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 CRI 29.74 22.14 7.60 0.00 29.74 25.85 3.90 0.00 EMB-135 6.41 6.41 0.00 0.00 6.41 5.76 0.65 0.00 DASH8 4.80 2.30 0.70 1.80 4.80 2.50 0.65 1.65 t SAAB 340-A/B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EMB-120 4.80 2.30 0.70 1.80 4.80 2.50 0.65 1.65 Lear 35 10.08 8.14 1.39 0.56 10.08 7.32 2.21 0.56 Lear 25 0.30 024 0.05 0.02 0.30 0.24 0.05 0.02 ' Citation 550 9.64 7.62 1.45 0.59 9.64 7.62 1.45 0.58 G-IV 3.62 2.86 0.54 022 3.62 2.86 0.54 0.22 G-V 2.41 1.90 0.36 0.14 2.41 1.90 0.36 0.14 Single Engine Var.Pitch 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.92 0.00 0.82 0.00 ' Single Engine FiX Pitch 86.71 67.86 12.88 5 98 86.71 67.86 13.70 5.16 Multi-Engine Piston 26.94 21.28 4.04 1.61 26.94 21.28 4.04 1.61 Turboprop 11.88 9.38 1.78 0.71 11.88 9.38 1.78 0.71 Civilian Helicopter 4.52 3.57 0.68 0.27 4.52 3.57 0.68 0.27 Military Helicopter 2.74 2 33 0.41 000 2.74 2.33 0.41 0.00 ' Total Daily Operations 233.22 179.03 39.68 1 14.53 1 233.22 1 183.01 37.63 1 1259 ' ]RUNWAY USE ' Runway use percentages were taken from the 1994 Palm Springs International Airport 1F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Exposure Map (NEM) document and discussions with airport ;Staff. The use of a specific runway is typically influenced by wind direction. At Palm ' Springs, Runway 13R-31L is considered the primary commercial, commuter, and business jet runway. Runway 13L-31R is occasionally used by the commuter and lousiness jet aircraft. Table 4 presents the runway use percentages assumed for this study. 1 C-6 1 ' TABLE 4 ' Runway Use Percentages Palm Springs International Airport RUNWAY USE ' RWY 13R RWY 31L RWY 13L RWY 31R Runway Use Percentage ' Air Carrier Jets 35.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 Commuter 33.9 63.0 1.1 2.0 Business Jets 33.9 63.0 1.1 2.0 ' Gen.Aviation(Itinerant) 18.0 33.0 17.0 32.0 Gen.Aviation(local) 0.0 0.0 35.0 65.0 [Source: 1994 Palm Springs F.A.R.Part 150 Noise Exposure Map document and Airport Staff 1 ' FLIGHT TRACKS Flight track data from the 1994 Palm Springs International Airport F.A.R. Part 150 ' Noise Exposure Map (NEM) document. As stated in the NEM document, the consolidated flight tracks appear as distinct paths, they actually represent average flight routes and illustrate the areas of the surrounding community where aircraft operations ' can be expected most often. Air traffic density generally increases nearer the airport as it is funneled to and dispersed from the runway system. The consolidated tracks were developed to reflect these common patterns and to account for the inevitable flight ' track dispersions around the airport. ' FLIGHT PROFILES This noise analysis used the standard arrival profile in the INM program for aircraft ' operating at Palm Springs International Airport. INM Version 6.Oc was used in this analysis actually compute the takeoff profiles based on the user-supplied airport elevation and the average annual temperature entries in the input batch. At Palm Springs, the elevation is 474 feet and the average annual temperature is 72.35 degrees F. If other than standard conditions (temperature of 59 degrees F. and elevations of zero feet MSL) are specified by the user, the profile generator automatically computes the takeoff profiles using the airplane performance coefficients in Data Base Number I and the equations in the Society of Automotive Engineers Aerospace Information ' Report 1845 (SAE/AIR 1845). ' RESULTS OF NOISE ANALYSIS Output data selected for calculation by the INM were annual average noise contours in ' CNEL. This section presents the results of the contour analysis without the project and ' C-7 1 ' with the project noise exposure conditions, as developed from the Integrated Noise Model. Table 5 summarizes the area within each set of contours. ' TABLE 5 ' Comparative Areas of Noise Exposure(Square Miles) Palm Springs International Airport CNEL Contour 2001 Long Range ' 60 2.3 1.8 65 1.0 0.9 70 0.6 0.5 ' 75 0.4 0.3 ' The federal government, including the FAA, has identified the 65 CNEL contour as the t1areshold of incompatibility. Information regarding the 60 CNEL contours is provided here for informational purposes. From a federal perspective, property within these ' contours can be considered marginally affected by aircraft noise. t2001 Noise Exposure Contours Exhibit 1 presents the plotted results of the INM contour analysis for the 2001 noise ' exposure contours using input data as previously described. The surface areas falling within the contours are shown in Table 5. The shape and extent of the contours reflect the underlying flight track assumptions. The contours are larger to the north which reflects the higher use of Runway 31L. The ' 60 CNEL contour extends 6,500 feet northwest and 3,500 feet southeast of Airport property along primary Runway 13R-31L. ' The more significant 65 CNEL contour has the same general shape as the 60 CNEL. The 65 CNEL contour extends 1,500 feet northwest and 500 feet southeast of Airport property along Runway 13R-31L. The 70 and 75 CNEL contour remain on Airport property. ' Long Range Noise Exposure Contours ' 'Che shape of the Long Range noise exposure contours with the project are very similar to that of the 2001 noise exposure contours. The Long Range contours are slightly smaller than the 2001 noise exposure contours. The slight decrease in the Long Range ' Noise Exposure contours is due to the forecasted transition from a older/louder aircraft fleet mix to a newer/quieter aircraft fleet mix at Palm Springs International Airport. Exhibit 2 shows the Long Range noise contour set with the project. Table 5 depicts areas ' within the project noise contours. ' C-8 The contours are larger to the north which reflects the higher use of Runway 31L. The 60 CNEL contour extends 5,000 feet northwest and 4,500 feet southeast of Airport ' property along primary Runway 13R-31L. The more significant 65 DNL contour has the same general shape as the 60 CNEL. The ' 65 CNEL contour extends 500 feet northwest and 700 feet southeast of Airport property along Runway 13R-31L. The 70 and 75 CNEL contours continue to remain on Airport property. 