HomeMy Public PortalAboutOrd 1172ORDINANCE NO. 1172
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY
AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE AND RM 38 JV, LLC
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Mirage ("City") is a charter city and a municipal
corporation of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, RM 38 JV, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Developer") is
the owner of that certain property in the City of Rancho Mirage, County of Riverside, State
of California, consisting of approximately 33.7 acres located adjacent to the streets known
as Via Josefina and Via Florencia, which is currently vacant and unimproved, and which
is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached to the Development Agreement,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ("Subject Property" or "Project
Site"); and
WHEREAS, on or about December 4, 2014, at a duly noticed public hearing, the
City Council adopted Resolution 2014-56, approving Tentative Tract Map Case No. TTM
36620, with an initial expiration date of December 4, 2016, for a gated residential
subdivision consisting of 82 single-family lots plus some common area lots for related
improvements ("Tentative Map"); and
WHEREAS, on or about January 19, 2017, the City Council, at a duly noticed
public meeting, approved the first extension of the Tentative Map, Tentative Tract Map
Extension No. TTM1X36620, extending the expiration date of the Tentative Map from
December 4, 2016, to December 4, 2017; and
WHEREAS, on or about December 7, 2017, the City Council approved the second
extension of the Tentative Map, Tentative Tract Map Extension No. TTM2X36620,
extending the expiration date of the Tentative Map from December 4, 2017, to December
4, 2019 ("Current Expiration Date"); and
WHEREAS, there was no development plan permit nor other discretionary permits
issued or approved related to the Tentative Map or any of its extensions; and
WHEREAS, on or about December 4, 2014, the City Council acting on behalf of
the "Lead Agency," under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the
CEQA Guidelines, approved Resolution No. 2014-56 , adopting a mitigated negative
declaration (the "MND"), and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program ("MMRP") for
the Project (Environmental Assessment Case No. EA130006), based upon its
determination that mitigation measures imposed on the Project will avoid or mitigate
impacts to a point where clearly no significant impacts on the environment would occur;
and
WHEREAS, on or about December 5, 2014, a Notice of Determination ("NOD")
regarding the City's adoption of the MND was filed with the Office of the County Clerk of
the County of Riverside and posted for at least 30 days in the Office of the County Clerk;
and
WHEREAS, since the Project did not require any discretionary approvals from any
state agency, the NOD was not filed with the State's Office of Planning and Research;
and
WHEREAS, no complaints, lawsuits, claims or petitions were filed against the City
within the requisite 30-day period to commence a CEQA legal challenge, or anytime
thereafter, challenging the City Council's adoption of the MND and approval of the
Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, the Project has experienced substantial delays resulting from a
combination of factors that include, without limitation, substantial delays in the completion
of the Coachella Valley Water District's water infrastructure project needed to serve the
Project, which was beyond the control of the City and/or the Developer; and
WHEREAS, in light of the delay caused by the Coachella Valley Water District's
water infrastructure project that was needed to serve the Project, the Developer and the
City believe it is in their mutual best interests to enter into this Agreement to extend the
Tentative Tract Map's Current Expiration Date to April 3, 2021, since the Project will result
in the installation of necessary public infrastructure at no cost to the taxpayers and the
Developer will receive assurances that it may proceed with developing the Project subject
to the policies, rules, regulations, and conditions of approval applicable to the Project at
the time of approval of the Agreement, with very limited exceptions; and
WHEREAS, to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private
participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development,
the Legislature of the State of California adopted Sections 65864 et seq. of the California
Government Code, "Development Agreement Statute" which authorizes cities to enter
into property development agreements with any person(s) or entity(ies) having a legal or
equitable interest in real property for the development of such real property in order to
establish certain development rights in the real property; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 17. 56, "Development Agreements" of the Rancho
Mirage Municipal Code, a development agreement is intended to provide assurances to
Developer that an approved project may proceed subject to the policies, rules,
regulations, and conditions of approval applicable to the project at the time of approval,
regardless of any changes to City policies, rules, and regulations after project approval,
and provide assurances that City cannot otherwise unilaterally impose conditions of
approval of the project outside the context of a negotiated development agreement; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning for and secure
orderly development of the Subject Property, assure progressive installation of necessary
2
improvements, and ensure attainment of the maximum effective utilization of resources
within City at the least economic cost to its citizens; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing recitals, City has determined that this
Agreement is appropriate under the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter 17.56
of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that, on the basis of substantial evidence in
the light of the whole record, that an addendum be prepared for the Project, which
includes without limitation this Agreement and extension of the Tentative Tract Map as
described herein, since there are no substantial changes proposed which will require
major revisions of the MND; no substantial changes occur with respect to the
circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions
of the MND; and there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not
known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time the MND was approved; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement is voluntarily entered into in consideration of the
benefits to and the rights created in favor of each of the parties hereto and in reliance
upon the various representations and warranties contained herein.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE,
CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. RECITALS
That the above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated as though fully
set forth herein.
SECTION 2. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
That the City Council hereby approves the attached Statutory Development
Agreement ("Agreement") by and between CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, a municipal
corporation located in the County of Riverside, State of California ("City"), and RM 38 JV,
LLC, a California limited liability company ("Developer"), pursuant to the authority of
Sections 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Chapter 17.56,
"Development Agreements," of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code.
SECTION 3. CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW
That the City Attorney prepared and framed this Ordinance pursuant to Section
1.04.010 of the Municipal Code and finds that the City Council has the authority to adopt
this Ordinance, that the Ordinance is constitutionally valid and that the Ordinance is
consistent with the general power and purposes of the City as set forth in Section 1.04.031
of the Municipal Code.
3
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY
That the City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph,
sentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court
action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the
remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Ordinance as
hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE
That this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its second reading by the
City Council.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
That in accordance with Section 17.56.050 of the City's Municipal Code, the
Development Agreement shall not be executed by the City until on or after the effective
date of the Ordinance.
SECTION 7. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
That all the provisions of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code as heretofore adopted
by the City of Rancho Mirage that are in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are
hereby repealed.
SECTION 9. RECORDATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
That in accordance with Section 17.56.050 of the City's Municipal Code, the City
Clerk is hereby directed to record the fully executed Development Agreement with the
Riverside County Recorder no later than ten (10) days after its execution.
SECTION 8. CERTIFICATION
That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause
the same to be published according to law.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
4
The foregoing Ordinance was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City
Council held on June 4, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Hobart, Kite, Smotrich, Townsend, Weill.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
~~ d.baaH0bai£Ma;;or
ATTEST:
~~~~~
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~ Steven B. Quintanilla, City Attorney
C...1.-.... '"t)_ 1.q_,~c....-\-("._~ ¾..A-, c~., A+v:,r.A-ef
5
ATTACHMENT "A"
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
AND
RM 38 JV, LLC
SEE ATTACHED
6
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
City of Rancho Mirage
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, California 92270
Attention: City Clerk
APNs: 685-110-004; 685-110-005;
685-110-006; 685-110-007;
685-110-008; 685-110-009;
and 685-100-013.
(SPACE ABOVE THIS UNE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE)
(Exempt from Recording Fees Pursuant to Government Code Section 27383 -Benefits City)
STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
AND
RM38JV,LLC
This Statutory Development Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into this ___ day of
-----, 2020, by and between CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, a municipal corporation
located in the County of Riverside, State of California ("City"), and RM 38 JV, LLC, a California
limited liability company ("Developer"), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 et seq. of the
California Government Code and Chapter 17.56, "Development Agreements," of the Rancho
Mirage Municipal Code.
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the City 1s a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of
California; and
WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of that certain property in the City of Rancho Mirage,
County of Riverside, State of California, consisting of approximately 33.7 acres located adjacent
to the streets known as Via Josefina and Via Florencia, which is currently vacant and unimproved,
and which is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference ("Subject Property" or "Project Site"); and
-1-
WHEREAS, on or about December 4, 2014, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City
Council adopted Resolution 2014-56, approving Tentative Tract Map Case No. TTM 36620, with
an initial expiration date of December 4, 2016, for a gated residential subdivision consisting of 82
single-family lots plus some common area lots for related improvements ("Tentative Map"); and
WHEREAS, on or about January 19, 2017, the City Council, at a duly noticed public
meeting, approved the first extension of the Tentative Map, Tentative Tract Map Extension No.
TTM1X36620, extending the expiration date of the Tentative Map from December 4, 2016, to
December 4, 2017; and
WHEREAS, on or about December 7, 20 17, the City Council approved the second
extension of the Tentative Map, Tentative Tract Map Extension No. TTM2X36620, extending the
expiration date of the Tentative Map from December 4, 2017, to December 4, 2019 ("Current
Expiration Date"); and
WHEREAS, there was no development plan permit nor other discretionary permits issued
or approved related to the Tentative Map or any of its extensions; and
WHEREAS, on or about December 4, 2014, the City Council acting on behalf of the "Lead
Agency," under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines,
approved Resolution No. 2014-56, adopting a mitigated negative declaration (the "MND"), and a
mitigation monitoring and reporting program ("MMRP") for the Project (Environmental
Assessment Case No. EA130006), based upon its determination that mitigation measures imposed
on the Project will avoid or mitigate impacts to a point where clearly no significant impacts on the
environment would occur; and
WHEREAS, on or about December 5, 2014, a Notice of Determination ("NOD")
regarding the City's adoption of the MND was filed with the Office of the County Clerk of the
County of Riverside and posted for at least 30 days in the Office of the County Clerk; and
WHEREAS, since the Project did not require any discretionary approvals from any state
agency, the NOD was not filed with the State's Office of Planning and Research; and
WHEREAS, no complaints, lawsuits, claims or petitions were filed against the City within
the requisite 30-day period to commence a CEQA legal challenge, or anytime thereafter,
challenging the City Council's adoption of the MND and approval of the Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, the Project has experienced substantial delays resulting from a combination
of factors that include, without limitation, substantial delays in the completion of the Coachella
Valley Water District's water infrastructure project needed to serve the Project, which was beyond
the control of the City and/or the Developer; and
WHEREAS, in light of the delay caused by the Coachella Valley Water District's water
infrastructure project that was needed to serve the Project, the Developer and the City believe it is
in their mutual best interests to enter into this Agreement to extend the Tentative Tract Map's
Current Expiration Date to April 3, 2021, since the Project will result in the installation of
-2-
necessary public infrastructure at no cost to the taxpayers and the Developer will receive
assurances that it may proceed with developing the Project subject to the policies, rules,
regulations, and conditions of approval applicable to the Project at the time of approval of the
Agreement, with very limited exceptions; and
WHEREAS, to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in
comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State
of California adopted Sections 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code, "Development
Agreement Statute" which authorizes cities to enter into property development agreements with
any person(s) or entity(ies) having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development
of such real property in order to establish certain development rights in the real property; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 17.56, "Development Agreements" of the Rancho
Mirage Municipal Code, a development agreement is intended to provide assurances to Developer
that an approved project may proceed subject to the policies, rules, regulations, and conditions of
approval applicable to the project at the time of approval, regardless of any changes to City
policies, rules, and regulations after project approval, and provide assurances that City cannot
otherwise unilaterally impose conditions of approval of the project outside the context of a
negotiated development agreement; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning for and secure orderly
development of the Subject Property, assure progressive installation of necessary improvements,
and ensure attainment of the maximum effective utilization of resources within City at the least
economic cost to its citizens; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing recitals, City has determined that this Agreement is
appropriate under the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter 17.56 of the Rancho Mirage
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement is voluntarily entered into in consideration of the benefits to
and the rights created in favor of each of the parties hereto and in reliance upon the various
representations and warranties contained herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement
Statute and Chapter 17.56 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and in consideration of the
mutual covenants and promises of the parties contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:
AGREEMENT:
Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits
The foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are incorporated into
this Agreement by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
-3-
Section 2. Effective Date
This Agreement shall become effective on or after the effective date ("Effective Date") of
the ordinance enacting this Agreement ("Enacting Ordinance"); provided, however, that if a City-
wide referendum election is called and the Enacting Ordinance is repealed, this Agreement shall
be null and void as of the date of the final declaration by the City Council of the repeal of the
Enacting Ordinance.
Section 3.
The parties agree that, subject to any extensions or early termination provisions described
in this Agreement, the Term of this Agreement shall be four ( 4) years from the Effective Date,
subject to early termination if Tentative Tract Map Case No. TTM 36620 expires with no final
map being recorded in which case this Agreement shall be deemed terminated on the date of
expiration of Tentative Tract Map Case No. 36620.
Section 4. Project Site
The "Project Site" shall be the same as the "Subject Property," which consists of
approximately 33.74 acres of vacant and unimproved real property located adjacent to the streets
known as Via Josefina and Via Florencia which are situated entirely within the Section 30 Specific
Plan and zoned R-L-2 (Residential Very Low Density) and R-M (Residential Medium Density) in
the City of Rancho Mirage, and identified as Assessor Parcel Nos. 685-110-004, 685-110-005,
685-110-006, 685-110-007, 685-110-008, 685-110-009 and 685-100-013, as more particularly
described in Exhibit "A," upon which the Project will be developed in accordance with this
Agreement.
Section 5. The Project
The "Project" consists of Tentative Tract Map Case No. 36620 for a gated residential
subdivision consisting of 82 single-family lots plus some common area lots for related
improvements.
Section 6. Purpose
The purpose of this Agreement is to extend the term of Tentative Tract Map No. 36620 to
April 3, 2021, in accordance with Government Code Section 66452.6(a)(l ), which shall
automatically be extended an additional one (1) year to April 3, 2022, if Developer has submitted
a complete Preliminary Development Plan ("PDP") application by April 3, 2021, subject to an
additional two (2) year extension to April 3, 2024, if the Final PDP is approved by City on or
before April 3, 2022.
Section 7. Termination
This Agreement shall be terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of
the following events:
-4-
(a) Expiration of the Term a set forth in Section 3 above;
(b) Completion of the Project in accordance with this Agreement and the Project
Entitlements, the City's approval and/or issuance of all necessary ministerial permits, including
without limitation all necessary grading and building permits, and all required certificates of
occupancy and final inspections and the City's formal acceptance of all public right-of-way
dedications and off-site public improvements required under this Agreement and the Project
Entitlements;
(c) As for any specific lot containing a residential dwelling or other structure situated
within the Project Site, this Agreement shall be terminated as to such lot upon the issuance by City
of the necessary certificate of occupancy or final inspections, as the case may be, for the subject
residential dwelling unit or other structure constructed thereon;
(d) Entry of final judgment or issuance of a final order by a court of competent
jurisdiction over the Project or Project Site directing the City to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate
the City's approval of this Agreement or any material component of the Project Entitlements; or
(e) The effective date of a party's election to terminate the Agreement in response to
an uncured default by the other party, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; or
In the event of a termination of this Agreement with respect to any portion of the Project
or Project Site, all rights and obligations of the parties with respect to such portion of the Project
or Project Site, shall automatically terminate and be of no further force, effect or
operation. However, no termination of this Agreement with respect to any portion of the Project
or Project Site shall affect in any way the parties' rights and obligations hereunder with respect to
any other portion of the Project or Project Site.