1 , SUMMARY The noise exposure maps were prepared using the FAA Integrated Noise Model, Version 6.0c, based upon data obtained from the airport staff, FAA airport traffic ' control tower, and the 1994 F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Exposure Map document for Palm Springs International Airport. While operations are forecast to increase in the future, ' the transition to newer and quieter aircraft will result in slightly smaller noise exposure contours in the future. 1 1 1 1 ' C-9 a \� 0 30nn 6000 _ SCALE IN FEET NORTH �T♦ ggg _ DTI }��+ �l �` • '�pt'�J�7`�r ix>� el1'�, ' r �' Wln��via � av 1Lm1 . q�l I t•tl`nn".'d'A 4' 4�I ^ n ,r r L I FAll G VrI��`'�+'T � -� 65 70 k C� ♦ i'�i,4 'h+v r ,r Si� l+ S'fraTe \ r� t L _ � � I I, . t lifi+ rig [� 75 t(Iri'fr; y-inAlN� .1,�}J�� 11t•. I".�III� n i Ii +y �r�j vt � jH rr-uy�'�1 �'� _ + V r�" "R' t�♦�� I, � sn 1 � �3: i ;{'�td E P nr, � � +EA�A y! ♦% \�' m�,tp�,�a Y,l U t� �I II Ikq�+b � NIFµ �'�`, '1IP'I itRRI 't Ctt]1 �I'e fi ,Y 4 CNEL Noise Contour-Marginal Impact _ a• � s CNEL Noise Contour-Significant Impact `,}If Palm Springs eeremrnsx-saxmanr ' Exhibit 1 EXISTING NOISE EXPOSURE 1 "\ d 0 3000 e000 � : SCALE IN FEET NORTH S\ " p�{ -rep ti2.�Ft 'hvr`1H 1 �1 p� }l, 1J k+Rrt l� C.N'IICr 9-3l �� .g cu7 jrr� Y ''• y + I t sf a I �h�Iitr � rrt �_ P j �' •,� 4 'Li` -11ra rl C '�"" r ,�w7 F• Q- '$- �, t t i<H n i a�,i..:ir r� p I i31 i N x + i r Sfi dl 'G xrr.* 66' 65o 76LAI ��6 '�r;►� _ �l ' { 0 il�!-"fl�u`{k.Li C�� \�\ 75 .k�L,ip ��!. �j4 I��, r •>tij�� LxI HI I' if It - ' ��-. ...i Iry � �111 >� �` � ��`� l� r �' -- I• tm . qrrI;: c41 III raQy"1 l� i —°' � ��- -•� CNELNoiseContour-Marginal Impact CNEL Noise Contour Significant Impact _ ,..., .Y1 - FLE� :•" sr�, 1`�;t�:. .. _ ?; Palm SprinAs tiff�' Inlemalloml urpotl .IS�EEOgROgi Exhibit 2 LONG-RANGE NOISE EXPOSURE(2015) EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory Report ! Study Name: Existing Condition_M Airport: PALM SPRINGS REGIONAL ! Report Date: 12127102 SUMMARY ! (Tons/Year) ! NAME — CO — HC NOx — — Sox PM10 ! Aircraft 582.431 14.886 46.408 3.846 .000 GSE/AGE/APU 779.765 16.142 43.109 1.515 1.402 ! Roadways 304.149 41.947 44.948 2.177 2.023 Parking Lots 140.089 16.586 5.798 .239 .213 ! Stationary Sources .000 1.508 .000 .000 .000 Total 1,806.434 91.069 140.263 7.777 3.638 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! C-10 1 ' AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS (Tons/Year) ' Aircraft Engine Mode CO HC NOx Sox PM10 337H Skymaster TSIO.360C TAXI .656 .153 .002 .000 .000 ' 337H Skymaster TSIO-360C TKOF 2.418 .020 .006 .000 .000 337H Skymaster TSIO-360C CLMB 3.195 .032 .014 .000 .000 ' 337H Skymaster TSIO-360C APCH 5.933 .067 .022 .001 .000 337H Skymaster TSIO-360C TGO 1.568 .017 .006 .000 .000 ' 337H Skymaster TSIO-360C APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 337H Skymaster TSIO-360C ESE 5.668 .094 .094 .007 .000 ' 550 Citation JT15D-4(B,C,D) TAXI 2.284 .942 .062 .013 .000 550 Citation JT15D-4(B,C,D) TKOF .051 .002 .225 .013 .000 550 Citation JT15D-4(B,C,D) CLMB .077 .005 .208 .013 .000 t550 Citation JT15D-4(B,C,D) APCH 1.468 .236 .243 .025 .000 550 Citation JT15D-4(B,C,D) APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' 550 Citation JT15D4(B,C,D) ESE .817 .246 2.244 .051 .103 A319 DEFAULT APCH .001 .000 .002 .000 .000 A319 DEFAULT TAXI .004 .001 .001 .000 .000 A319 DEFAULT TKOF .000 .000 .006 .000 .000 A319 DEFAULT CLMB .000 .000 .005 .000 .000 A319 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' A319 DEFAULT ESE 073 .002 .006 .000 .000 A320 DEFAULT CLMB .012 .001 .420 .019 .000 A320 DEFAULT APCH .051 .001 .185 .021 .000 ' A320 DEFAULT TKOF .010 .001 .511 .019 .000 A320 DEFAULT TAXI .146 .001 .055 .012 .000 ' A320 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 A320 DEFAULT ESE 4.130 .080 .168 .007 .005 ' Aztec TIO-540-J2B2 TAXI 3.925 .207 .001 .000 .000 Aztec TIO-540-J2B2 TKOF 7.522 .064 .002 .001 .000 ' Aztec 7I0-540-J2132 CLMB 12.107 A37 .002 .001 .000 Aztec TIO-540-J2B2 APCH 14.642 .000 .016 .001 .000 Aztec TIO-540-J2B2 TGO 3.894 .024 .002 .000 .000 ' EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory ' C-11 ' Aztec TIO-540-J2B2 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .00( Aztec TIO-540-J2B2 GSE 6.796 .113 .113 .008 .00( ' B717-200 BR700-715A1-30 TAXI .000 .000 .000 .000 .00( B717-200 BR700-715A7-30 TKOF .000 .000 .000 .000 .00C ' B717-200 BR700-715A1-30 CLIMB .000 .000 .000 .000 .00( B717-200 BR700-715A1-30 APCH .000 .000 .000 .000 .00( ' B717-200 BR700-715A1-30 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .00( B717-200 BR700-715A1-30 GSE .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 ' B727-200 DEFAULT TAXI .097 .013 .028 .009 .00( B727-200 DEFAULT TKOF .018 .004 .345 .018 .00C B727-200 DEFAULT CLIMB .016 .004 .206 .014 .00C ' B727-200 DEFAULT APCH .039 .008 .096 .014 .00C B727-200 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .00C ' B727-200 DEFAULT GSE 2.812 A57 .141 .005 .004 8737-200 DEFAULT CLIMB .000 .000 .005 .000 .00C ' B737-200 DEFAULT TKOF .000 .000 .007 .000 .00C 6737-230 DEFAULT TAXI .004 .001 .001 .000 .00C ' B737-200 DEFAULT APCH .001 .000 .003 .000 .00C B737-200 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .00C 8737-200 DEFAULT GSE .151 .003 .008 .000 .00C ' B737-300 DEFAULT TKOF .069 .003 1.351 .076 .000 B737-300 DEFAULT APCH .418 .009 .912 .110 .000 ' B737-300 DEFAULT TAXI 2.151 .143 .244 .063 .000 B737-300 DEFAULT CLIMB .061 .003 .990 .064 .000 ' B737-300 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 B737-300 DEFAULT GSE 38.767 .780 1.937 .070 .059 ' B737-400 DEFAULT TKOF .141 .006 3.031 .156 .000 8737-400 DEFAULT APCH .742 .016 1.898 .218 .000 ' B737-400 DEFAULT TAXI 3.603 .209 .491 .120 .000 B737-400 DEFAULT CLIMB .117 .006 2.170 .130 .000 B737-400 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' B737-400 DEFAULT GSE 43.018 .926 2.655 .090 .092 8737-500 DEFAULT TAXI .847 .045 .136 .032 .000 ' 8737-500 DEFAULT APCH .187 .004 .549 .060 .000 B737-500 DEFAULT TKOF .044 .001 1.018 .049 .000 ' B737-500 DEFAULT CLMB .037 .002 .724 .041 .000 8737-500 DEFAULT APU 000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' B737-500 DEFAULT GSE 10.847 .228 .641 .022 .021 EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory ' C-12 ' B757-200 DEFAULT CLMB .002 .000 .092 .004 .00( B757-200 DEFAULT TAXI .047 .005 .009 .002 .00( ' B757-200 DEFAULT TKOF .001 .000 .106 .003 ,00( B757-200 DEFAULT APCH .010 .001 .043 .004 .00( ' 8757-200 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 B757-200 DEFAULT GSE .606 .013 .036 .001 .001 ' B767-300ER DEFAULT APCH .