In no event shall the termination or expiration of this Agreement result in the automatic
termination or expiration of any duly approved or issued Project Entitlement and its related
approvals, such as but not limited to, any permits, certificates of occupancy, final inspections
and/or licenses or any development right or entitlement, vested or otherwise, duly approved or
issued by the City, without further action of City as may be required by this Agreement or any
applicable rule, regulation, procedure or law.
If the City lawfully terminates this Agreement because of the Developer's default, then the
City shall retain any and all benefits, including without limitation any money, improvements,
structures, easements or dedications received by the City pursuant to any term or condition of this
Agreement.
Section 8. Cooperation by Developer
Developer shall, in a timely manner, provide the City with all documents, applications,
plans and other information necessary for the City to carry out its obligations under this Agreement
and cause its planners, engineers and consultants to do the same. Developer also shall apply in a
timely manner for such other permits and approvals from other governmental or quasi-
governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project Site and/or Project as may be required
-5-
for the development of, or provision of services to, the Project Site and/or Project, as contemplated
by this Agreement.
Section 9. Filing and Processing Fees
Notwithstanding anything else herein, Developer shall pay all applicable filing and
processing fees pursuant to Section 17.36.050 "Fees" of the Municipal Code in the amounts set
forth in the schedule offees that is in effect at the time the Project Entitlements and related permits,
licenses, certificates are formally reviewed and approved by the City.
Section 10. Additional Cost Reimbursement
In addition to the payment of the requisite processing fees, Developer shall reimburse the
City for the actual costs and expenses incurred by the City for all services provided by the City
and its consultants, including legal counsel, for review, preparation and processing of this
Agreement and the Project Entitlements, and any research related thereto, which are not factored
in the City's filing and processing fees, subject to Developer's consent to such costs and expenses,
which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Furthermore, to the extent that the City, on
behalf of the Developer, attempts to enter into binding agreements with other entities in order to
assure the availability of certain permits and approvals or services necessary for development of
the Project Site and/or the Project as described in this Agreement, Developer shall reimburse City
for all costs and expenses incurred in connection with seeking and entering into any such
agreements, subject to Developer's consent to such costs and expenses, which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld. Any fees, assessments or other amounts payable by the City pursuant to
any such agreements described herein shall be borne by the Developer except where the Developer
has notified the City in writing, prior to the City entering into any such agreement, that it does not
desire for City to execute said agreement. Should Developer refuse to provide its consent with
respect to the above matters, the City reserves the right to refrain from entering into the respective
agreement or paying any fees, assessment or other amounts on behalf of the Project Site and/or
Project.
Section 11. Tentative Tract Map No. 36620
The Project includes a "subdivision," as defined in Government Code Section 66473.7.
The Parties agree that Tentative Tract Map No. 36620 complies with Government Code Section
66473.7 and all other applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code
Sections 66410 et seq.); and that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its
design and improvements, are consistent with the City's General Plan, and all applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code, including without limitation Title 16 "Subdivisions" of the
Municipal Code. The Parties further acknowledge and agree that: (a) the Project Site is physically
suitable for the Project; (b) the Project Site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development; (c) the design of the subdivision and the Project's proposed improvements, as
mitigated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"), are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; (d) the
design of the subdivision and type of proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public
health problems; and (e) the design of the subdivision and the type of proposed improvements will
-6-
not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of,
property within the Project Site. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Developer consents to the
application of the conditions of approval specifically set forth in Exhibit "B," attached hereto.
Section 12. Extension of Tentative Map
City agrees to extend the term of the Tentative Map to April 3, 2021 , in accordance with
Government Code Section 66452.6(a)(1), which shall automatically be extended an additional one
(1) year to April 3, 2022, only if Developer has submitted a complete Preliminary Development
Plan ("PDP") application by April 3, 2021. If the Final PDP is approved by City prior to April 3,
2022, the Tentative Map shall be extended for an additional two (2) years resulting in a new
expiration date of April 3, 2024.
Section 13. Lot Sizes
The parties acknowledge that although 37 of the Project's 82 lots do not meet the current
minimum lot sizes for the R-L-2 and R-M zones, which were established by the adoption of
Ordinance No. 1086 (Zoning Text Amendment ZTA 14002) on November 6, 2014, City shall treat
and process said lots under this Agreement as legal nonconforming lots, which shall not require
the issuance of a conditional use permit as may otherwise be required under Chapter 17.70
"Nonconforming Uses, Sites and Structures" of the Municipal Code, since the Project's lot sizes,
as depicted on the Tentative Map, were consistent with the City's General Plan and applicable
zoning at the time Developer submitted its application for the Tentative Map.
Section 14. Lot Coverage
Developer agrees that the Project shall not include any structures with four walls and a roof
that exceed the maximum thirty percent (30%) lot coverage for all lots within the Project.
Section 15. Street Improvements -Via Josefina
Developer shall develop, construct and install all necessary street improvements, including
curb and gutter, along the east side of Via Josefina between Via Florencia and Seclude Court to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Section 16. Emergency Vehicle Access Road
Developer shall develop, construct and install the necessary street improvements for the
Emergency Vehicle Access Road, as depicted in Exhibit_, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal
and City Engineer.
Section 17. Underground Overhead Utility Lines
Developer shall underground the overhead utility lines along the east side of Via Josefina
between Via Florencia and Seclude Court, as depicted in Exhibit "C."
-7-
Section 18. Sewer Laterals
Developer shall install sewer laterals to every lot, house, or building along Via Josefina
between Via Florencia and Seclude Court at the time of the sewer line extension.
Section 19. Preliminary Development Plan
The Developer shall submit a complete application for a Development Plan for the Project.
Pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, the Project's Preliminary Development Plan may adjust
or modify, where necessary and justifiable, all applicable development standards (e.g., building
envelope [ coverage, height, and setbacks], fence and wall heights, landscaping, off street parking
[design and ratios], open space, street layout, etc.).The Parties agree that the Project is: (a) allowed
within the respective zoning district; (b) generally in compliance with all of the applicable
provisions of Title 17 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, including prescribed development
standards and applicable design guidelines; (c) consistent with the General Plan; (d) a
comprehensive development incorporating a more enhanced environment and architectural
excellence ( e.g., appropriate variety of structure placement and orientation opportunities,
appropriate mix of structure sizes, high quality architectural design, increased amounts of
landscaping and open space, improved solutions to the design and placement of parking facilities,
etc.) than would normally be possible under more standard district development requirements. The
Parties further agree that: (i) the design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the
provision of public and emergency vehicle access and public services and utilities (e.g., drainage,
fire protection, sewers, water, etc.), would ensure that the proposed development would not
endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest,
safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the respective
zoning district; (ii) the design, location, and proposed uses would be compatible with the character
of existing development in the surrounding neighborhood; (iii) the Project Site is physically
suitable for the type and density/intensity of development being proposed; and (iv) the Project has
been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and, as mitigated by the measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program ("MMRP"), there would be no potential significant negative effects upon
environmental quality and natural resources that would not be properly mitigated and monitored.
Section 20. Grading Plans and Grading Permit
Developer shall submit to the City a complete application for a Grading Permit and the
requisite Grading Plans for development of the Project, which the City shall expeditiously process
for approval consistent with the terms and conditions of Title 16 Subdivisions of the Municipal
Code, the Project Entitlements, and the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
("MMRP").
Section 21. Vested Rights and Applicable Rules, Regulations and Policies
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, or in the approved Tentative Map and the
conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit 8, the Developer shall have the vested right to
-8-
Developer's opinion, conflict with Applicable Law (including this Agreement) or reduce the
development rights provided by this Agreement. Should any initiative, referendum, or other
measure be enacted, and any failure to apply such measure by City to the Project be legally
challenged, Developer agrees to fully defend and indemnify the City against such challenge,
including providing all necessary legal services (with counsel reasonably selected by Developer
in consultation with the City Attorney), bearing all costs therefor, and otherwise holding the City
harmless from all costs and expenses of such legal challenge and litigation.
(f) In the event a City Law is enacted, whether by action of the City Council, or by
initiative, referendum ( other than a referendum which specifically overturns the City's approval of
this Agreement or the Project Entitlements), or otherwise, which relates to the rate, timing, phasing
or sequencing of new development or construction in the City or, more particularly, development
and construction of all or any part of the Project, and that is in conflict with the Applicable Law
or this Agreement, such City Law shall not apply to the Project or any portions thereof.
Section 22. Minor Revisions
Minor revisions to the permits, licenses, certificates and other entitlements related to the
Project Site and/or Project shall not require an amendment to this Agreement, provided that the
City finds and determines that the proposed change or modification is consistent with the
development standards and guidelines applicable to the Project pursuant to this Agreement, the
Project Entitlements, Tentative Tract Map No. 36620, and the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program ("MMRP"). The City's Development Services Director ("Director") may
approve a minor modification to allow refinements and adjustments to the entitlements, so long as
the proposed modifications are consistent with the intent of the approved entitlements and do not
increase the number of lots, units or buildings, nor increase the height of a previously approved
building by more than 6 inches beyond that specified in an approved PDP. If, in the opinion of the
Director, the amendment is not minor, a Major Modification shall be submitted. The Developer
shall have the right to appeal the Director decision under Chapter 17.76 of the RMMC.
Section 23. Development Impact Fees
The Developer shall pay the City's Development Impact Fees as required under Chapter
3.29 Development Impact Mitigation Fees of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code.
Section 24. Quimby Parkland Fees
Developer shall pay the City's applicable Quimby Parkland Fees in the amount in effect
on the date that the application for PDP is accepted as complete by the City.
Section 25. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Fees
The Project shall pay the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Fee
pursuant to Section 3.29.147 of the City's Municipal Code.
-10-
Section 26. Sewer Lift Station Reimbursement
Prior to grading plan check, Developer shall pay City the total sum of Thirty-Four
Thousand One Hundred and Nine Dollars ($34,109.00) as reimbursement for the Project's fair
share of a sewer lift station that benefits certain lots within the Project, as set forth in Tentative
Tract Map Case No. TTM 36620 Condition of Approval No. 38.
Section 27. Existing Exactions
Nothing set forth in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of Developer's obligation to
pay or be subject to any other existing fees, exactions, in-lieu fees or payments, dedication or
reservation requirements, obligations for on-site or off-site improvements, construction
requirements for public improvements, facilities, or services required of the Project and/or Project
Site under the Applicable Law, whether such requirements constitute subdivision improvements,
mitigation, or impositions made under any applicable ordinance or other applicable regulation.
Section 28. Community Facilities District No. 1
Developer acknowledges the existence of Community Facilities District No. 1 ("CFO No.
I") which was created pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act, as set forth in
Government Code Sections 53311 et seq. ("Mello-Roos CFO Act") for the purpose of funding
certain public safety services, and agrees that if the Project and Project Site are not currently
subject to the assessments of CFO No. 1. Developer voluntarily consents to take whatever
affirmative action it needs to take on its part to ensure that the Project and Project Site are subject
to the assessments of the CFO No. 1, which includes without limitation, voting to approve the
annexation of the Project and Project Site to said CFO No. I. In the event CFO No. I formally
dissolves, Developer shall consent to paying an in-lieu assessment in a manner and form, deemed
acceptable by City, as though CFO No. I had never dissolved with respect to the Project and
Project Site.
Section 29. Nexus/Reasonable Relationship Challenges
Developer consents to, and waives any rights it may have now or in the future to challenge
the legal validity of, the conditions or requirements set forth in this Agreement including, without
limitation, any claim that they constitute an abuse of the police power, violate substantive due
process, deny equal protection of the laws, effect a taking of property without payment of just
compensation, or impose an unlawful tax. Developer reserves the right, however, to challenge in
court any future fee, exaction, or other City Law that would, in Developer's opinion, conflict with
Applicable Law (including this Agreement) or reduce the development rights provided by this
Agreement.
Section 30. Covenants Running with the Land and Constructive Notice
All of the terms, provisions, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding
upon Developer and its heirs, successors, and assigns, and all other persons or entities acquiring
-1 I -
all or any portion of the Project Site and/or Project, or any interest therein, whether by operation
of law or in any manner whatsoever, and the rights thereof shall inure to the benefit of the City
and its successors and assigns. As such, all of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable
as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law,
including but not limited to, Section 1468 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the above,
every person who now or hereafter owns or acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion
of the Project Site and/or Project shall be deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision
contained in this Agreement, whether or not any reference to this Agreement is contained in the
instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Project Site and/or Project.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the terms, provisions and obligations of this Agreement shall not
be binding upon any buyer or owner ofan individual home within the Project for which a certificate
of occupancy has been issued. Notwithstanding anything set forth in this Agreement to the
contrary:
(a) During the term hereof, the Project and the Project Site shall be subject to
this Agreement, and any development of any portion of the Property shall be developed, operated
and/or managed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
(b) Developer is not obligated by the terms of this Agreement to affirmatively
act to develop all or any portion of the Project Site, pay any sums of money (with the exception of
any assessment district or other public finance district formed to include the Project Site), dedicate
any land, indemnify any party, or to otherwise meet or perform any obligation with respect to the
Project Site, except and only as a condition to the development of any portion of the Project Site.
Section 31. Civil Code Section 1542 Waiver
Developer hereby waives any and all rights Developer or its successors and assigns may
have under Article XIIIC or Article XIIID of the California Constitution and any and all rights
Developer or its successors and assigns may have under any other applicable law to contest the
fees, exactions and assessments and/or their amounts payable to the City under this Agreement as
follows:
In furtherance of the Parties' intentions, Developer with and under advice of counsel,
hereby expressly waives any and all right and benefit conferred upon Developer by the provisions
of Civil Code Section 1542, which provides as follows:
"A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or
releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor
at the time of executing the release and that if known by him or her
would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor
or released party."
Developer further expressly waives any and all rights and benefits conferred upon
Developer by any provision of any other state, federal or local statute, code, ordinance or law
similar to Section 1542 of the Civil Code. Developer expressly consents that the waiver of rights
contained in the first paragraph shall be given full force and effect, according to the express terms
-12-
and provisions of the instant waiver, to unknown and unsuspected claims, demands and causes of
action, if any, arising out of or relating to the waiver of rights contained in this Agreement.
Initials:
Developer ____ _
Section 32. Periodic Review
The City shall conduct a review of this Agreement as set forth as follows:
(a) Annual Review. The City will review the extent of good faith compliance by
Developer with the terms of this Agreement annually commencing on the first anniversary of the
Effective Date of this Agreement.
(b) Notice. The City shall notify Developer in writing of the date of review at least
thirty (30) days prior thereto.
(c) Good-faith Compliance. During each annual review, Developer is required to
demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
(d) Production of Documents and Other Evidence. Developer agrees to furnish
such reasonable evidence and adequate documentation of good faith compliance as the City, in the
exercise of its reasonable discretion, may require.
(e) Cost of Annual Review. The costs incurred by City in connection with the
annual review shall be borne by Developer.
(f) Failure to Conduct Review. City's failure to conduct an annual review of this
Agreement shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement, and shall constitute a rebuttable
presumption that Developer is in good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
(g) Certificate of Compliance. If, at the conclusion of a periodic or special review,
Developer is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, the City shall issue a Certificate
of Compliance ("Certificate") to Developer stating that after the most recent periodic or special
review, and based upon the information known or made known to the City that: (i) this Agreement
remains in effect and (ii) Developer is not in default. The City shall not be bound by a Certificate
if a default existed at the time of the periodic or special review, but was concealed from or
otherwise not known to the City, regardless of whether or not the Certificate is relied upon by
assignees or other transferees or Developer.
Section 33. Mortgagee Protection
(a) In General. The provisions of this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer's
right to encumber the Property or any portion thereof, or any improvement thereon by any
-13-
mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to such portion.
City acknowledges that lenders providing such financing and other "Mortgagees" (defined below)
may require certain modifications or amendments to this Agreement and agrees upon request, from
time to time, to meet with Developer and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith
any such request for modification or amendment. Any modification or amendment requested by a
Mortgagee will be processed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Any person holding
a mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument on all or any portion of the Property made
in good faith and for value (each, a "Mortgagee"), shall be entitled to the rights and privileges set
forth in this Section.
(b) Impairment of Mortgage or Deed of Trust. This Agreement shall be superior and
senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof, including the lien of any
mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing and except as otherwise specifically stated in the terms
of any security instrument held by a Mortgagee, no default under this Agreement shall defeat,
render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust on the Project Site
made, or their interest in the Property acquired by, any Mortgagee in good faith and for value.
(c) Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If a Mortgagee has submitted a request in writing
to City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, City shall exercise its best efforts to
provide such Mortgagee written notification from City of any failure or default by Developer in
the performance of Developer's obligations under this Agreement, which notification shall be
provided to such Mortgagee at such time as such notification is delivered to Developer.
( d) Right of Mortgagee to Cure. Any Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to cure any failure or default by Developer during the cure period allowed Developer
under this Agreement, plus an additional 60 days if, in order to cure such failure or default, it is
necessary for the Mortgagee to obtain possession of the Property such as by seeking the
appointment of a receiver or other legal process. Any Mortgagee that undertakes to cure or attempt
to cure any such failure or default shall provide written notice to City that it is undertaking efforts
of such a nature; provided that no initiation of any such efforts by a Mortgagee shall obligate such
Mortgagee to complete or succeed in any such curative efforts.
(e) Liability for Past Defaults or Obligations. Subject to the foregoing, any Mortgagee,
including the successful bidder at a foreclosure sale, who comes into possession of the Project or
the Property or any part thereof pursuant to foreclosure, eviction or otherwise, shall take such
property subject to the rights and obligations of this Agreement, and in no event shall any such
property be released from any obligations associated with its use and development under the
provisions of this Agreement. Nothing in this Section shall prevent City from exercising any
remedy it may have for a default under this Agreement; provided, however, that in no event shall
such Mortgagee personally be liable for any defaults or monetary obligations of Developer arising
prior to acquisition or possession of such property by such Mortgagee.
-14-
Section 34. Relationship of Parties
It is specifically understood and agreed by and among the parties hereto that the Project is
a private development and that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect
hereunder. The City and Developer also hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture
or partnership among them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed
in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers or
partners.
Section 35. Third Party Beneficiaries
Except as may be expressly provided herein, there are no third-party beneficiaries and this
Agreement is not intended, and shall not be construed, to benefit, or be enforceable by any other
person whatsoever other than Developer and the City.
Section 36. Assignment of Rights
Developer shall have the right to assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement, by
giving prior written notice to the City, to any entity in which the Developer, or its principals or
owners, retain a majority ownership interest so long as such assignee expressly assumes the
obligations of the Developer hereunder. Developer shall also have the right to assign its rights and
obligations under this Agreement to any third-party purchasers of the Property ( or any portion
thereof). Upon full execution of an Assignment and Assumption Agreement, and approval of same
by the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, Developer shall be released from
all obligations hereunder as to all portions of the Property transferred to said third party
purchaser(s).
Section 37. Estoppel Certificate
For and in consideration of entering into this Agreement, the parties hereto acknowledge
the receipt of good and valuable consideration. This paragraph shall constitute an Estoppel
Certificate and shall be an independent agreement among the parties which is intended to and shall
survive any subsequent determination that this Agreement is invalid for any reason, by a final court
decision, having jurisdiction thereof. The Developer represents to the City that it has no actual
knowledge of any Claims, as herein below defined, against the City specifically pertaining to the
matters set forth in this Agreement. For purposes of this Section, "Claims" are defined as all known
claims, fees, demands, costs, damages, obligations, expenditures, remedies, liens, rights or
arbitration, rights of action and/or causes of action, whether compensatory or punitive, legal or
equitable. This Estoppel Certificate legally bars the Developer from filing Claims against the City
of which it had actual knowledge at the time of the approval by the City of this Agreement.
Section 38. Severability
If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is repealed by referendum
or is held by a court of competent jurisdiction or an authorized government enforcement agency
to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions, if any, of this Agreement shall
-15-
continue in full force and effect, unless enforcement of this Agreement as so invalidated would be
unreasonable or grossly inequitable under all the circumstances or would frustrate the purposes of
this Agreement.
Section 39. Singular and Plural; Gender; and Person
Except where the context requires otherwise, the singular of any word shall include the
plural and vice versa; and pronouns inferring the masculine gender shall include the feminine
gender and neuter, and vice versa, and a reference to "person" shall include, in addition to a natural
person, any governmental entity and any partnership, corporation, joint venture or any other form
of business entity.
Section 40. Time Is of the Essence
Time is of the essence of this Agreement and of each and every term and condition hereof.
Section 41. Waiver
All waivers must be in writing to be effective or binding upon the waiving party, and no
waiver shall be implied from any omission by a party to take any action with respect to an Event
of Default as defined in this Agreement. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of
any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party shall not constitute waiver of such
party's right to demand strict compliance and specific performance by the other party in the future.
In addition, no express written waiver of any Event of Default shall affect any other Event of
Default, or cover any period of time other than as specified in such express waiver.
Section 42. Amendments
This Agreement may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the original
parties or their successors in interest, with the City's costs payable by amendment applicants, in
accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868 and the City's
adopted procedures and requirements for the consideration of amendments to development
agreements. Minor revisions, as described above, shall not require an amendment to this
Agreement.
Section 43. Ambiguities or Uncertainties
The parties hereto have mutually negotiated the terms and conditions of this Agreement
and each party received independent legal advice from its attorneys with respect to the advisability
of executing this Agreement and the meaning of the provisions contained herein. As such, this
Agreement is a product of the joint drafting efforts of both parties and neither party shall be deemed
to have solely or independently prepared or framed this Agreement. Therefore, any ambiguities or
uncertainties are not to be construed against or in favor of either party.
-16-
Section 44. Hold Harmless
Developer hereby agrees to, and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, city
council, commissions, boards, subcommittees and the City's elected and appointed officials,
commissioners, board members, officers, agents, consultants and employees ("City Parties") from,
any and all claims, costs and liability for any damages, personal injury or death, which may arise,
directly or indirectly, from Developer's or Developer's officers', agents', consultants', employees',
contractors' or subcontractors' negligent, willful or reckless conduct performed under this
Agreement.
Section 45. Indemnification
Developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, city council, commissions,
boards, subcommittees and the City's elected and appointed officials, commissioners, board
members, officers, agents, consultants and employees ("City Parties") from and against any and
all liabilities, demands, claims, actions or proceedings and costs and expenses incidental thereto
(including costs of defense, settlement and reasonable attorneys' fees), which any or all of them
may suffer, incur, be responsible for or pay out as a result of or in connection with any challenge
to the legality, validity or adequacy of any of the following items: (i) this Agreement and the
concurrent and subsequent permits, licenses and entitlements approved by the City; (ii) any
environmental determination made by the City in connection with the Project Site, the Project or
this Agreement; and (iii) any proceedings or other actions undertaken by the City in connection
with the adoption or approval of any of the above. In the event of any administrative, legal,
equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any third party (including without limitation a
governmental entity or official) challenging the legality, validity or adequacy of any of the above
items or any portion thereof, the Parties shall mutually cooperate with each other in defense of said
action or proceeding. Notwithstanding the above, the City, at its sole option, may tender the
complete defense of any third-party challenge as described herein. In the event the City elects to
contract with special counsel to provide for such a defense, the City shall meet and confer with
Developer regarding the selection of counsel, and Developer shall pay all costs related to retention
of such counsel by the City.
Section 46. Delays in Performance
In addition to any other provisions of this Agreement with respect to delay, Developer and
the City shall be excused for performance of their obligations hereunder during any period of delay
caused by acts of God or civil commotion; major acts of terrorism occurring in the United States
of America; riots, strikes, picketing, or other labor disputes; shortage of materials or supplies;
damage to or prevention of work in process by reason of fire, floods, earthquake, or other
casualties; litigation, neglect of the other party; restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental
or quasi-governmental entities; and/or enactment of conflicting provisions of the Constitution,
laws of the United States of America, the State of California, or any codes, statutes, regulations or
executive mandates promulgated thereunder. If written notice of such delay is given to either party
within thirty (30) days of the commencement of such delay, an extension of time for such cause
shall be granted in writing for the period of the delay, or longer as may be mutually agreed upon.
-17-
Section 47. Events of Default
A default under this Agreement shall be deemed to have occurred upon the happening of
one or more of the following events or conditions: (i) a warranty, representation, or statement made
or furnished by Developer expressly in this Agreement to the City or by the City to Developer is
false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made, or (ii) a finding by the
City made following a periodic review of the Agreement under the procedure provided for in
Section 30 (Periodic Review) of this Agreement, based on substantial evidence, that Developer
has not complied in good faith with one or more of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, or
(iii) Developer's failure to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement ("Event
of Default"). Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default by the Developer or the City, the non-
defaulting party shall provide the other party thirty (30) calendar days written notice specifying
the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which said default may be satisfactorily cured
("Notice of Default"). Subject to any extensions of time by mutual consent of the parties in
writing, and subject to the provisions of Section 44 (Delays in Performance) of this Agreement,
the failure or unreasonable delay by either party to perform any material term or provision of this
Agreement for a period of thirty (30) days after the dispatch of a written notice of default from the
other party shall constitute a default under this Agreement. If the nature of the alleged default is
such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) calendar day period, the
commencement of the cure within such time period and the diligent prosecution to completion of
the cure shall be deemed a cure within such period. Any Notice of Default given hereunder shall
specify in detail the nature of the alleged Event of Default and the manner in which such Event of
Default may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
During the time periods herein specified for cure of an Event of Default, the party charged
therewith shall not be considered to be in default for purposes of termination of this Agreement,
institution of legal proceedings with respect thereto, or whether any further building permits shall
be issued with respect to the Project or Project Site.
Section 48. General Default Remedies
Subject to Section 50 (No Damage Relief) of this Agreement, after notice and expiration
of the thirty (30) calendar day period without cure, the non-defaulting party shall have such rights
and remedies against the defaulting party as it may have at law or in equity, including, but not
limited to, the right to terminate this Agreement pursuant to California Government Code Section
65868 or seek mandamus, specific performance, injunctive or declaratory relief. Any rights or
remedies available to the non-defaulting party under this Agreement and any other rights or
remedies that such party may have at law or in equity upon a default by the other party under this
Agreement shall be distinct and separate, providing the non-defaulting party with cumulative rights
and remedies. None of such rights or remedies, whether or not exercised by the non-defaulting
party, shall be deemed to exclude any other rights or remedies available to the non-defaulting
party. The non-defaulting party may, in its discretion, exercise any and all of its rights and
remedies, at once or in succession, at such time or times as the non-defaulting party considers
appropriate.
-18-
Section 49. No Building Permit upon Developer Default
No building permit shall be issued or building permit application accepted for any structure
or improvement on the Project Site after Developer is determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be in default of any of the material terms and conditions of this Agreement, until
such default thereafter is cured by Developer or is waived by the City. If the City lawfully
terminates this Agreement because of Developer's default, then the City shall retain any and all
benefits, including without limitation any money, improvements, structures, easements or
dedications received by the City pursuant to any term or condition of this Agreement, the Project
Entitlements and the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP").
Section 50. Applicable Law
This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State
of California.
Section 51. Venue
In the event that suit is brought by either party to this Agreement, the parties agree that
venue shall be exclusively vested in the State courts of the County of Riverside, California or
where appropriate, in the United States District Court, Southern District of California, Riverside,
California.
Section 52. No Damages Relief
Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement to the contrary, the parties acknowledge
that neither would have entered into this Agreement had either been exposed to damage claims for
any breach hereof. As such, the parties agree that in no event shall either party be entitled to recover
monetary damages of any kind whatsoever (other than the recovery of costs and attorney's fees
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or applicable law) against the other for breach of this
Agreement.
Section 53. Legal Action; Attorneys' Fees
Either party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute legal action to cure,
correct or remedy a default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or
attempted violation hereof, or enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the
parties hereto. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs to be paid by the losing party.
Section 54. Notices
Any notice or communication required hereunder among the City and the Developer shall
be in writing, and may be given either personally or by registered mail, return-receipt requested.
Notice, whether given by registered mail or personal delivery, shall be deemed to have been given
and received on the actual receipt by any of the addresses designated below as the party to whom
-19-
notices are to be sent. Any party hereto may at any time, upon written notice to the other party
hereto, designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or
communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be given to the parties at
their addresses set forth below:
To City:
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Attention: City Manager
To Developer:
RM 38 JV, LLC
c/o Meriwether Companies
2001 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 401
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Attn: Mr. Graham Culp
With a copy to:
James D. Vaughn, Esq.
Stowell, Zeilenga, Ruth, Vaughn & Treiger LLP
4590 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 100
Westlake Village, CA 91362
E-Mail: jvaughn@szrlaw.com
Section 55. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, and the exhibits attached hereto, contain all the representations and the
entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Except as otherwise
specified in this Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto, any prior correspondence,
memoranda, warranties, representations and agreements unless otherwise provided in this
Agreement, are superseded in total by this Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto.
Section 56. Recordation
In order to comply with Section 65868.5 of the Development Agreement Statute, the City
Clerk shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be recorded with the Riverside County Recorder's
Office within ten (10) days after the Enacting Ordinance takes effect.
Section 57. Counterparts
This Agreement may be executed in duplicate counterpart originals, each of which is
deemed to be an original, and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same
-20-
instrument.
Section 58. Consistency Between Project Entitlements and Agreement
The parties hereto acknowledge that it is their intention that all terms, conditions and
obligations of all Project Entitlements shall be consistent with, or at minimum, shall not conflict
with, the terms, provisions and obligations of this Agreement. To the extent there is any conflict
or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and any other provision in the Project
Entitlements, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.
Section 59. Authority to Execute Agreement
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer and City
warrant and represent that they have the authority to execute this Agreement and the authority to
bind Developer and City, as applicable, to the performance of their respective obligations
hereunder.
Section 60. Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
No party shall do anything which shall have the effect of injuring the right of another party
to receive the benefits of this Agreement or do anything which would render its performance under
this Agreement impossible. Each party shall perform all acts contemplated by this Agreement to
accomplish the objectives and purposes of this Agreement.
Section 61. Partial Invalidity Due to Governmental Action
In the event state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the effective date of this
Agreement, or formal action of any governmental entity other than City, prevent compliance with
one or more provisions of this Agreement, or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved
by City, the parties agree that the provisions of this Agreement shall be modified, extended or
suspended only to the minimum extent necessary to comply with such laws or regulations.