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 B767-300ER DEFAULT TAXI .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' B767-300ER DEFAULT TKOF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 B767-300ER DEFAULT CLMB .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 B767-300ER DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' B767-300ER DEFAULT GSE .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Canadair Reg-100 DEFAULT CLMB .000 .001 .155 .015 .000 ' Canadair Reg-100 DEFAULT APCH .058 .004 .208 .030 .000 Canadair Reg-100 DEFAULT TKOF .000 .001 .270 .023 .000 ' Canadair Reg-100 DEFAULT TAXI .748 -069 .067 .018 .000 Canadair Reg-100 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' Canadair Reg-1 00 DEFAULT GSE 25 601 .522 1.321 .047 .042 Cessna 150 0-200 TAXI 1.529 ,069 .004 .000 .000 ' Cessna 150 0-200 TKOF 4.309 .093 .022 .000 .000 Cessna 150 0-200 CLMB 9.542 .205 .048 .001 .000 Cessna 150 0-200 APCH 15 991 .447 .015 .001 .000 ' Cessna 150 0-200 TGO 11.085 .277 .032 .001 .000 Cessna 150 0-200 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' Cessna 150 0-200 GSE 15.092 .252 .252 .017 .000 Cherokee six TIO-540-J2B2 TAXI 20.269 1.067 .006 .002 .000 ' Cherokee six TIO-540-J2B2 TKOF 46.722 .400 .012 .004 .000 Cherokee six TIO-540-J2B2 CLMB 68.263 .772 .011 .005 .000 ' Cherokee six TIO-540-J2B2 APCH 122 722 .001 .135 .011 .000 Cherokee six TIO-540-J2B2 TGO 85.281 .427 .057 .007 .000 Cherokee six TIO-540-J2B2 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' Cherokee six TIO-540-J2B2 GSE 15.631 .261 .261 .018 .000 Commanche TIO-540-J2132 TAXI 3.780 .199 .001 .000 .000 ' Commanche TIO-540-J2132 TKOF 8.712 .075 .002 .001 .000 Commanche TIO-540-J282 CLMB 12.729 .144 .002 .001 .000 ' Commanche TIO-540-J282 APCH 22.884 ,000 .025 .002 .000 Commanche TIO-540-J2B2 TGO 5.042 .025 .003 .000 .000 ' Commanche TIO-540-J2B2 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory ' C-13 fCommanche TIO-540-J2B2 GSE 2.915 .049 .049 .003 .00( DHC-8 DEFAULT APCH .606 .000 .616 .101 .00C ' DHC-8 DEFAULT CLMB .075 .000 .402 .033 .00C DHC-8 DEFAULT TAXI .898 .000 .344 .060 .00C ' DHC-8 DEFAULT TKOF .049 000 .333 .024 .00C DHG-8 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 000 .000 DHC-8 DEFAULT GSE 70.723 1.245 1.821 090 .030 EMB-120 DEFAULT TAXI 3.253 .000 1.098 .200 .000 ' EMB-120 DEFAULT TKOF .200 .000 1.155 .091 .000 EMB-120 DEFAULT CLMB .168 .000 .742 .065 .000 EMS-120 DEFAULT APCH 1.410 .000 1.714 .217 .000 EMS-120 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 EMB-120 DEFAULT GSE 341.519 6.871 17.065 .619 .524 EMB-145 DEFAULT TAXI .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 EMB-145 DEFAULT APCH .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 EMB-145 DEFAULT TKOF .000 .000 .000 000 .000 EMB-145 DEFAULT CLMB .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 EMB-145 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 EMB-145 DEFAULT GSE .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' FOKKER 100 DEFAULT CLMB .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 FOKKER 100 DEFAULT APCH .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 FOKKER 100 DEFAULT TKOF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 FOKKER 100 DEFAULT TAXI .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 FOKKER 100 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 FOKKER 100 DEFAULT GSE .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Gulfstream IV DEFAULT APCH .155 .036 .226 .040 .000 Gulfstream IV DEFAULT TAXI .653 .092 .068 .027 .000 Gulfstream IV DEFAULT CLMB .016 .006 .340 .020 .000 Gulfstream IV DEFAULT TKOF .020 .022 .591 .028 .000 Gulfstream IV DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' Gulfstream IV DEFAULT GSE .252 .073 .643 .015 .030 Gulfstream V DEFAULT CLMB .004 .000 .088 .006 .000 Gulfstream V DEFAULT APCH .054 .001 .104 .013 .000 ' Gulfstream V DEFAULT TKOF .005 .000 .148 .009 .000 Gulfstream V DEFAULT TAXI .191 .014 .029 .007 .000 ' Gulfstream V DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Gulfstream V DEFAULT GSE .074 .022 .204 .005 .009 ' EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory ' C-14 Kingair 200 PT6A-41 TAXI 1.642 1.447 .028 .008 .00c Kingair 200 PT6A-41 TKOF .037 .013 .057 .004 .00C tKingair 200 PT6A-41 CLMB .064 .020 .075 .005 .00c Kingair 200 PT6A-41 APCH 1.468 .958 .196 .023 .000 Kingair 200 PT6A-41 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Kingair 200 PT6A-41 GSE .132 .040 .364 .008 .017 ' Learjet 25C DEFAULT TKOF .760 .003 .118 .015 .000 Learjet 25C DEFAULT CLMB .542 .004 .068 .010 .000 Learjet 25C DEFAULT TAXI 5.640 .655 .033 .020 .000 ' Learjet 25C DEFAULT APCH 4.628 .000 -079 .028 .000 Learjet 25C DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Learjet 25C DEFAULT GSE .520 .157 1.428 .033 .066 Learjet 35/36 DEFAULT CLMB .031 .002 .201 .008 .000 ' Learjet 35/36 DEFAULT APCH .807 .154 .213 .019 .000 Learjet 35136 DEFAULT TAXI 1.056 .361 .051 .010 .000 ' Learjet 35/36 DEFAULT TKOF .030 .002 .332 .012 .000 Learjet 35/36 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' Learjet 35136 DEFAULT GSE .687 .207 1.886 .043 .087 MD-80-83 DEFAULT CLMB .348 .122 6.037 .290 .000 MD-80-83 