Section 62. Further Actions and Instruments
The parties agree to provide reasonable assistance to the other and cooperate to carry out
the intent and fulfill the provisions of this Agreement. Each of the parties shall promptly execute
and deliver all documents and perform all acts as necessary to carry out the matters contemplated
by this Agreement.
-21-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
as of the dates written above.
CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
APPROVED:
By:------------
G. Dana Hobart, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:----------
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: -------------Steven B. Quintanilla, City Attorney
DEVELOPER
APPROVED:
RM38JV,LLC
*By: -------------
Name/Title
*By:------------
Its: -------------Name/Title
*Signatures must be notarized.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:--------
Legal Counsel
N:\RNCH\0005-53 RM 38 JV, LLC Development Agreement -Meriwether\DOC\001 -DA TTM36620 (FINAL) (04.24.2020).docx
-22-
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A -Subject Property or Project Site
Exhibit B -Tentative Tract Map No. 36620 with Conditions of Approval and Mitigation
Monitoring Program
Exhibit C -Aerial -Street Improvements and Undergrounding
EXHIBIT "A"
SUBJECT PROPERTY
OR
PROJECT SITE
[SEE A TT ACHED]
ATTACHMENT 1
Development Agreement Case No. DA 190002 for Tentative Tract Map No. 36620
EXHIBIT "B"
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36620 WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
[SEE A TT ACHED]
CITY 0~ ~ MIRAG~ ATTACHMENT 4 r:sv~
STAFF REPORT
Approved by Planning Commission on 04/23/2020 with DA Deadline Revision
TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 23, 2020
FROM: Joy Tsai, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Development Agreement Case No. DA 190002 -Tentative Tract Map No. 36620
SPECIFIC REQUEST OR RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council:
1. Adoption of Resolution No . [next in line] adopting an Addendum to the Mitigated
Negative Declaration; and,
2. Introduction of Ordinance No. [next in line] adopting Development Agreement Case No.
DA 190002 pursuant to Chapter 17.56 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code
ATTACHMENTS
1. Aerial Photo
2. Public Hearing Notice
3. Draft Notice of Determination
4. Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration
5. Mitigated Negative Declaration
6. Draft Development Agreement
7. Draft Resolution
8. Draft Ordinance
FACTS
1. Applicant:
2. Purpose of Request:
3. Location:
4. Parcel Size:
5. Existing Streets:
Planning Commission Staff Report
RM 38 JV, LLC
To consider a development agreement between
the City of Rancho Mirage and RM 38 JV, LLC to
extend the term of Tentative Tract Map No. 36620
by an additional year.
East side of Via Josefina between an existing
equestrian center (north) and the Versailles
neighborhood (south); APN : 685-110-004 through
009, and 685-100-013
±33.74 acres
Via Josefina and Via Florencia
AGENDA ITEM#
DATE: April 23, 2020
JUSTIFICATION OR INFORMATION CONTINUED:
6. Existing Land Use & Zoning:
7. Surrounding Land Use & Zoning :
8. Environmental Information :
PURPOSE
DA190002 Page 2 of 4
Vacant (Section 30 Specific Plan -Very Low
Density Residential (R-L-2), Medium Density
Residential (R-M))
N: Equestrian center (R-L-2), vacant (R-M);
E: Vacant (R-M, Office (O));
S: Versailles (Low Density Residential (R-L-3));
W: Vacant (R-L-2)
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was
adopted and filed in 2014. The Development
Agreement incorporates off-site improvements not
included in the scope of the MND, therefore, an
Addendum to the MND has been prepared
pursuant to CEQA Section 15162 and 15164. The
off-site improvements will not result in any new
significant environmental impacts or substantially
increase the severity of environmental impacts
beyond those identified in the MND.
The purpose of this development agreement is to extend the term of Tentative Tract Map No.
36620 to December 4, 2020 and potentially beyond if certain performance standards are met.
BACKGROUND AND REQUEST
The project site consists of seven parcels located adjacent to Via Josefina and Via Florencia
and is situated entirely within the Section 30 Specific Plan. The project consists of Tentative
Tract Map Case No. 36620, which is a subdivision of approximately 33.74 acres of vacant and
disturbed land into a gated residential subdivision consisting of 82 single-family lots and other
common area lots for related improvements. The tentative map and Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Environmental Assessment Case No. EA 130006) were originally approved and
adopted by the City Council on December 4, 2014 through Resolution No. 2014-56, with an
expiration date of December 4, 2016.
Thereafter, the City Council approved two more extensions of time in 2017, extending the term
of the tentative map until December 4, 2019. Pursuant to Chapter 16.12 of the Rancho Mirage
Municipal Code (RMMC), "The approval or conditional approval of a tentative map shall expire
twenty-four months following approval" and an extension of the initial approval may be granted
by the original determining body for a period not exceeding a total of three years. Since the
tentative map was extended for a total of three years, the project does not qualify for another
extension of time request. The applicant, RM 38 JV, LLC, submitted a Development
Agreement application on June 26, 2019 in order to extend the tentative map for an additional
year, up to a maximum of four years dependent on the submittal and approval of a Preliminary
Development Plan.
The project has experienced substantial delays resulting from a combination of factors, such
as the substantial delays in the completion of the Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD)
water infrastructure project. CVWD recently completed infrastructure improvements in early
Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA ITEM#
DATE: April 231 2020 DA190002 Page 3 of 4
JUSTIFICATION OR INFORMATION CONTINUED:
2018. In light of these delays, developer and the city believe it is in their mutual best interests
to enter into this agreement to extend the tentative tract map's current expiration date for an
additional one year to December 4, 2020 since the project will result in the installation of
necessary public infrastructure at no cost to the taxpayers. A chronological timeline of events
related to this project is listed below.
Project Timeline
December 4, 2014 -Original approval (TTM36620, EA130006) through Resolution 2014-56
December 4, 2016-Original expiration date
January 19, 2017 -One-year extension of time (TTM 1 X36620) approved by City Council
December 4, 2017 -New expiration date
December 7, 2017 -Two-year extension of time (TTM2X36620) approved by City Council
Early 2018 -CVWD completion of water infrastructure
June 26, 2019 -Development Agreement application submitted
December 4, 2019 -New expiration date
Development Agreements
RMMC Chapter 17.56 contains the procedures and requirements for consideration, approval,
and administration of development agreements. A Development Agreement (DA) is typically a
detailed contract between a city and an applicant for a development project that outlines
development rights, fees and other requirements, including provisions to allow the project's
entitlement and conditions to be based on the rules and regulations in effect at the time of
approval. DAs must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City
Council through the adoption of an ordinance. Once approved , a DA is recorded with the
Riverside County Clerk's Office, and the rights and obligations set forth in the DA run with the
land, which simply means all subsequent owners are bound by the terms and conditions of the
DA until it expires.
For developers, the advantage of a development agreement is that they can lock in their
entitlements and know for certain what local rules and regulations will govern their project
going forward. For cities, the advantage is that the developer will usually agree to conditions
that go beyond what a city could require through the normal development process.
State Law allows cities to enter into DAs with private parties. The DA is a legal, binding
contract between a city and any person or entity having a legal or equitable interest in a
property. The agreement must clearly outline conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements.
The DA includes three basic deal points: the term or length of the Agreement, the fees the
developer has to pay to the city, and community-wide benefits. Once a DA is approved by the
City Council, the rules of development for that property cannot change even if the zoning code
or other development codes are changed. Under the Development Agreement Statute, cities
have a right to enter agreements with private parties to strengthen the public planning process,
encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of
development. The Statute authorizes the City to enter into an agreement with any person
having a legal or equitable interest in real property providing for the development of such
property and establishing certain development rights therein.
Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA ITEM#
DATE: April 23, 2020 DA190002 Page 4 of 4
JUSTIFICATION OR INFORMATION CONTINUED:
Summary of Request -Development Agreement Case No. DA 190002
The purpose of this development agreement is to extend the term of Tentative Tract Map No .
36620 to December 4, 2020. If the developer submits a complete Preliminary Development
Plan (PDP) application by December 4, 2020, then the term of the tentative map will be
extended by an additional year to December 4, 2021 . If the PDP is approved by the City
Council on or before December 4, 2021, the tentative map will be extended by an additional
two years until December 4, 2023. The term of the development agreement shall be a
maximum of four (4) years, subject to early termination if the tentative tract map expires with
no final map being recorded , in which case the agreement shall be deemed terminated on the
date of expiration of the tentative tract map. As a part of the development agreement, the
developer will develop, construct, and install all necessary street improvements, including curb
and gutter, along the east side of Via Josefina between Ginger Rogers Road and Seclude
court to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in order to close the gap between the project site
and the Versailles community.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Tentative Tract Map No. 36620 has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been approved and adopted in 2014.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, where a Negative Declaration has been
prepared, no additional environmental review is necessary unless substantial changes are
proposed or occur. There are no changes proposed to the land use, site design, or number of
dwelling units. The only change since the project's original approval is that the CVWD water
line extension has been completed. In addition, the development agreement incorporates off-
site improvements that were not included in the scope of the MND but will not result in any new
significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of environmental
impacts beyond those identified in the MND. The off-site street improvements are located on
the east side of Via Josefina between the project and Seclude Court. It will also include
undergrounding overhead utility lines and the installation of sewer laterals to every lot, house,
or building at the time of the sewer line extension. Therefore, an Addendum to the MND has
been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City reserves the right, as Lead Agency, to conduct
additional environmental review and/or make alternative CEQA findings and CEQA
Compliance determinations if it is determined by City staff that the scope or intensity of the
project changes during the course of the City's consideration of the project's
anticipated/contemplated discretionary entitlements, including but not limited to the Preliminary
Development Plan permit.
NOTICING REQUIREMENT
This application request was publicly posted and mailed to all affected property owners and
residents within 500 feet of the parcel boundaries pursuant to the requirements of Chapter
17.74 of the Municipal Code. Any information addressed to the Planning Commission, but
received after completion of this final report, will be distributed at the public hearing.
Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA ITEM#
ATTACHMENT 5
~ CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
City Hall -Council Chamber
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
CALL TO ORDER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2020
2:00 P.M.
a) Chair Maxwell called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m .
b) Flag Salute -Led by Commissioner Stewart
c) Roll Call (Via teleconference): Bryant, Downs, Matthews, Maxwell, Stewart
STAFF PRESENT
Jeremy Gleim, Director of Development Services; Joy Tsai, Associate Planner; Kristie Ramos,
City Clerk and Sylvia Nino, Executive Coordinator
Via Teleconference: Ben Torres, Associate Planner; Pilar Lopez, Assistant Planner; and Colin
Kirkpatrick, Deputy City Attorney
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS -None
Commissioner Bryant asked if staff had been able to process and inspect projects during the
stay-at-home order. Mr. Gleim answered that staff has been accepting digital submittals and
continue to process projects and conduct field inspections.
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS -None
Mr. Gleim indicated to the members of the public participating by Zoom that if they wished to
provide non-agenda comments, they should press *9 on their keypad which would then notify
staff that the caller wished to comment.
MINUTES -March 26, 2020 Meeting
MOVED/SECONDED BY MATTHEWS/STEWART TO APPROVE THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2020.
MOTION CARRIED 5/0.
PUBLIC HEARING
04/23/20 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1
1. Sign Program Case No. SIPR20001 -Desert Hematology and Oncology (OHO). Consideration
to approve a Sign Program to establish freestanding and wall sign regulations for the OHO
Medical Office located at 34490 Bob Hope Drive.
Mr. Torres presented highlights of the staff report. He noted that after the staff report had been
distributed, the applicant requested to revise the location of the monument sign, which was
currently proposed along the center of the building along Bob Hope Drive, to further south to
allow better visibility along the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Victory Drive . He noted staff
proposes an additional condition of approval that the applicant shall provide updated Sign
Program booklets to the Planning Division reflecting the monument sign location change. He
noted the City did not receive correspondence from the public. He concluded by offering to
answer questions from the Commission.
Mr. Gleim opened the public hearing for anyone participating via teleconference and present.
Public Comments -None
Chair Maxwell asked for a Motion.
MOVED/SECONDED BY DOWNS/MATTHEWS TO APPROVE:
1. THE FILING OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
GUIDELINES §15311 (CLASS 11) FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; AND
2. SIGN PROGRAM CASE NO. SIPR20001, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL AND BASED ON THE CONTENT AND FINDINGS IN THE STAFF
REPORT.
MOTION CARRIED 5/0.
2. Single Family Permit Case No. SFP20004 -Scott Hudgins -Hudgins Design Group.
Consideration to approve a 7,010 square-foot main residence with a 1,882 square-foot four-
car garage and a 1,358 square-foot guest home totaling 10,250 square feet located at 34
Granite Ridge . ,
Ms. Lopez presented highlights of the staff report. She noted the City did not receive
correspondence from the public. She concluded by offering to answer questions of the
Commission.
Commission Bryant asked if there were cacti or thorny planting within three feet of the walkway
around the property. Ms. Lopez stated that none were proposed in the front driveway, and that
some were proposed in the back yard.
Public Comments
Mr. Gleim opened the public hearing for anyone participating via teleconference and present. He
called for the applicant to speak.
04/23/20 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2
Scott Hudgins, applicant, described the modern architecture features of the project and made
himself available to answer questions of the Commission.
Mr. Gleim closed the public hearing.
Chair Maxwell asked for Commission questions -None
Chair Maxwell asked for a Motion.
MOVED/SECONDED BY BRYANT/MATTHEWS TO APPROVE:
1. THE FILING OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
PURSUANT THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) TO
SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION; AND
2. SINGLE FAMILY PERMIT CASE NO. SFP20004, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND PURSUANT TO THE CONTENT AND FINDINGS
IN THE STAFF REPORT.
MOTION CARRIED 5/0.
3. Single Family Pennit Case No. SFP20005 -Martin Carbajal -MC & JD Associates LLC.
Consideration to approve a 4,039 square-foot residence with an 876 square-foot garage
totaling 4,915 square feet located at 70820 O'Reilly Court.
Ms. Lopez presented highlights of the staff report. She noted the City receive an email from a
resident inquiring about the height of the proposed home. She noted a copy of the email was
distributed to the Commissioners prior to the meeting. She noted that she had replied to the
residents' concerns and informed them that the proposed project meets Municipal Code the
height requirements. She concluded by offering to answer questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Bryant noted that the resident's concern was about infill soil being brought in and
it potentially affecting the, grading elevation and thus increasing the height of the house. Ms.
Lopez noted she indicated to the resident that the house had similar grade elevation as the
adjacent home, which was recently built in the neighborhood. She stated that the resident was
satisfied with her response.
Mr. Gleim opened the public hearing for anyone participating via teleconference and present. He
called for the applicant to speak.
Public Comments -None
Chair Maxwell closed the public hearing.
Chair Maxwell asked for Commission questions
Chair Maxwell asked for a Motion.
MOVED/SECONDED BY MATTHEWS/DOWNS TO APPROVE:
04/23/20 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3
1. THE FILING OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) OF CEQA FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION;
AND
2. SINGLE FAMILY PERMIT CASE NO. SFP20005, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND PURSUANT TO THE CONTENT AND FINDINGS
IN THE STAFF REPORT.