DEFAULT APCH 1.149 .449 2.578 .282 .000 ' MD-80-83 DEFAULT TAXI 1.868 .515 .532 .148 .000 MD-80-83 DEFAULT TKOF .208 .077 7.705 .285 .000 ' MD-80-83 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 MD-80-83 DEFAULT GSE 5.492 .597 4.919 .117 .232 ' Navajo TIO-540-J2B2 TAXI 3.276 .172 .001 .000 .000 Navajo TI0-540-J2B2 TKOF 6.279 .054 .002 .000 .000 ' Navajo TI0-540-J2B2 CLMB 10.106 .114 .002 .001 .000 Navajo TIO-540-J2B2 APCH 12.221 .000 .013 .001 .000 ' Navajo TIO-540-J2B2 TGO 3.894 .024 .002 .000 .000 Navajo TIO-540-J282 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Navajo TIO-540-J2B2 GSE 2.431 .041 .041 .003 .000 PA-42 Cheyenne PT6A-41 TAXI 1.294 1.140 .022 .006 .000 PA-42 Cheyenne PT6A-41 TKOF .032 .011 -050 .003 .000 ' PA-42 Cheyenne PT6A-41 CLMB .037 .012 .043 .003 .000 PA-42 Cheyenne PT6A-41 APCH .769 .502 .103 .012 .000 ' PA-42 Cheyenne PT6A-41 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 PA-42 Cheyenne PT6A-41 GSE .103 .031 .285 .006 .013 ' Robinson R22 10-320-DIAD TAXI .137 .008 .000 .000 .000 EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory ' C-15 ' Robinson R22 10-320-DIAD TKOF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Robinson R22 10-320-DIAD CLMB 1.400 .015 .009 .001 .000 ' Robinson R22 10-320-DIAD APCH .908 .012 .003 .001 .000 Robinson R22 10-320-DIAD TGO 1.488 .017 .008 .001 .000 ' Robinson R22 10-320-DIAD APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Robinson R22 10-320-DIAD GSE .055 .017 .152 .003 .007 ' SF-340-A DEFAULT TKOF .047 .019 .260 .019 .000 SF-340-A DEFAULT CLMB .069 .025 .335 .025 .000 ' SF-340-A DEFAULT APCH .260 .074 .339 .049 .000 SF-340-A DEFAULT TAXI .690 .078 .043 .020 .000 ' SF-340-A DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 SF-340-A DEFAULT GSE 92.380 1.601 2A27 .112 .027 SF-340-B PLUS CT7-5 TAXI .691 .078 .043 .020 .000 ' SF-340-B PLUS CT7-5 TKOF .047 .019 .260 .019 .000 SF-340-B PLUS CT7-5 CLMB .069 .025 .336 .025 .000 ' SF-340-B PLUS CT7-5 APCH .260 .074 .339 .049 .000 SF-340-B PLUS CT7-5 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' SF-340-B PLUS CT7-5 GSE 92.430 1.601 2.129 .112 .027 SH-61AA T58-GE-5 TAXI 1.448 .715 .010 .004 .000 ' SH-61AA T58-GE-5 TKOF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 SH-61AA T58-GE-5 CLMB .325 .045 .206 .017 .000 SH-61AA T58-GE-5 APCH .367 .030 .152 .014 .000 SH-61AA T58-GE-5 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 SH-61AA T58-GE-5 GSE .043 .013 .119 .003 .006 Denotes User Created Aircraft 1 1 1 EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory ' C-16 VEHICULAR EMISSIONS ' (Tons/Year) ' Source CO HC NOx Sox PM10 Irenas Road 63.120 7.300 5.970 .295 .274 lid-Valley Parkway 83.836 12.051 13.557 .655 .608 ahquitz Canyon 157.192 22.596 25.420 1.228 1.141 �ast Side 27.741 3.409 1.111 .038 .038 Terminal 99.469 11.594 4.171 .184 .157 'Jest Side GA 12.880 1.583 .516 .017 .017 i i I 1 1 1 ' EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory ' C-17 STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS ' (Tons/Year) Source CO HC NOx Sox PM10 ' AvGas .000 1.183 .000 .000 .000 ' JetA ----— -- .000 --- — .325 � .000 .000 .000 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory ' C-18 EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory Report ' Study Name: Future 2020_M Airport: PALM SPRINGS REGIONAL Report Date: 12127102 SUMMARY ' (Tons/Year) ' NAME CO HC NOx Sox PM10 ' Aircraft 996.791 32.706 119.872 9.520 .000 GSEIAGE/APU 1,227.793 26.197 75.665 2.554 2.549 ' Roadways 465.136 60.794 78.175 4.392 3.352 Parking Lots 214.878 23.384 10.218 .478 .373 ' Stationary Sources .000 2.735 .000 .000 .000 Total 2,904.598 145.816 283.930 16.944 6.274 1 1 ' C-19 AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS (Tons/Year) Aircraft Engine Mode CO HC NOx Sox PM10 337H Skymaster TSIO-360C TAXI 1.442 .337 .005 .000 .000 337H Skymaster TSIO-360C TKOF 4.473 .038 .011 .000 .000 337H Skymaster TSIO-360C CLMB 5.910 .059 .027 .001 .000 337H Skymaster TSIO-360C APCH 10.973 .125 .042 .001 .000 337H Skymaster TSIO-360C TGO 2.819 .031 .010 .000 .000 337H Skymaster TSIO-360C APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' 337H Skymaster TSIO-360C GSE 10.482 .175 .175 .012 .000 550 Citation JT15D4(B,C,D) TAXI 7.320 3.019 .198 .041 .000 ' 550 Citation JT15D-4(B,C,D) TKOF .138 .006 .605 .035 .000 550 Citation JT15D-4(B,C,D) CLMB .208 .012 .559 .035 .000 550 Citation JT15D-4(B,C,D) APCH 3.947 .635 .653 .067 .000 550 Citation JT15D-4(B,C,D) APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' 550 Citation JT15D-4(B,C,D) GSE 2.197 .662 6.035 .138 .278 A319 DEFAULT APCH .311 .064 .988 .107 .000 A319 DEFAULT TAXI 1.773 .352 .256 .064 .000 A319 DEFAULT TKOF .095 .021 2.491 .106 .000 A319 DEFAULT CLMB .103 .021 2.009 .103 .000 ' A319 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 A319 DEFAULT GSE 29.873 .695 2.401 .074 .088 ' A320 DEFAULT CLMB .156 .010 5.593 .251 .000 A320 DEFAULT APCH .675 .017 2.462 .277 .000 A320 DEFAULT TKOF .136 .011 6.807 .257 .000 A320 DEFAULT TAXI 2.333 .020 .882 .188 .000 A320 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 A320 DEFAULT GSE 54.896 1.036 2.087 .085 .054 ' Aztec TIO-540-J2B2 TAXI 7.843 .413 .002 .001 .000 Aztec TIO-540-J2B2 TKOF 12.641 .108 .003 .001 .000 Aztec TIO-540-J2B2 CLMB 20.346 .230 .003 .002 .000 ' Aztec TIO-540-J2B2 APCH 24.604 .000 .027 .002 .000 Aztec TIO-540-J2132 TGO 6.999 .043 .004 .001 .000 EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory C-20 ' Aztec TIO-540-J2B2 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Aztec TIO-540-J2132 GSE 11.420 .190 .190 .013 .000 ' B717-200 BR700-715A1-30 TAXI .237 .003 .079 .015 .000 B717-200 BR700-715A1-30 TKOF .013 .000 .407 .017 .000 ' B717-200 BR700-715A1-30 CLMB .008 .000 .193 .010 .000 B717-200 BR700-715A1-30 APCH .083 .000 .248 .022 .000 ' B717-200 BR700-715A1-30 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 B717-200 BR760-715A1-30 GSE 3.927 .109 .489 .014 .019 ' B737-300 DEFAULT TKOF .224 .010 4.406 .249 .000 B737-300 DEFAULT