MOTION CARRIED 5/0.
4. Single Family Permit Case No. SFP20006 -Thomas Troy Home. Consideration to approve
a 2,454 square-foot residence with a 430 square-foot two-car garage and a 252 square-foot
covered patio totaling 3,136 square feet located at 71561 Gardess Road.
Ms. Lopez presented highlights of the staff report. She noted the City received a call regarding
the height of proposed residence . She noted that she provided the link to the City's height
standards which satisfied the caller. She concluded by offering to answer questions of the
Commission.
Commissioner Bryant noted the property backed up to Porcupine Creek and asked if there were
water runoff issues reported. Ms. Lopez stated the Engineering Division did not provide
comments or concerns regarding runoff issues.
Public Comments -None
Mr. Gleim opened the public hearing for anyone participating via teleconference and present. He
called for the applicant to speak.
Mr. Gleim closed the public hearing.
Chair Maxwell asked for Commission questions -None
Chair Maxwell asked for a Motion .
MOVED/SECONDED BY STEWART/MATTHEWS TO APPROVE:
1. THE FILING OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) OF CEQA FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION;
AND
2. SINGLE FAMILY PERMIT CASE NO. SFP20006, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND PURSUANT TO THE CONTENT AND FINDINGS
IN THE STAFF REPORT.
MOTION CARRIED 5/0.
04/23/20 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Page4
5. Minor Conditional Use Permit Case No. CUP20001 -Stephen Rose. Consideration to
approve a 2,121 square-foot residence with a 404 square-foot two-car garage totaling 2,525
square feet located at 37363 Peacock Circle.
Mr. Gleim presented highlights of the staff report. He noted that the lot is considered legal
nonconforming as it does not meet the current dimensional or square footage standards in the
medium density residential zone (R-M). Pursuant to the Municipal Code, development of any
property that has a nonconforming site condition must be approved through a conditional use
permit. He stated that given the unique constraints of the lot and the characteristics of the
neighborhood, staff determined that the project, as conditioned, is appropriate for the location
and recommended to the Planning Commission to approve the conditional use permit. He noted
the City received a letter of support from neighbors Mr. Frank Lopez and Mr. Gary Evenson. He
concluded by offering to answer questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Downs stated the that the neighborhood appeared to have the same constraints,
lots and buildings sizes and asked if the project would conform to the neighborhood. Mr. Gleim
confirmed it would conform.
Mr. Gleim opened the public hearing for anyone participating via teleconference and present. He
called for the applicant to speak.
Public Comments
Steven Harrison, architect, made himself available for questions of the Commission.
Susan Marfleet, neighbor south of the proposed project, expressed concerns regarding
setbacks, damage to her existing stucco wall during construction, the timeline of the construction
and construction hours. Mr. Gleim provided setbacks proposed for the project and hours of
construction.
Mr. Harrison addressed Ms. Marfleet's remaining concerns. He agreed to a written statement for
protection of the existing wall. He noted the house renderings were on the City's website. He
stated they would start construction in two or three months depending on COVID-19 restrictions.
He noted the contractor believed it would take 8 or 10 months to completion . Ms. Marfleet was
pleased with the architects' comments.
Mr. Gleim agreed to resend the renderings' link to Ms. Marfleet.
Mr. Gleim closed the public hearing.
Chair Maxwell asked for Commission questions.
Commissioner Downs stated the plan for the project was in conformance with the neighborhood
community and that it would be a good addition to Peacock Circle.
Chair Maxwell asked for a Motion.
MOVED/SECONDED BY MATTHEWS/DOWNS TO APPROVE:
04/23/20 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5
1. THE FILING OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) OF CEQA; AND
2. MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. CUP20001, SUBJECT TO THE
LISTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND PURSUANT TO THE CONTENT AND
FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
MOTION CARRIED 5/0.
6. Development Agreement Case No. DA190002 (for TTM36620) -RM 38 JV, LLC c/o
Meriwether Companies. Consideration of a development agreement between the City of
Rancho Mirage and RM 38 JV, LLC to extend the term of Tentative Tract Map No. 36620, an
82-lot residential subdivision, by an additional year. The project is located in Section 30 on
the east side of Via Josefina between an existing equestrian center and Versailles
neighborhood.
Ms. Tsai presented highlights of the staff report. She noted that the tentative map was extended
for a total of three years so the project did not qualify for another extension of time, therefore the
applicant submitted a Development Agreement application in order to extend the tentative map
for an additional year to December 4, 2020. She noted that after the staff report had been
compiled, the applicant requested to extend the deadlines set forth in the development
agreement by four months, which will extend the map life from December 4, 2020 to April 3,
2021. The request stemmed from the anticipated delays as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
She noted the City received an e-mail requesting the staff report and tentative map conditions
of approval, which was sent. She noted the City did not receive any other correspondence from
the public. She concluded by offering to answer questions of the Commission.
Mr. Gleim opened the public hearing for anyone participating via teleconference and present. He
called for the applicant to speak.
Commissioner Bryant asked if the applicant was developing to build the lots or obtaining
entitlement to sell the lots to builders or developers.
Public Comments
Mr. Gleim opened the public hearing for anyone participating via teleconference and present. He
called for the applicant to speak.
Graham Culp, representative, stated they were proposing a joint venture with a builder, they
would be involved throughout the life of the project.
Mr. Gleim closed the public hearing.
Chair Maxwell asked for Commission questions.
Chair Maxwell asked for a Motion .
MOVED/SECONDED BY BRYANT/STEWART TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL FOR THE:
04/23/20 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6
1. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. [NEXT IN LINE] ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO
THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; AND,
2. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. [NEXT IN LINE] ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT CASE NO. DA190002 PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 17.56 OF THE
RANCHO MIRAGE MUNICIPAL CODE AND TO INCLUDE THE REQUEST TO
EXTEND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DEADLINE BY FOUR MONTHS.
MOTION CARRIED 5/0.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to consider, the Planning Commission adjourned at 3:06 p.m.
Sylvia Nino, Executive Coordinator
04/23/20 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7
March 25, 2020
Ms. Joy Tsai
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
MSA CONSULTING, I
>PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING
Subject: CEQA Addendum Memo for EA130006 for Tentative Tract Map 36620.
Dear Joy,
On behalf of RM 38, JV, LLC, MSA Consulting, Inc. has prepared the following to serve as a CEQA
Addendum to the 2014 adopted IS/MND for TTM 36620.
Introduction
The City of Rancho Mirage City Council approved EA 130006 for SPA13001 and TTM 36620 on
December 4, 2014,. The entitlement approval was to allow a subdivision of 33.74 acres of vacant
land to 82-single family lots. The proposed lots range in size from 8,012 to 16,823 square feet.
Six retention basins serve the entire tract and are dispersed throughout the site. A 19' parkway
with an integrated multi-purpose trail will be installed along the project frontages. A slight
realignment of Via Josephina is also part of the project.
CEQA Statutory Background
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) and Section 15164 of the
CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Agency may prepare an addendum to an adopted negative declaration
if only minor technical changes or additions to the proposed project occur. An Addendum is
appropriate if the minor technical changes do not result in a any new significant impacts or
substantially increase impacts previously analyzed. An Addendum need not be circulated for
public review and should be included with the adopted negative declaration. The decision-
making body shall consider the addendum with the negative declaration prior to making a
decision on the document.
34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
760.320.9811 MSACONSULTINCINC.COM
Based upon the information provided in this document, the proposed changes to the adopted
negative declaration will not result in new significant impacts or substantially increase the
severity of impacts previously analyzed and identified in the adopted IS/MND. None of the
factors set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (a) (1-3) are present, therefore, an addendum
is the appropriate document. This addendum has been prepared to address the environmental
effects of the minor revisions to the Project.
Modifications to the Approved Project
The applicant and the City of Rancho Mirage are entering into a Statutory Development
Agreement for the proposed project. As a result of the Development Agreement, the City is
requesting offsite infrastructure improvements that were not previously analyzed as part of the
project. The improvements consist of street improvements along Via Josefina, including curb and
gutter, along the east side of Via Josefina between Via Florencia and Seclude Court. The
undergrounding of overhead utility lines along the east side of Via Josefina between Via Florencia
and Seclude Court and the installation of sewer laterals to every lot or building. No changes are
proposed to the land use, site design or number of dwelling units.
Summary and Findings
Review of the project has determined that all offsite improvements would be installed and
contained within the City's existing right-of-way. The project does not propose any new ground
disturbance other that what is necessary for street improvements, utility undergrounding and
sewer lateral connections. These improvements would be part of the projects construction and
impacts would be reduced through standard best management practices (BMPs) implemented
by the City during the construction period. The improvements to the proposed project would
not result in any new or more severe significant environmental impacts from what was previously
analyzed in the December 4, 2014, IS/MND and no new mitigation measures would be required.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding our findings.
Sincerely,
A/?C,6u v~
Nicole Vann
Planner
34200 Bob Hope Dri ve, Rancho Mir·age, CA 92270
760.320.9811 MSACONSULTINGINC.COM
Draft
Initial Study and Notice of Intent
To Adopt
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tentative Tract Map No. 36620
Environmental Assessment (EA130006)
Specific Plan Amendment (SPA13001)
May 6, 2014
Prepared for:
RM 38 JV, LLC
c/o Meriwether Companies
11999 San Vicente Blvd, Suite 220
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Prepared by:
Rancho Mirage Planning Division
Jeremy Gleim, Planning Technician
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
ATTACHMENT 7
CHAPTER ONE -INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Authority
The proposed project for which this Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared is the approval of Tentative Tract Map
(TTM36620), Specific Plan Amendment (SP Al 3001) and Environmental Assessment
(EA130006) for the Meriwether Companies. This document has been prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et. seq. The City of Rancho Mirage will serve as the lead agency for
this project pursuant to CEQA.
1.2 Determination
On the basis of the Initial Study and the evaluation of the City of Rancho Mirage's
General Plan and the Environmental Impact Report thereon (SCH#2004081038), it has
been determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment,
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed for adoption.
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Page 1
CHAPTER TWO -PROJECT SUMMARY
2.1 Project Location
The project is located on seven parcels totaling 33.74 acres on the east side of Via Josephina, and
on both the north and south sides of Via Florencia (APN# 685-100-013, 685-110-004 -009), in
the City of Rancho Mirage, County of Riverside. Map 2-1 shows the general location of the
project within the City of Rancho Mirage.
2.2 Project Description
The proposed project includes the subdivision of 33.74 acres of land into a total of 98 single
family residential lots and lettered lots for common purposes as shown on Map 2-2. The
proposed lots range in size from 8,012 to 16,823 square feet. Six retention basins serving the
entire proposed tract are dispersed throughout, the largest of which is located on the northern
portion of the project site adjacent to an existing single family home. A 19' parkway with
integrated multi-purpose trail will be installed per the Section 30 Design Guidelines along all
project frontages. The tract is served by an unimproved public road called Via Josephina. A
slight realignment of Via Josephina has been proposed as part of the project; that request is being
processed concurrently as Specific Plan Amendment to the Section 30 Circulation Plan. Gated
private streets and cul-de-sacs make up the remainder of the proposed tract.
The terrain slopes in a radial pattern from the center of the project outward, with pad elevations
at the center topping out at 325.5'; pad elevations on the perimeter range from 313.5' to 324.5',
with the bottom of retention basins in the development ranging from 307' to 312.4'.
At this time there is no proposal for a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP). This means that the
applicant is only proposing the development of the Tentative Tract and common area
· landscaping. Included in the landscape plans will be the street frontages along Via Florencia and
Via Josephina, as well as the entry area landscaping and the various entry gates. Two different
zoning designations exist within the project site: Residential Very Low Density (R-L-2) and
Residential Medium Density (R-M). Maximum lot coverage of 30% is permitted for both
zoning districts. Setbacks for the project are nearly identical between the two zones, the only
difference being the front yard setbacks which are 25 feet for the R-L-2 zone and 20 feet for the
R-M zone. Rear yard setbacks are required at 25 feet and side yards are required at 10 feet.
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Page 2
Map 2-1
-.. I . .1. . ,
I' R : l·• 2 -, · l
. I l ••
c.c
I ' --'"f------•
Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Pi.an
~RIW'l,'l'HtR
r. ~111.1 P ,.\ ~ 11 ~
Section 30 GP/Zoning
Tesoro -TTM 36620, Rancho
Mirage
Project Location
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Figure
4
Page 3
~ ~ ~
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Map 2-2
~ll
~ .
!
~ ~
~ i u
~
h' i~ • ~ 0 mJ 0: 0 ··1 ~ ►n•-lj. i' rJ~ ~ •Pi ~ II
l i; 1,,
l I
111
~ ,~ "<· ~ ~-~
Eia ,
~t ~ Hi
T11 L1 !]J "ii' s ~~' ~ Ui .,,i!
Page 4
Tentative Tract Map No. 36620 Site Plan
Land Use
The General Plan and Zoning of the project site is comprised of two zones: R-L-2
(Very Low Density Residential with a maximum of 2 dwelling units per acre) and R-
M (Medium Density Residential with a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre). The
overall project density is 2.7 units per acre. All adjacent properties maintain
residential zoning, but are made up of three different densities: R-L-2 to the west, R-
M to the north and east, and R-L-3 (Low Density Residential with a maximum of 3
dwelling units per acre) to the south in the existing Versailles neighborhood. The
existing site is now vacant, as all previous structures have been demolished, and the
properties to the west and east are currently vacant as well. Property to the north is
mostly vacant, with the exception of an Equestrian Center which is owned by an
entity called Rancho Mirage Riding Park LLC., and a western themed event center
know as Regency Ranch.
Circulation
A minor change to the Section 30 Master Circulation Plan is proposed and is being
processed as a Specific Plan Amendment with an ancillary application. The extent of
the proposed change would be a minor realignment to the currently unimproved Via
Florencia, which is a public street per the General Plan. Via Florencia will remain as
a public street and will incorporate a 60 foot right-of-way. Homeowners will access
their dwellings from private gated streets which take access from Via Florencia.
Private streets for the tentative tract are made up of cul-de-sacs that propose 37 foot
right-of-ways.
2.3 Summary of Mitigation Measures:
Aesthetics
Mitigation I (a) 1: The 6 foot wide multi-purpose trail located within the 19 foot wide
parkway shall have a medium broom finish 4" thick P.C.C (Poured in Place
Concrete). The color shall be Davis Co. "Yosemite Brown" or approved equal. The
multi-purpose trail shall be installed on the east side of Via Josefina, the north and
south sides of Via Florencia and the west side of Via Florencia where it turns north.
Air Quality
Mitigation III (a) 1: A plan to control fugitive dust through implementation of
reasonably available dust control measures (Chapter 7.01 Control of PMlO, Fugitive
Dust and other Emissions of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code) shall be prepared
and submitted to the City of Rancho Mirage for approval prior to the issuance of any
grading permits associated with the project. The plan shall specify the fugitive dust
control measures to be employed. The project proponent shall comply with all
applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations including but not limited to the
following:
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Page 5
a. Rules 403 and 403.1 (Fugitive Dust) specifies control measures for use in
developing site specific fugitive dust control plans to minimize blowing dust
from construction sites and insure the clean up of construction related dirt on
approach routes to the site including: wat.ering measures, chemical stabilizers,
wind fencing, covering haul vehicles, bed liners in haul vehicles, wheel
washers and high wind measures;
b. Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) restricts the VOC (Volatile Organic
Compound) content of any architectural coating materials used on-site to a
maximum of 2.08 pounds of VOC per gallon.