APCH 1.362 .029 2.974 .358 .000 B737-300 DEFAULT TAXI 8.320 .551 .943 .242 .000 ' B737-300 DEFAULT CLMB .198 .010 3.230 .208 .000 B737-300 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' B737-300 DEFAULT GSE 126.444 2.544 6.318 .229 .194 B737-400 DEFAULT TKOF .181 .007 3.909 .202 .000 ' 6737-400 DEFAULT APCH .957 .021 2.448 .281 .000 B737-400 DEFAULT TAXI 5.511 .320 .751 .183 .000 ' B737-400 DEFAULT CLMB .151 .008 2.798 .168 .000 6737-400 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' 11737-400 DEFAULT GSE 55.325 1.165 3.2611 .112 .108 B737-500 DEFAULT TAXI .513 .027 .082 .019 .000 B737-500 DEFAULT APCH .096 .002 .281 .031 .000 ' B737-500 DEFAULT TKOF .023 .001 .520 .025 .000 B737-500 DEFAULT CLMB .019 .001 .370 .021 .000 ' B737-500 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 B737-500 DEFAULT GSE 5.545 .117 .327 .011 .011 ' B757-200 DEFAULT CLM3 .099 .015 6.016 .243 .000 B757-200 DEFAULT TAXI 3.598 .352 .685 .156 .000 ' B757-200 DEFAULT TKOF .089 .011 6.936 .223 .000 B757-200 DEFAULT APCH .621 .057 2.781 .270 .000 ' B757-200 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 B757-200 DEFAULT GSE 39.540 .833 2.335 .080 .077 6767-300ER DEFAULT APCH .230 .018 1.552 .129 .000 ' B767-300ER DEFAULT TAXI 1.335 .109 .322 .066 .000 B767-300ER DEFAULT TKOF .040 .011 3.563 .109 .000 ' B767-300ER DEFAULT CLMB .061 .004 2.934 .119 .000 B767-300ER DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' B767-300ER DEFAULT GSE 7.833 .218 •976 .027 .039 EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory ' C-21 Canadair Reg-100 DEFAULT CLMB .000 .015 2.546 .251 .000 Canadair Reg-100 DEFAULT APCH .944 .065 3.408 .497 .000 ' Canadair Reg-100 DEFAULT TKOF .000 .023 4.436 .382 .000 Canadair Reg-100 DEFAULT TAXI 14.610 1.355 1.310 .343 .000 ' Canadair Reg-100 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Canadair Reg-100 DEFAULT GSE 419.304 8.436 20.951 .760 .644 ' Canadair Reg-700 CF34-8C1 TAXI 3.570 .011 .617 .143 .000 Canadair Reg-700 CF34-8C1 TKOF .070 .003 2.496 .170 .000 ' Canadair Reg-700 CF34-SCI CLMB .056 .002 1.427 .111 .000 Canadair Reg-700 CF34-8C1 APCH .612 .013 2.336 .210 .000 Canadair Reg-700 CF34-8C1 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Canadair Reg-700 CF34-8C1 GSE 125.791 2.531 6.285 .228 .193 Cessna 150 0-200 TAXI 2.864 .129 .007 .000 .000 ' Cessna 150 0-200 TKOF 6.751 .145 .034 .001 .000 Cessna 150 0-200 CLMB 14.949 .321 .075 .002 .000 ' Cessna 150 0-200 APCH 25.054 .701 .024 .002 .000 Cessna 150 0-200 TGO 19.893 .497 .057 .002 .000 ' Cessna 150 0-200 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Cessna 150 0-200 GSE 23.645 .394 .394 .027 .000 ' Cherokee six TIO-540-J2132 TAXI 37.685 1.983 .011 .003 .000 Cherokee six TIO-540-J2132 TKOF 72.602 .622 .018 .006 .000 Cherokee six TIO-540-J2132 CLMB 106.074 1.199 .017 .008 .000 ' Cherokee six TIO-540-J2132 APCH 190.698 .002 .210 .017 .000 Cherokee six TIO-540-J2132 TGO 153.047 .767 .102 .012 .000 Cherokee six TIO-540-J2B2 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Cherokee six TIO-540-J2132 GSE 24.290 .405 .405 .028 .000 ' Commanche TIO-540-J2B2 TAXI 7.590 .399 .002 .001 .000 Commanche TIO-540-J2132 TKOF 14.623 .125 .004 .001 .000 ' Commanche TIO-540-J2B2 CLMB 21.365 .242 .003 .002 .000 Commanche TIO-540-J2132 APCH 38.410 .000 .042 .003 .000 ' Commanche TIO-540-J2112 TGO 9.003 .045 .006 .001 .000 Commanche TIO-540-J2132 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Commanche TIO-540-J2132 GSE 4.892 .082 .082 .006 .000 ' DHC-8 DEFAULT APCH .523 .000 .532 .087 .000 DHC-8 DEFAULT CLMB .065 .000 .347 .028 .000 ' DHC-8 DEFAULT TAXI .923 .000 .353 .062 .000 DHC-8 DEFAULT TKOF .042 .000 .288 .021 .000 ' DHC-8 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory ' C-22 ' DHC-8 DEFAULT GSE 36.359 .664 1.161 .051 .026 EMB-120 DEFAULT TAXI .998 .000 .337 .061 .000 EMB-120 DEFAULT TKOF .052 .000 .298 .023 .000 EMB-120 DEFAULT CLMB .043 .000 .191 .017 .000 ' EMB-120 DEFAULT APCH .364 .000 .442 .056 .000 EMS-120 DEFAULT APU .000 000 .000 .000 .000 EMB-120 DEFAULT GSE 88.079 1.772 4.401 .160 .135 EMS-145 DEFAULT TAXI 2.094 .339 .318 .091 .000 ' EMB-145 DEFAULT APCH .520 .098 .899 .129 .000 EMB-145 DEFAULT TKOF .079 .025 1.771 .094 .000 ' EMB-145 DEFAULT CLMB .065 .020 1.017 .063 .000 EMB-145 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 EMS-145 DEFAULT GSE 116.245 2.014 2.677 .141 .035 ' FOKKER 100 DEFAULT CLMB .019 .004 .158 .005 .000 FOKKER 100 DEFAULT APCH .079 .011 .055 .007 .000 ' FOKKER 100 DEFAULT TKOF .015 .003 .171 .005 .000 FOKKER 100 DEFAULT TAXI .313 .030 .016 .005 .000 FOKKER 100 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 FOKKER 100 DEFAULT GSE 4.620 .093 .231 .008 .007 Gulfstream IV DEFAULT APCH .572 .132 .836 .147 .000 Gulfstream IV DEFAULT TAXI 2 879 .406 .299 .119 .000 ' Gulfstream IV DEFAULT CLMB .060 .022 1.257 .075 .000 Gulfstream IV DEFAULT TKOF .072 .083 2.184 .104 .000 Gulfstream IV DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' Gulfstream IV DEFAULT GSE .824 .248 2.263 .052 .104 Gulfstream V DEFAULT CLMB .031 .001 .648 .047 .000 Gulfstream V DEFAULT APCH .396 .004 .766 .093 .000 Gulfstream V DEFAULT TKOF .033 .000 1.096 .064 .000 ' Gulfstream V DEFAULT TAXI 1.681 .128 .258 .064 .000 Gulfstream V DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 _ .000 .000 ' Gulfstream V DEFAULT GSE .549 .166 1.509 .034 .069 Kingair 200 PT6A-41 TAXI 4.236 3.733 -072 .020 .000 Kingair 2011 PT6A-41 TKOF .079 .027 .124 ,008 .000 ' Kingair 200 P76A-41 CLMB .139 .043 .161 .012 .000 Kingair200 PT6A-41 APCH 3.164 2.065 .422 .049 .000 ' Kingair200 P76A-41 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Kingair200 PT6A-41 GSE .285 .086 .785 .017 .036 ' EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory ' C-23 ' Learjet 25C DEFAULT TKOF .100 .000 .016 .002 .000 Learjet 25C DEFAULT CLMB .072 .001 .009 .001 .000 Learjet25C DEFAULT TAXI .889 .103 .005 .003 .000 Learjet 25C DEFAULT APCH .611 .000 .010 .004 .000 Learjet 25C DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Learjet 25C DEFAULT GSE .069 .021 .189 .004 .009 ' Learjet 35/36 DEFAULT CLMB .104 .007 .672 .028 .000 Learjet 35/36 DEFAULT APCH 2.701 .514 .712 .065 .000 Learjet 35/36 DEFAULT TAXI 4.217 1.442 .203 .039 .000 Learjet 35/36 DEFAULT TKOF .102 .008 1.111 .039 .000 Learjet 35/36 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .1100 .000 .000 Learjet 35/36 DEFAULT GSE 2.297 .692 6.310 .144 .290 MD-80-83 DEFAULT CLMB .027 .010 .473 .023 .000 ' MD-80-83 DEFAULT APCH .090 .035 .202 .022 .000 MD-80-83 DEFAULT TAXI .173 .048 .049 .014 .000 ' MD-80-83 DEFAULT TKOF .016 .006 .604 .022 .000 MD-80-83 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 MD-80-83 DEFAULT GEE .413 .043 .354 .008 .016 MD-90-30 DEFAULT TAXI 1.172 .010 .498 .102 .000 MD-90-30 DEFAULT TKOF .058 .005 3.741 .123 .000 MD-90-30 DEFAULT CLMB .042 .003 1.872 .075 .000 MD-90-30 DEFAULT APCH .323 .009 1.527 .159 .000 MD-90-30 DEFAULT APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 MD-90-30 DEFAULT GSE 27.663 .583 1.634 .056 .054 ' Navajo TIO-540-J2132 TAXI 7.199 .379 .002 .001 .000 Navajo TIO-540-J2B2 TKOF 11.603 .099 .003 .001 .000 Navajo TIO-540-J2132 CLMB 18.675 .211 .003 .001 .000 Navajo TIO-540-J2132 APCH 22.584 .000 .025 .002 .000 ' Navajo TIO-540-J2132 TGO 6.999 .043 .004 .001 .000 Navajo TIO-540-J2B2 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' Navajo TIO-540-J2132 GSE 4.492 .075 .075 .005 .000 PA-42 Cheyenne PT6A-41 TAXI 3.747 3.302 .064 .018 .000 PA-42 Cheyenne PT6A-41 TKOF .077 .026 .121 .008 .000 ' PA-42 Cheyenne PT6A-41 CLMB .090 .028 .104 .007 .000 PA-42 Cheyenne PT6A-41 APCH 1.865 1.217 .249 .029 .000 ' PA-42 Cheyenne PT6A-41 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 PA-42 Cheyenne P76A-41 GSE .251 .075 .690 .015 .032 ' Robinson R22 10-320-01AD TAXI .316 .018 .001 .000 .000 EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory C-24 ' Robinson R22 10-320-DIAD TKOF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Robinson R22 10-320-DIAD CLMB 3.234 .035 .020 .002 .000 ' Robinson R22 10-320-DIAD APCH 2.099 .027 .008 .001 .000 Robinson R22 10-320-DIAD TGO 2.666 .031 .014 .002 MO ' Robinson R22 10-320-DIAD APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Robinson R22 10-320-DIAD GSE .127 .038 .350 .008 .016 ' SH-61AA T58-GE-5 TAXI 3.871 1.912 .027 .012 .000 SH-61AA T58-GE-5 TKOF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ' SH-61AA T58-GE-5 CLMB .869 .120 .550 .046 .000 SH-61AA T58-GE-5 APCH .980 .080 .405 .038 .000 SH-61AA T58-GE-5 APU .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 iSH-61AA T58-GE-5 GSE .116 .035 .318 .007 .015 '*Denotes User Created Aircraft 1 1 1 ' EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory ' C-25 1 VEHICULAR EMISSIONS (Tons/Year) Source CO HC NOx Sox PM10 ' Arenas Road 66.119 8.447 10.533 .594 .454 ' Mid-Valley Parkway 123.523 17.150 23.754 1.321 1.008 Tahquitz Canyon 275.494 35.197 43.888 2.477 1.890 ' East Side 42.507 4.786 1.960 .075 .075 Terminal 152.635 16.376 7.348 .367 .262 ' West Side GA 19.735 2.222 .910 .035 .035 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory ' C-26 STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS ' (Tons/Year) ' Source CO HC NOx Sox PM10 ' AvGas .000 2.188 .000 .000 .000 ' JetA — — 000 — — —.547 _— .000 — .000 .000 t t 1 1 1 1 ' EDMS 4.04 Emissions Inventory ' C-27 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing before the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, in conjunction with Case No. 5.0438, Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Update and Environmental Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration; applicant, City of Palm Springs,was mailed to each and every person on the attached list on the 4`h day of June, 2003. A copy of said Notice is attached hereto. Said mailing was completed by placing a copy of said Notice in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. ,Dated at Palm Spring,%Calif ornia, this 4`h day of June, 2003. lCT ICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk fr"} - _.. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Case No. 5.0438, Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Update, and Environmental Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Applicant: City of Palm Springs NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of June 18, 2003. The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider Case 5.0438, a request by the City of Palm Springs for approval of the updated Master Plan for Palm Springs International Airport, The Master Plan is contained, in its entirety, on the internet at http://www.coffmanassociates.com. The City of Palm Springs Aviation Department has prepared an update to the existing Master Plan for Palm Springs International Airport. The Proposed Project constitutes replacement of the existing 1995 Airport Master Plan with the recently completed update. Major development items include the following: Short Term: Meet changing security needs; Implement pavement rehabilitation and maintenance program; Complete upgrade of terminal Gates 1, 2, and 3 as well as general terminal interior renovations; Continue to improve neighborhood compatibility with ongoing FAR Part 150 noise reduction recommendations(Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study); Extend the terminal loop road; Increase rental car ready/return lot; Construct overflow parking lot;Realign Taxiway B and construct high speed Taxiway N;Develop new T-hangar area on northeast side of airfield; Construct airport maintenance facility. Intermediate Term: Extend terminal baggage claim and ticketing wings; Develop Federal Inspection Service(F.I.S.)Customs Facility; Construct employee and public parking additions; Continue northeast area improvements with taxiway access; Develop west side corporate aviaition parcel area with taxiway access; Provide service road on south side of Mid- Valley Expressway parcels; Implement pavement rehabilitation and maintenance program. Long Range: Add high speed