Mitigation Ill (a) 2: Earth-moving activities shall be suspended during first and
second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 MPH per the Coachella Valley
PMlO State Implementation Plan and SCAQMD Rule 403.1.
Mitigation III (a) 3: The following watering techniques shall be employed to partially
mitigate the impact of construction-generated dust particulates:
a. Pre-grading site watering (irrigation system for minimum of 72 hours);
b. Site watering 7 days a week (irrigation system, minimum of 4 times per 24
hours, or by water trucks, minimum 4 times per 24 hours, at 1 truck/8 acres);
c. Perimeter sprinkler system (all sides continuous night watering when windy);
d. Portions of the project site that are undergoing earth moving operations shall
be watered such that a crust will be formed on the ground surface and then
watered again at the end of the day, as part of the constructions specifications.
Control methods are provided in detail in the "Dust Control Plan Review
Guidance for Local Government" from the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, available from the City of Rancho Mirage or the
S.C.A.Q.M.D.;
e. Any construction access roads should be paved as soon as possible and
cleaned after each work day. The maximum vehicle speed limit on unpaved
road surfaces should be 15 mph;
f. All trucks should maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
g. Trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose dirt material off-site should be
covered and washed off before leaving the site;
h. Adjacent streets should be swept if silt is carried over to adjacent public
thoroughfares;
i. As part of the construction specifications, any vegetative ground cover to be
utilized on-site shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce the disturbed
area subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems needed to water these plants
shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain the ground cover and
minimize wind erosion of the soil;
J. Construction operations affecting off-site roadways shall be scheduled for off-
peak traffic hours and shall minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes.
Mitigation III ( c) 1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property
owner/developer shall include a note on all grading plans which requires the
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Page 6
construction contractor to implement the following measures during grading. These
measures shall be discussed at the pregrade conference.
a. Use low emission mobile construction equipment.
b. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned.
c. Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment.
d. Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when feasible.
e. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
f. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. When feasible, construction
should be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a
minimum.
g. Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours.
h. Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction
activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public
transportation and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service).
Biological
Mitigation IV (a) 1: Mitigation for impacts to these species is accomplished through
the payment of a fee to the City of Rancho Mirage. Fees vary depending upon the usc
to which the land is put, acreage and density. Contact the Coachella Valley
Association of Governments to determine current fees . The 2013 fee is as follows:
Com./Industrial = $5,706/disturbed acre (2007 -$5,730)
Residential-0-8 units/acre= $1,278 (2007 -$1,284)
8.1-14 units/acre= $531 (2007 -$533)
14+ units/acre= $234 (2007 -$235)
When Desert Hot Springs is added to the assessment area, the assessment fees will
likely be lowered based on a 2011 Nexus Study (e.g., 10%). On March 13, 2014,
CV AG members: "Approved a Major Amendment to the MSHCP by adding the City
of Desert Hot Springs and Mission Springs Water District as permittees under the
plan. This action brings another 770 acres into the MSHCP. The mitigation fee that
cities like Rancho Mirage collect for the plan will drop by 8% because of this
amendment. The Commission will now distribute documents to Rancho Mirage and
all the other permittees to sign amending the MSHCP to add DHS and water district.
Burrowing Owl Mitigation
Mitigation IV (a) 2: A preconstruction survey should take place at least 30 days prior
to project grading to determine the location of active burrows on and within 550 yards
of an approved project site. If no active burrows are found in the survey area grading
may commence providing a biological monitor is onsite.
Mitigation IV (a) 3: A biological monitor, with the authority to halt or redirect
grading, should be present whenever grading or construction vehicles are present and
operating on an approved project site. The function of the monitor is to protect
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Page 7
burrowing owls that arrive on or near the project site after the clearance survey and
during the construction period.
Mitigation IV (a) 4: The breeding season of the western burrowing owl is from
February 1 through August 31 of each year. No construction disturbances of any kind
should occur within 500 meters (550 yards) of an active burrow during this time
period. Thus, on a project site, grading should take place from September 1 through
January 30 of each year to avoid restriction or cancellation of grading because of the
presence of burrowing owls during the breeding season.
Mitigation IV (a) 5: Resident owls present on or near the project site outside the
breeding season can, in some instances, be relocated to other sites by a permitted
biologist under the authorization of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife.
Mitigation IV (a) 6: Breeding surveys should be conducted 30 days prior to any
construction activities that are planned between February 15 and June 15. If a nest is
found, a buffer should be established in which construction activities are prohibited
until all young have fledged. The width of the buffer should be determined by a
qualified biologist.
Cultural
Mitigation V (b) 1: Upon the uncovering or other discovery of artifacts or cultural
resources during construction activities associated with the project's development, all
construction on the site shall be halted, and a qualified archaeologist shall be called to
the site to identify the resource and recommend mitigation in the event of the
resource's cultural significance.
If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a
determination of the Most Likely Descendants (MLD). The City and Developer will
work with the designated MLD to determine the final disposition of the remains. If
you have any questions or require additional information on Tribal Monitors, please
call Patricia Garcia-Tuck at 760-699-6907.
Geology
Mitigation VI (a) 1: During site grading and construction work, the recommendations
noted in the Geotechnical Investigation Report by Sladden Engineering shall be
complied with.
Hydrology and Water Quality (Coachella Valley Water District)
Mitigation IX (b) 1: The elements and actions described in the updated CVWD Water
Management Plan shall be incorporated into the design of this development to reduce
its negative impact on the Coachella Valley groundwater basin.
In 2003, the Coachella Valley Water District adopted a landscape model ordinance
that calls for the use of water efficient vegetation in new and remodeled landscaping.
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Page 8
Public Services
Mitigation XN (a) 1: Participation in Community Facilities Districts to mitigate the
impact on police and fire protection resources.
Mitigation XN (a) 2: No City permits shall be issued for improvements upon said
property (grading, etc.) until the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) completes
the Mission Hills Pressure Zone Improvement Project which includes a new reservoir
and trunk line to serve the zone (with a current anticipated completion date of
December 2015) and said project becomes operational. Alternatively, CVWD may
submit a "will-serve" letter to the City dictating the terms and conditions associated
with the provision of water service prior to issuance of City permits.
Mitigation XN (a) 3: A covenant shall be recorded on the property to the satisfaction
of the City Attorney requiring CVWD to complete the Mission Hills Pressure Zone
Improvement Project or alternatively a "will-serve letter to the City from CVWD
dictating the terms and conditions prior to issuance of City permits.
Utilities and Service Systems
Mitigation XVII (d) 1: No City permits shall be issued for improvements upon said
property (grading, etc.) until the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) completes
the Mission Hills Pressure Zone Improvement Project which includes a new reservoir
and trunk line to serve the zone (with a current anticipated completion date of
December 2015) and said project becomes operational. Alternatively, CVWD may
submit a "will-serve" letter to the City dictating the terms and conditions associated
with the provision of water service prior to issuance of City permits.
Mitigation XVII (d) 2: A covenant shall be recorded on the property to the
satisfaction of the City Attorney requiring CVWD to complete the Mission Hills
Pressure Zone Improvement Project or alternatively a "will-serve letter to the City
from CVWD dictating the terms and conditions prior to issuance of City permits.
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Page 9
CHAPTER THREE -ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title: Tesoro -Tentative Tract Map No . 36620 and Environmental Assessment
(EA130006)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Mirage Planning Department, 69-
825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jeremy Gleim, Planning Technician (760) 328-
2266
4. Project Location: The proposed project is located in the City of Rancho Mirage,
Riverside County, California. The geographic area covered by the project includes
approximately 33 .74 gross acres including Assessor's Parcel Numbers 685-100-013,
685-110-004, 685-110-005, 685-110-006, 685-110-007, 685-110-008, and 685-110-
009. The project site is located in Section 30, north of Via Marta, east of Via
Josephina, south of Ginger Rogers Road, and west of Monterey A venue.
5. Project Sponsor Name and Address: RM 38 JV, LLC c/o Meriwether Companies.
6. Land Use/Zoning Designation: Very Low Density Residential -2 d.u./ac max (R-L-2 ),
and Medium Density Residential -4 d.u./ac max (R-M).
7. Description of Project: The project includes the subdivision of seven parcels (33.74
acres) into 97 single family residential lots, in addition to 17 lettered lots for common
purposes in the R-L-2 and R-M Zones. No other entitlements are being requested at
this time.
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The adjacent housing development to the
immediate south is Low Density Residential -3 d.u./ac max (R-L-3); land to the
immediate north and east is designated as Medium Density Residential -4 d.u./ac max
(R-M); land to the immediate west is designated as Very Low Density Residential -2
d.u./ac max (R-L-2).
9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.): Coachella Valley Water District, Palm Springs Unified
School District and Riverside County Fire Department.
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 10
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages:
[g] Aesthetics □ Agriculture Resources
[g] Biological Resources [8] Cultural Resources
□ Greenhouse Gas □ Hazards & Hazardous
Emissions Materials
□ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources
□ Population/Housing [8] Public Services
□ Transportationffraffic [8] Utilities/Service Systems
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
[8] Air Quality
[8] Geology /Soils
[8] Hydrology/Water
Quality
□ Noise
□ Recreation
□ Mandatory Finding
Significance
Page 11
of
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
□
□
□
□
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect l) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Datel 1
Jeremy Gleim, Planning Technician
Printed Name
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 12
I. AESTHETICS --Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a D
scenic vista?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
□
No
Impact
□
Response: The residential character of the community is a pattern of low density residential
development surrounded by open space and natural scenery in a resort setting. The natural
landscape features, including the surrounding desert context and mountain vistas, are essential
components to its overall visual character. The policies in the 2005 General Plan Update,
especially the Community Design Element, promote the preservation of scenic views. Section
30 provides for multi-purpose trails in the required 19 foot wide parkway with enhanced
setbacks along the public streets. Although the previously adopted Design Guidelines for
Section 30 specified that a decomposed granite trail would be the standard,· maintenance and
erosion of the trail proved aesthetically unacceptable, and the City revised the Design
Guidelines to require a paved multi-purpose trail as mitigated.
The implementation of the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and with
mitigation would not adversely impact scenic vistas in the Rancho Mirage area with the
addition of the following mitigation (General Plan BIR, SCH#2004081038, page 5-2):
Mitigation I (a) 1: The 6 foot wide multi-purpose trail located within the 19 foot wide
parkway shall have a medium broom finish 4" thick P.C.C (Poured in Place Concrete).
The color shall be Davis Co. "Yosemite Brown" or approved equal. The multi-purpose
trail shall be installed along all street frontages which serve the project including: the east
side of Via Josefina, and the north, south, and west sides of Via Florencia.
Impact Level after Mitigation: Less than Significant.
b) Substantially damage scenic D
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
Response: See Response to I ( a).
c) Substantially degrade the existing D
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings?
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
□ □
□ □
Page 13
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
Response: The Section 30 Design Guidelines, as revised, ident(fy that the character of the area
is to be maintained as low density and rural and the overabundance of small, gated
communities with their fortress like appearance as seen from public streets will be discouraged
(Also see Response to I (a):
d) Create a new source of substantial D
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
□ □
Response: The project will include exterior and interior lighting commonly found in low
density residential neighborhoods. All lighting will comply with City standards to minimize
light and glare. Standards include fully shielded fixtures, down-lighting, and photometric
plans that demonstrate confinement of lighting to the project site. The City of Rancho Mirage
is within Zone B of the Palomar restricted nighttime light zone and the City must comply with
these County standards. The County Light Pollution Ordinance contains light requirements
and standards intended to limit light leakage and spillage that may interfere with the
operations of the Palomar Observatory. Furthermore, the Community Design Element of the
General Plan Update recognizes the importance of minimizing the impacts of artificial light to
nighttime views of the sky and contains policies that protect nighttime views from excessive
glare. As such, the implementation of this project is consistent with the General Plan Update
and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character and quality of Rancho
Mirage. General Plan EIR Section 5.15 states that implementation of existing regulatory
programs and conditions of approval would serve to mitigate the potential light and glare
impacts of the proposed project to levels determined to be less than significant (General Plan
EIR, page 5-3, 5-6).
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In
determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
( 1997) prepared by the California Dept.
of Conservation as an optional model to
use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. Would the project:
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
□ □ □
Page 14
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Response: No areas within the City are designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance. The proposed project would not result in the conversion
of existing farmland to non-agricultural use and no Williamson Act Contract exists within the
City. Therefore, the issue is not addressed in the General Plan l!..1R and need not be addressed
in this Initial Study as the condition remains the same (General Plan EIR, Appendix A, page
A-32).
b) Conflict with ex1stmg zoning for D
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
Response: See Response to II (a).
c) Involve other changes in the existing D
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Response: See response to II ( a).
III. AIR QUALITY --Where available,
the significance criteria established by
the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct D
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
□ □
□ □
□ □
Page 15
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Response: The City of Rancho Mirage is located in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) and is
subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD ). All emissions with.in the City of Rancho Mirage are governed by the
California Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) as well as the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). The project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403-1 (governing
fugitive dust emissions from project construction within the Coachella Valley). The proposed
project complies with and is consistent with the adopted 2005 General Plan and General Plan
EIR. There is no substantial evidence that changes have occurred to the project area and no
known circumstances have changed to justify further environmental analysis beyond that
already described in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the project is consistent with the
provisions as set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3
Section 15162, and no further analysis is required. Upon implementation of project design
features as identified in Section 5.2.5 of the General Plan EIR, regulatory requirements, and
standard conditions of approval, the impacts would be less than significant.
b) Violate any air quality standard or D
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
□ □
Response: Construction equipment and construction related activities for the proposed project
will contribute to short term air quality impacts including emissions from construction vehicle
traffic as well asjiigitive dust. The applicant will be required to adhere to the City's Fugitive
Dust and Erosion Control policies and ordinance to minimize potential construction related
emissions. An approved Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control Plan will be required prior to issuance
of a grading permit. This fine particulate matter (PM10) can create an air quality hazard
when dust is blowing. Watering the surface, planting grass or landscaping, or placing
hardscape normally mitigates this hazard.
Grading Impacts
Grading and site preparation actzvzfles emit air quality pollutants from the generation of
fugitive dust operation of construction equipment. In order to limit the amount of fugitive dust
generated during site grading, the City requires the preparation of PM10 Management Plans
for all projects. The proposed project will he required to submit such a plan. The plan, and its
associated dust control methods, will lower impacts associated with fugitive dust at the site
during grading activities.
Grading of the 5 acres would result in the potential for 150 pounds of fugitive dust per day
during grading activities (based on average daily disturbance of 5 acres) not including dust
control methods. This does not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance of 150 pounds
per day. With implementation of dust control measures fugitive dust generation will be
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 16
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
reduced from those projections herein, therefore impacts associated with fugitive dust, will be
less than significant.
Table 1 below summarizes the estimated air quality emissions from the operation of grading
equipment and the transport of workers to and.from the project site. Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
are shown to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds; mitigation has been included to combat this
issue (Mitigation III ( c) 1 ). With the proposed mitigation the potential air quality impacts.from
grading are considered to be less than significant.
Table 1
Grading -Emissions Summary
(pounds per day)
PM2.
Emission Sources co NOx ROG SOx PM10 5 CO2 CH4
Equipment 65 154 18 0.2 7.0 7.0 15,099 1.6
Workers Vehicles 17 13 2.0 .02 1.0 0.0 2,392 0.1
Total 82 167 20 .22 8.0 7.0 17,491 1.7
SCAQMD Threshold 550 100 75 150 150 55 NIA NIA
Construction Impacts
Air quality pollutants from the construction phase of the project are emitted from a variety of
sources including construction equipment, transport of workers and delivery of materials, and
ojfgasing from a.sphalt and architectural coating. Table 2 below represents a worst case -
worst-day scenario and shows that projected air quality emissions for the construction phase
of the project could potentially exceed SCAQMD thresholds where NOx and Reactive Organic
Gases (ROG) are concerned. With the proposed mitigation (Mitigation III (c) 1) the potential
air quality impacts from construction are considered to be less than signiftcant.
Emission Sources
Table 2
Construction -Emissions Summary
(pounds per day)
co NOx ROG SOx
Equipment 57
23.4
131
18.8
17
3.1
209.6
462.5
0.15
0.03
7.0 6.0
Workers Vehicles
Asphalt Paving
Architectural Coating
Total
SCAQMD Threshold
80.4 149.8
550 100
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
0.7 0.6
692.2 0.18 7.7 6.6
75 150 150 55
13,661
3,349.4
17,010.4
NIA
Page 17
2.0
0.2
2.2
NIA
Note: Extrapolation using EA090007
Operational bnpact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
'Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Emissions from the operation of the proposed project are set forth in Table 3 below, which
shows the estimated pounds emitted per day of each pollutant at project build-out.
Operational impacts to air quality result from the use of energy, natural gas, and vehicle trips
generated by the project. All projected emissions at operation of the proposed project are
below SCAQMD thresholds, and impacts to air quality are expected to be less than significant.
Table 3
Stationary Moving Total SCAQMD
Source Emissions Source Anticipated Threshold
Power Plants Nat. Gas Emissions Emissions Criteria*
Carbon Monoxide 0.3 2.0 57.6 60 550
Nitrogen Oxides 1.6 2.3 8.0 11.9 100
Reactive Organic Gases 1.6 0.3 0.0 2.0 75
Sulfur Oxides 1.6 0.0 0.6 2.3 150
Particulates 1.6 0.0 0.31 1.91 55
Carbon Dioxide 2,892 8,362 11,255 NIA
Methane 2.3 0.6 2.9 NIA
* Threshold criteria offered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for assistance in determining
the significance of air quality impacts. Source: "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air
Quality Management DisLrict, April 1993, Revised October 2006.
Note: Extrapolations using EA0900007
Potential operational emissions throughout the life of the project will result primarily from
mobile vehicle trips related to residents in the 98 residential units. Cumulative emissions from
the project and surrounding projects will exceed the SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality
Management District) daily emissions significance threshold criteria for carbon monoxide,
reactive organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen. In order to reduce impacts to less than
significant the following measures are recommended:
Mitigation III (a) 1: A plan to control fugitive dust through implementation of reasonably
available dust control measures shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Rancho
Mirage for approval prior to the issuance of any grading permits associated with the
project. The plan shall specify the fugitive dust control measures to be employed. The
project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 18
Potentially
Significant
Impact
including but not limited to the following:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Rules 403 and 403.1 (Fugitive Dust) specifies control measures for use in
developing site specific fugitive dust control plans to minimize blowing dust from
construction sites and insure the clean up of construction related dirt on approach
routes to the site including: watering measures, chemical stabilizers, wind fencing,
covering haul vehicles, bed liners in haul vehicles, wheel washers and high wind
measures;
b. Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) restricts the VOC (Volatile Organic
Compound) content of any architectural coating materials used on-site to a
maximum of 2.08 pounds of VOC per gallon.
Mitigation III (a) 2: Earth-moving activities shall be suspended during first and second
stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 MPH per the Coachella Valley PMlO State
Implementation Plan and SCAQMD Rule 403.1.
Mitigation III (a) 3: The following watering techniques shall be employed to partially
mitigate the impact of construction-generated dust particulates:
a. Pre-grnding site watering (irrigation system for minimum of 72 hours);
b. Site watering 7 days a week (irrigation system, minimum of 4 times per 24 hors, or
by water trucks, minimum 4 times per 24 hours, at 1 truck/8 acres);
c. Perimeter sprinkler system (all sides continuous night watering when windy);
d. Portions of the project site that are undergoing earth moving operations shall be
watered such that a crust will be formed on the ground surface and then watered
again at the end of the day, as part of the constructions specifications. Control
methods are provided in detail in the Dust Control Plan Review Guidance for
Local Government" from the South Coast Air Quality Management District,
available form the City of Rancho Mirage or the S.C.A.Q.M.D.;
e. Any construction access roads should be paved as soon as possible and cleaned
after each work day. The maximum vehicle speed limit on unpaved road surfaces
should be 15 mph;
f. All trucks should maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
g. Trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose dirt material off-site should be
covered and washed off before leaving the site;
h. Adjacent streets should be swept if silt is carried over to adjacent public
thoroughfares;
i. As part of the construction specifications, any vegetative ground cover to be
utilized on-site shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce the disturbed area
subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems needed to water these plants shall be
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 19
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
installed as soon as possible to maintain the ground cover and minimize wind
erosion of the soil;
j. Construction operations affecting off-site roadways shall be scheduled for off-peak
traffic hours and shall minimize obstruction of through-trnffic lanes.
Impact Level after Mitigation: Less than Significant.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable D
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Response: See Response to III (a).
□ □
Mitigation III (c) 1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property
owner/developer shall include a note on all grading plans which requires the construction
contractor to implement the following measures during grading. These measures shall be
discussed at the pregrade conference.
a. Use low emission mobile construction equipment.
b. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned.
c. Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment.
d. Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when feasible.
e. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
f. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. When feasible, construction should
be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum.
g. Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours.
h. Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction
activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public
transportation and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service).
Impact Level after Mitigation: Less than Significant
d) Expose sensitive receptors to D
substantial pollutant concentrations?
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
□ □
Page 20
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
lncorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Response: Sensitive receptors would not be significantly adversely affected by CO emissions
generated by operation of the proposed project. The impact would be less than significant.
(Rancho Mirage General Plan Update, page 5-21. Also See Re.!;ponse to III (a).
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a D
substantial number of people?
□ □
Response: Construction activity will require the operation of equipment which may generate
exhaust from either gasoline or diesel fuel. Construction and development will also require
the application of paints and the paving of roads which could generate odors from materials
such as paints and asphalt. Short-term odor impacts associated with project construction,
including dieselfumes and asphalt paving, will dissipate quickly [also see response to III (a)].
Future residential development would involve minor, odor-generating activities, such as
backyard barbeque smoke, lawn mower exhaust, and application of exterior paints from home
improvement. These types and concentrations of odors are typical of residential. communities
and are not considered significant air quality impacts. Less than significant impacts are
anticipated throughout the l(fe of the project.
JV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, D
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
□ □
Response: Per a Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis prepared for the site by James W.
Cornett of Ecological Consultants, INC., an intensive plant and animal survey was conducted
within and adjacent to the proposed project site. The federally endangered Coachella Valley
mi/kvetch likely occurs on site as it has been found in the general region. The federally
threatened Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard and sensitive flat-tailed horned lizard might
also occur on or near the project site. The habitat appears to be suitable for the sensitive
Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket and Coachella Valley giant sand-treader cricket as well.
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February S, 2014
Page 21
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The Palm Springs ground squirrel was detected ·within the site boundaries. Each of the above
species is "covered" under the Coachella Valley Multiple Sp ecies Habitat Conservation Plan
(CVMSHC).
Mitigation IV (a) 1: Mitigation for impacts to these species is accomplished through the
payment of a fee to the City of Rancho Mirage. Fees vary depending upon the use to
which the land is put, acreage and density. Contact the Coachella Valley Association of
Governments to determine current fees. The 2013 fee is as follows:
Com./lndustrial = $5,706/disturbed acre (2007 -$5,730)
Residential -0-8 units/acre= $1,278 (2007 -$1,284)
8.1-14 units/acre= $531 (2007 -$533)
14+ units/acre= $234 (2007 -$235)
When Desert Hot Springs is added to the assessment area, the assessment fees will likely
be lowered based on a 2011 Nexus Study (e.g., 10% ). On March 13, 2014, CVAG
members: "Approved a Major Amendment to the MSHCP by adding the City of Desert
Hot Springs and Mission Springs Water District as permittees under the plan. This
action brings another 770 acres into the MSHCP. The mitigation fee that cities like
Rancho Mirage collect for the plan will drop by 8 % because of this amendment. The
Commission will now distribute documents to Rancho Mirage and all the other
permittees to sign amending the MSHCP to add DHS and water district.
The remaining comments are restricted to those species not covered under the CVMSHCP or
species that are only partially covered.
Although Casey's June beetle is known to occur in the Coachella Valley, protocol level
trapping surveys failed to detect this species. Thus far, this officially endangered, non-covered
species has not been found east of Cathedral City. Therefore, no further surveys are
recommended for this species and no mitigation is required or recommended.
Although the desert tortoise is a covered species under the CVMSHCP, clearance surveys for
the tortoise can be required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to site disturbance.
The desert tortoise is known to occur in the Coachella Valley but it is not currently known to
be present of the valley floor. The overwhelming majority of observations have been on upper
bajadas surrounding the valley. In keeping with this distribution pattern, protocol-level
surveys revealed no evidence of the desert tortoise within or adjacent to the project site.
Therefore, no additional surveys for this species are recommended.
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 22
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The burrowing owl was observed twice on or near the prc~ject site though no active burrows
were found. Nevertheless, the habitat is considered suitable with dozens of rodent burrows
that can be enlarged and used as nesting burrows by the owls. The federal Migratory Bird Act
prohibits harming the owl therefore mitigation of potential impacts to the owl are required and
mi~st be approved by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. At the present time the Service
approves of the mitigation provided in the "Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation"
prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game on March 7, 2012.
Mitigation IV (a) 2: A preconstruction survey should take place at least 30 days prior to
project grading to determine the location of active burrows on and within 550 yards of an
approved project site. If no active burrows are found in the survey area grading may
commence providing a biological monitor is onsite.
Mitigation IV (a) 3: A biological monitor, with the authority to hall or redirect grading,
should be present whenever grading or construction vehicles are present and operating
on an approved project site. The function of the monitor is to protect burrowing owls
that arrive on or near the project site after the clearance survey and during the
construction period.
Mitigation IV (a) 4: The breeding season of the western burrowing owl is from February
1 through August 31 of each year. No construction disturbances of any kind should occur
within 500 meters (550 yards) of an active burrow during this time period. Thus, on a
project site, grading should take place from September 1 through January 30 of each
year to avoid resfriction or cancellation of grading because of the presence of burrowing
owls during the breeding season.
Mitigation IV (a) 5: Resident owls present on or near the project site outside the
breeding season can, in some instances, be relocated to other sites by a permitted biologist
under the authorization of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife.
The loggerhead shrike is a state Species of Special Concern. It was recorded near the site
during surveys and has been found to nest in similar habitat within three miles of the project
site.
Mitigation IV (a) 6: Breeding surveys should be conducted 30 days prior to any
construction activities that are planned between February 15 and June 15. If a nest is
found, a buffer should be established in which construction activities are prohibited until
all young have fledged. The width of the buff er should be determined by a qualified
biologist.
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 23
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Impact Level after Mitigation: Less than Significant.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on D
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
□
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
□
Response: No riparian habitat or sensitive natural community has been identified on the
project site. Implementation of the 2005 General Plan Update in accordance with existing
land use designations does not allow development in these areas as they are within County
open space (in the north portion of the City) and as existing reserves and National Monument
lands (in the south portion of the City) not within the vicinity of the project area. No impact
will occur (General Plan EIR page 5-61).
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on D
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
□ □
Response: Potential United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)jurisdictional waters and wetlands within the City and
SOI are also limited to drainages of the Indio Hills and Edom Hill in the northern portion of
the City's SOI and the Santa Rosa Mountains and Magnesia Springs to the south. The
Whitewater River and flood control channel and tributaries would also be considered under
USACE jurisdiction. Areas to the north of Interstate JO are currently protected as County
open space and as existing reserves and National Monument lands in the south.
Implementation of the General Phm Update in accordance with the established land use
designations would not allow development in these areas. Other areas designated for
development that have riparian habitat present would be subject to the requirements of
applicable 404 permits from the USACE, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
review, and CDFG 1600 Streambed Alternation Agreements. The project is not located near
or within the vicinity of any of these potential wetland areas as identffied in the general Plan
EIR, therefore the project would have no impact on wetlands (General Plan EIR, page 5-61 ).
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 24
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
□ □
Response: Primary movement and/or wildlife corridors are identified as being limited to
drainages of the Indio Hills and Edom Hill in the northern portion of the City's SOI and the
Santa Rosa Mountains, Whitewate_r channel and Magnesia Springs to the south. The project is
not located within or acUacent to a known wildlife corridor as identified in the General Plan
EIR .. No new information of substantial importance would alter the jzndings and conclusions
in the previous EIR. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and relevant plans and
policies of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, the impacts would be less than significant
(General Plan EIR, page 5-62, 5-64)
e) Conflict with any local policies or D
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
□ □
Response: Future project development in accordance with the City of Rancho Mirage General
Plan Update would comply with relevant policies and ordinances relating to Biological
Resources within the City, including ordinances that limit development within mountainous
lands and hillside areas. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and relevant plans
and policies of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, the impacts would be less than
significant (General Plan EIR, page 5-62, 5-64).
f) Conflict with the provisions of an D
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
□ □
Response: The Coachella Valley Association of Governments, in conjunction with a majority
of local municipalities, special districts and regulatory agencies adopted the Coachella Valley
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). The City is a permitee under the
CVMSHCP and actively supports implementation of the plan. There are no measures within
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 25
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
the proposed project which would be inconsistent or in conflict with the CVMSHCP.
Therefore, there will be no impacts on the implementation of the CVMSHCP.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in D
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in D 15064.5?
□ □
Response: The City of Rancho Mirage prepared an intensive level survey of historic resources
in the City. This Inventory included properties listed in the National Register of Historic
Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, California Registered Historical
Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and properties reviewed by OHP as part
of a historic resources survey or an environmental review. No structures currently exist on the
property, as all previous structures have been demolished, and no impacts to potentially
historic structures listed in the database will occur. Implementation of the General Plan
Update would not result in the loss o_f'potentially historic structures (General Plan EIR, page 5-
71).
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in D
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to D 15064.5?
□ □
Response: The entire City o_f Rancho Mirage and SOI are located within the tribal
"Traditional Use Area" as identified by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. This is a
land area of prehistoric and historic patterns of settlement and mobility through the region.