exits north and south on primary runway; Upgrade instrument approaches; Continue parking improvements to meet demand; Develop second terminal concourse; Continue northeast area improvements; Implement pavement rehabilitation and maintenance program. An extended list of projects is contained within the Initial Study. The list of projects identifies which elements of the proposed project were also included in the previous master plan. As the great majority of projects are being carried over from the previous Airport Master Plan, the mitigation measures identified during the earlier CEQA effort are also being carried over and are considered a part of this Proposed Project. The City of Palm Springs (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the project under CEQA. The City is serving as the Lead Agency for this document, based on its jurisdiction over land use within the City's boundary. The City has determined through the preparation of an Initial Study that although the project has the potential to result in significant environmental effects, these impacts will not be significant in this case because the mitigation measures described in the detailed Initial Study have been added to the project. The Initial Study meets the requirements of the State of California CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Palm Springs Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. At its meeting, the City Council may recommend the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse with the review period ending on May 21,2003. The Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with responses to comments, and related documents are available for public review daily. Members of the public may view these documents in the Department of Planning and Zoning, City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, and submit written comments at or prior to the City Council hearing. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the City Council hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Lawrence A. Mainez, Principal Planner at(760) 323-8245, or Allen F. Smoot, Executive Director-Airports (760) 318-3900. Patricia Sanders Publish: June 7, 2003 City Clerk The Desert Sun VICINITY MAP ra r� r ��rew � m - m� E 3 µ o ? 5 Vista Chino Chia Road Tachevah Drive Tamarisk Road Ale o 301h Road h Avenue Palm Tahauitz Canyon Way springs International Mission Airport Drive u Ramon Road 4Es Mesquite AvenuePalm Can on Drive CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO. �5.0438 DESCRIPTION APPLICANT city of Palm springs Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Update, Section 18. Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 Mr. Harold Stone 2980 Plaimor Ave. Palm Springs, CA 92262 21 AVERYO Address Labels Laser 5960TM 7 r AIRPORT PLANNING IS OUR ONLY BUSINESS C®f ::an www.coffmanassociates.com ,u1 ;;E.2 fualW�tSl"9 Lo Airport Consultants June 9, 2003 �.., Z Dr. Jim Lerner �6 ,Airport Air Quality Team ",; OyuCalifornia Air Resources Board4s'C0�1P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 Re. Initial Study for Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Dear Dr. Lerner: This letter is in response to your email dated May 21, 2003 regarding the Initial Study which was prepared for the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan. We appreciate your taking the time to comment on the document. A copy of your letter has been forwarded to Mr. Allen Smoot of Palm Springs International Airport and will be included within the file for the Initial Study. For informational purposes, I have enclosed a copy of the air quality analysis which was completed for the 1995 Airport Master Plan EIR. This analysis contains site-specific impacts resulting from the implementation of the project components contained within the previous Master Plan for Palm Springs International Airport, adopted in 1995. The new Master Plan is similar in scope to the previous Master Plan and contains a number of projects which were included in the previous Master Plan and were not completed over the past seven years. New projects (i.e. not included in the 1995 Master Plan) primarily consists of refinements to the previously analyzed projects. For example, a number of taxiway improvements were proposed in the 1995 plan. These taxiway improvements were not completed and were carried forward into the new plan, with a slightly different alignment. Additionally, some of the projects evaluated as part of the 1995 plan were not carried forward into the new plan such as the construction of hotel facilities in the southwestern portion of Airport property. Air quality impacts resulting from the proposed development, not included within the 1995 EIR, would be primarily construction-related, as the forecasted air traffic activity has not significantly increased over what was previously analyzed. The previous air quality analysis evaluated a "worst case" scenario for construction related impacts. Results of this analysis indicated that the construction-related impacts would exceed only the NOx threshold. The remaining pollutants were well below the threshold of significance. Our analysis indicated that the impacts associated with the proposed development would not be greater than what was analyzed under the "worst case"scenario as some of the improvements proposed within the 1995 plan are not being carried forward into the new plan. The mitigation measures outlined on page C-67 and C-68 of the attached document outline the mitigation measures which will be utilized with project implementation. ,tt,-gi t Kansas City•Phoenix 1433 L, 237 N.W. Blue Parkway, Suite 100, Lee's Summit, MO 64063 Phone 816.524.3500 FAX 816,524.2575 r Dr. Jim Lerner June 9, 2003 Page Two If after reviewing the attached air quality analysis, you have additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at (816) 524-3500. Sincerely, ✓ Molly A. Waller Airport/Environmental Planner Enclosures cc: Jim Harris, Coffman Associates Steve