Because the traditional areas of tribal use do not necessarily correspond to the checkerboard
pattern of the reservation, the tribe is concerned about the protection of cultural resource sites
off tribal land.
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 26
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
Ag-ua-ea·l·i·e-n·t ·e -1-n-d-i·a-n-Re·s·e-r-vat·i·o-----~
,1 S 2 I ~·r 'i ~-sr>,i{O!·
Vicinity Map
Palm Spr1ng" Aren
Alvoral<I• County California
c:JPoJit,,;-,,l Ju1it..t-tt.Jr1,
.... 1n!w6J:1!et-l1)1...,,ny&
•6" ~Lotti H~l'N:lfl
,-,~R.,;ll/0,,i.,
"' ):
1, S-1 r
River.liq,;,
County
Southom California
4 S ,:, [
Although existing regulatory measures, including the recent passage of Senate Bill No. 18 (i.e .,
land use changes) address the protection of tribal, cultural resources, the Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians does not believe the existing regulations and procedures are adequate to
protect potential resources that could be impacted by General Plan implementation outside of
tribal lands. Requiring project specific cultural resource assessments areas with known
cultural sensitivity would reduce impacts from build-out of the General Plan as individual site
assessments would identify and catalog existing and newly found cultural resources on a site
spec(fic level in addition to providing for project level mitigation measures to reduce impacts
from loss of a potentially significant cultural resource to less than significant levels and as
follows (General Plan EIR, page 5-71, 5-79). The subject location is not located within the
ACBC Reservation Boundary.
Mitigation V (b) 1: Upon the uncovering or other discovery of artifacts or cultural
resources during construction activities associated with the project's development, all
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 27
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
construction on the site shall be halted, and a qualified archaeologist shall be called to the
site to identify the resource and recommend mitigation in the event of the resource's
cultural significance.
If the remains arc determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American
Heritage Commission (NARC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination
of the Most Likely Descendants (MLD). The City and Developer will work with the
designated MLD to determine the final disposition of the remains. If you have any
questions or require additional information on Tribal Monitors, please call Patricia
Garcia-Tuck at 7 60-699-6907.
Impact Level after Mitigation: Less than Significant.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique D
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
□ □
Response: The majority of the City of Rancho Mirage and SOI area are located in an area
with low sensitivity for paleontological resources. Although this area is not considered high
sensitivity for paleontogical resources, the potential still exists for build-out or redevelopment
to uncover previously undiscovered areas with paleontogical resources particularly in areas
adjacent to the Whitewater River Channel (General Plan EIR, page 5-75). No paleontological
resources are known to exist on the project site. However, due to the buried nature of these
resources, construction in the project area has the potential to disturb unknown
paleontological resources. Compliance with Mitigation V (b) 2 would mitigate any potential
findings o_f resources to levels determined to be less than significant.
d) Disturb any human remains, including D
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
□ □
Response: The City and the SOI areas are located in an area determined to have high cultural
sensitivity as identified in the County of Riverside General Plan. In addition, the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians identifies the entire City of Rancho Mirage and SOI areas
as within the Traditional Use Area. As a result, build-out of the Rancho Mirage General Plan
could unearth human remains, including those outside of formal cemeteries. In addition, with
implementation of the regulations listed in Section 5.4.4 of the General Plan Update EIR,
potential impacts to human remains would be reduced by ensuring that if remains are
uncovered all work in the vicinity of the site would be stopped and that there will be no
deposition of the remains except in accordance with the California Public Resources Code
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 28
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
Section 5097.98. (California Public Resources Code§ 5097.98 -Notification of discovery of
Native American human remains, descendants; disposition of human remains and associated
grave goods). The mitigation measures and Existing Regulations identified above would
reduce potential impacts associated with Cultural Resources to a level that is less than
significant (General Plan Update BIR, pages 5-75 through 5-80).
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS --Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, D
as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication
42.
□ □
Response: The site is not within proximity of a known fault. The approximate location of the
Santa Rosa Thrust Fault is located in the mountains approximately one mile south of the
urbanized portions of the City and the San Andreas Fault, Banning and Garnet Hill faults, are
all located in the City's Sphere of Influence north of Interstate JO not within close proximity to
the project site. Build-out of this project is consistent with the General Plan and will result in
an increase in the number of structures and residents exposed to seismic and other
geotechnical hazards. The developer will comply with California Building Code (CBC)
building construction standards for seismically active regions to reduce on-site ground
shaking hazards to acceptable levels.
The project site does not lie within a currently delineated State of California, Alquist-Priolo
Fault Zone. Well-delineated fault lines cross through this region as shown on California
Geological Survey (CGC) maps; however no active faults are mapped in the immediate vicinity
of the site. Active fault rupture is unlikely to occur at the project site. (Figure 5.5-2, General
Plan BIR, page 5-113).
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 29
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
As required, the developer has submitted a 2012 Geotechnical Investigation by Sladden
Engineering for the site to determine if there are any problems with development of the
residential tract. Their conclusion was: ". . . it is our professional opinion that the proposed
project is feasible from a geotechnical perspective provided that the recommendations
presented in this report are implemented in design and carried out through construction." See
the mitigation measures below.
Mitigation VI (a) 1: During site grading and construction work, the recommendations
noted in the Gcotechnical Investigation Report by Stadden Engineering shall be complied
with.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? □
Response: See response to VI (a) (i).
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, D
including liquefaction?
□ □
□ □
Response: Generally the occurrence of Liquefaction in Rancho Mirage is very low (General
Plan EIR, 5-10 and Figure 5.5-4). Fine grained granular sediments susceptible to liquefaction
with ground water depths greater than 50 feet are generally found in the vicinity of the
Whitewater River. The General Plan does note that these conditions as described are general,
and that localized conditions conducive to liquefaction should be considered in site specific
geotechnical studies. The site is approximately 16 miles from the Whitewater River and thus
no mitigation is required (General Plan EIR, page 5-101).
iv) Landslides? □ □ □
Response: The site is flat and not subject to landslides. No impact will occur. (General Plan
EIR, Figure 5.5-3).
b) Result in substantial soi] erosion or D
the loss of topsoil?
□ □
Response: The site will be graded and disturbed, but air quality mitigation measure for
controlling PMlO will reduce the loss of topsoil and control fugitive dust.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil D
that is unstable, or that would become
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
□ □
Page 30
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on-or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Potentia1ly
Significant
J1npact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Response: This project is not located within or adjacent to an area su~ject to landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. In 2003, the Coachella Valley Water District
adopted a landscape model ordinance that calls for the use of water efficient vegetation in new
and remodeled landscaping. This project will be subject to the provisions of that Ordinance,
along with adopted building and seismic codes. Also see responses to VI (a) (i) and (iii)
(General Plan EIR, page 5-90).
d) Be located on expansive soil, as D
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
□ □
Response: Expansive soils are not considered a hazard in the Rancho Mirage planning area
because of the relatively minor amount of clay present in the various soil units. The
Geotechnical investigation stated that the on.site soils are visually classified to be in the very
low expansion category in accordance to the California Building Code. The impact is less
than significant (General Plan EIR, Appendix A, page A-40).
e) Have soils incapable of adequately D
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
□ □
Response: The City requires all new development to connect with the Sanitary Sewer System
(General Plan EIR, page 5-110). No septic tanks are a part of this project (Project
Description).
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISIONS
Would the project:
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 31
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact of the
environment?
□ □ □
Response: In terms of population growth, current forecast information for California suggests
that the recession is not expected to have long-term impacts. Since the current recession is
nationwide, California is not losing as many people to other states as it did during the
economic slowdown in the 1990s. In the near term, the State's population is not projected to
hit the peak annual growth of over 700,000 reached in the 1980s. However, average annual
population growth of nearly 500,000 or 1.3 percent is projected over the next decade, leading
California to reach a statewide population of over 44 million people by 2020 and over 51
million people by 2035. The majority of these people, over 98 percent, are expected to live,
work, and play in the regions affected by SB 375.
Proposed SCAG Targets for 2020 and 2035
(Per ca ita GHG reduction from er vehicles relative to 2005
SCAG 8% 13%
Response: Per Assembly Bill 32, the state of California is required to reduce total Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In October of 2013 the City adopted
the Greenhouse Gas Inventory, the Sustainability Plan, and the Energy Action Plan. With the
GHG inventory, the City of Rancho Mirage can assess its GHG emissions and can
strategically implement policies that specifically target GHG emissions by sectors or source.
Sources of Greenhouse Gases:
□ Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide results from the combustion of carbon-based
fuels-fossil fuels from coal, oil, gas, as well as wood wastes and trees-and some industrial
manufacturing.
□ Methane (CH4): Methane is the next most important GHG. Each molecule of methane has
21 times the global warming potential of CO2. Methane comes from landfills (from anaerobic
digestion of organic materials), from fermentation of materials, and from feedlots.
□ Nitrous Oxides (N2O): Nitrous oxides result from ammonia production, fertilizer manufacturing
and other agricultural practices and from the burning of transportation fuels.
□ Hydrotluorocarbons (HFCs): Refrigerants, which were created as a substitute for earlier ozone-
depleting substances such as chlorofluorocarbons.
□ Perfluorocarbons: (PFC): PFCs result from semiconductor manufacturing.
□ Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6): Sulfur hexafluoride is a little known GHG, with a huge global
warming potential. SF6 results from electricity transmission and distribution, as well as magnesium
production.
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 32
Rancho Mirage's 2010 greenhouse gas emissions inventory establishes a baseline of 278,316
tonnes C02e. These emissions come from the .following sources:
Propane 0%
Transportation Fuel 32.6%
Waste 1.5%
Wastewater Treatment 0%
Refrigerants 2.6%
Fertilizer Application 0%
Electricity 43.1%
Natural Gas 20.2%
The top 3 categories are electricity, transportation fuel, and natural gas. With a population of
17,218, Rancho Mirage produces 16.2 tonnes C02e per capita. While not an exact science,
per capita emissions have been viewed as a way of comparing d(fferent sized cities emissions.
For example, because vehicle miles traveled are an important feature of the inventory, and
Rancho Mirage hosts a relatively long stretch of Highway 111 within its borders, its per capita
number could be expected to be higher than its neighbors with only short stretches of highway.
Additionally, per capita numbers-based on jltll-time population-are increased in a city such
as Rancho Mirage by a high seasonal population.
Category Source
Residential Electricity (SCE)
Electricity (IID)
Natural Gas
Propane
Commercial Golf Courses/Country Clubs -SCE
Golf Courses and Country Clubs -Natural Gas
Hotels, Motels, and Hospitality -Electricity (SCE)
Hotels, Motels, and Hospitality -Natural Gas
Medical Facilities -Electricity (SCE)
Medical Facilities -Natural Gas
Other Commercial -Electricity (SCE)
Other Commercial -Natural Gas
Small Commercial -Electricity (IID)
Large Commercial -Electricity (IID)
Domestic Water Supply -Electricity (CVWD)
Water Pumping/Sewage -Electricity (SCE)
Street Lights -SCE
Traffic Control -SCE
Municipal Municipal Bldgs./Fac. -Electricity (SCE)
Municipal Bldgs./Fac. -Natural Gas
City Services -Electricity (SCE)
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
2010 Emissions
(Tonnes C02e)
78,947
4,490
44,643
102
1,433
810
6,699
3,788
2,858
1,616
9,483
5,362
1,735
5,334
918
6,659
480
6
631
90
166
Page 33
Public Authority -Electricity (IID) 60
Transportation On-Road Vehicles 90,578
Off-Rd. Vehicles 96
Waste Community Generated Waste 4,083
Fugitive Wastewater Treatment Fae. (CVWD) 21
Emissions Ozone-Depleting Substance Substitutes 7,196
Golf Course Fertilizer Application 32
Total 278,316
C omparason o fH ouse o s 1y ncome h Id b I
Low Income Moderate Income High Income
(Under $25K) ($25K to $74,999 $75K+
% of Population 24% 50% 26%
).)w~_llh.1~\S.iz,e a.~009.isq. :rtJ ~:,369, I •< (} ' ~.1() ·2
Dwelling Age 36.3 34 29.4
% Single Family 37% 59% 78%
%Own 37% 63 % 86%
Number of People 2.8 2.92 3.11
Annual Electric 4,552 5,683 7,895
HH Consumption
Annual Gas HH 370 430 575
Consumption
Central Air 32% 42% 54%
Conditioning
Gas Heating 78% 83 % 86%
Pool Saturation 2% 6% 19%
Ave. # of 0.46 0.9 1.47
Computers/HR
Work @home 15% 17% 27%
Programmable 14% 29% 55%
Heating Thermostat
Dwellings with 42% 50% 60%
CFLs
Source: CA Energy Commission -June 2004
C om1 >anson o fH ouse 0 s ~ ncome h Id b I
High Income Staff Projection (2014)
$75K+
% of Population 26%
!O~t~ll.ifr2 iSjz~ ~~O]t
Dwelling Age 29.4
% Single Family 78%
%Own 86%
Number of People 3.11
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
~[o:o.O{to.:4,Jl.24
Page 34
Annual Electric 7,895 11,842 to 15,790
HH Consumption
Annual Gas HH 575 862 to 1,150
Consumption
Central Air 54%
Conditioning
Gas Heating 86 %
Pool Saturation 19%
Ave. # of Computers/HH 1.47
Work @home 27%
Programmable Heating 55%
Thermostat
Dwellings with CFLs 60%
i ner!!V i 1c1enc.v E Eff'. A . IE chons i;qumment ,y we me _ge b D Ir A
Pre-1996 Home 1996-2004 Home
Insulated Ext. Walls 51 % 91 %
Insulated Attic 65% 91 %
Dual Pane Windows 31 % 79%
Programmable Heating 31% 81%
Programmable Cooling 46% 85%
H20 Heater Insulation 45% 52%
Low Flow Shower Head 53 % 71 %
Faucet Aerators 27% 41%
Front Loading Clothes 9% 12%
Washer
Compact Fluorescent 50% 59%
Bulbs
Summary -People who own their dwelling are more likely to take energy efficiency
actions than renters. Note that all actions represent the number of homes with given
efficiency improvement in place. In the case of low cost "portable" measures such as
compact fluorescent bulbs, which could benefit renters directly and have a very short
payback period, there is still a large relative difference in the adoption rates between
owners (57%) and renters (40%). Source: CA Energy Commission -June 2004 (Fig. #34)
According to a 2002 Study (Titled: Economic & Demographic Factors Affecting CA
Residential Energy Use), Edison data showed that central air conditioning is a key determinant
of energy use; the average Edison customer without AC uses 5,267 kWh, while a customer
with central air uses 7,818 kWh. The study stated: "Most vacation homes on the Edison
system are concentrated in Zones 15 (Palm Springs and associated desert) with about 15.8%
vacation homes and 16 (southern mountains). In Zone 15, 15.8% of basic users and 13.9% of
all-electric users were vacation homes. See the table below:
Use by Permanent Residents and Vacation Homes
SCE Zones 15 & 16
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 35
Basic Permanent Vacation Difference
Zone 15 -Palm 9,282 8,451 -9%
Springs
Zone16 6,540 2,439 -