Benson, Coffman Associates ,/Allen Smoot, Palm Springs International Airport ✓Larry Mainez, City of Palm Springs Larry Mainez From: Jim Lerner Dierner@arb.ca.gov] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:19 AM To: mwaller@coffmanassociates.com Cc: Larry Mainez Subject: Palm Springs Molly: Thanks for the email with attached letter. I didn' t yet receive the hard copy of your letter with the air quality analysis from the 1995 FEIR, but Larry Mainex sent me "Appendix C Air and Noise Study" and I started reviewing it yesterday. My supervisor Gary Honcoop and will try to call you shortly, and if you are there, we can follow up with the questions we have about the operational emission inventory analyses 1995 and 2003 compared. We understand that the proposed revisions to the plan are essentially the same as what was proposed in the earlier plan, so that the impacts due to the project would be approximately the same. In my email of May 21st I wanted to understand how the emission inventory changes from existing to buildout changes in the 1995 analysis cmpared to the 2003 analysis. The 1995 analysis is well documented and I am understanding most of what was used to generate the numbers. Unfortunately, there is not the same level of backup detail for the 2003 analysis. There are many reasons why the emissions would be different at buildout in the two analyses, including different buildout years analyzed in the two cases, different motor vehicle and aircraft fleet mix, different numbers of daily or annual motor vehicle trips and aircraft LTO cycles (1/2 times number of operations) , emission factors) , and perhaps most important, whether the emission numbers displayed are for the peak design day or an annual average day. In the Initial Study on page 9 the tons per day quoted from the 1995 analysis are for a design day, while in the air quality appendix on pages C-10 and C-19, the emissions are in tons per year and if divided by the number of days in a year, are assumed to be for an annual average day. Note that in C-19 in this Initial Study, the buildout year is 2020, while in Table 4-7 on page C-62 of the 1995 air quality analysis, the buildout year is assumed to be 2010 for automobile emissions and 2015 for aircraft emissions (apples and oranges, if you will) . These details are what I have uncovered so far in my review. We will call you to try to understand from your perspective what is going on with these detailed emissions calculation, and if you need more time to review this, you can do so, and communicate again to us, if necessary. I will be leaving for a vacation this afternoon, so I may not be able to talk to you for a while. Many Thanks, Jim Lerner, Ph.D. CARB Airport Air Quality Team 916.322. 6007 1 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING THE PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE, CASE NO 5.0438 LOCATED AT 3400 E.TAHQUITZCANYON WAY,ZONEA,O,M-1, M-1-P,W- A, AND CC, SECTION 7, 12, 13, AND18. WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs("Applicant')recognizes the need for a Airport Master Plan bywhich to guide the future growth and development of the Palm Springs International Airport;and WHEREAS,the conditions in the operations of the Palm Spring International Airport have changed since the adoption of the previous Airport Master Plan in August 1994, such that it was necessary to prepare an update to the Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the reports and drafts of the proposed Airport Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review and discuss the project on May 28, 2003; and WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the aforementioned project is in conformitywith the General Plan or part thereof in accordance with Government Code Section 65402; and WHEREAS,on June 18,2003,a public hearing on the Airport Master Plan Update, Case 5.0438 was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a"project'pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"), and an Initial Study has been prepared forthis project and has been distributed for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS,the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the meeting on the Project, including but not limited to the staff report, all environmental data including the Initial Study prepared for the project and all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council finds that the current Initial Studyfor the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Update, Case No. 5.0438, adequately addresses the general environmental setting of the proposed Project, its significant environmental impacts, and the mitigation measures related to each significant environmental effect for the proposed project. The City Council furtherfinds that the proposed project could not have a significant impact on the environment, as the great majority of projects are being carried over from the previous Airport Master Plan,the mitigation measures identified during the earlier CEQA effort(1995 EIR/EA on the Airport Master Plan and 1994 FAR Part 150 Study)are also being carried over and are considered a part of this proposed Plan Update, and therefore adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. dp� vc Section 2: The City Council hereby recommends adoption of the goals, objectives, policies, maps and programs contained in the Airport Master Plan,and determined thatthey are desirable for the proper development of the Palm Springs International Airport. Section3: The proposed Airport Master Plan Update is necessary and proper at this time, and are not likely to be detrimental to the adjacent properties or residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council orders the filing of Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Update, Case No. 5.0438, as shown in Exhibits A, by reference. ADOPTED this th day of , 2003. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA City Clerk City Manager Reviewed and Approved as to Form: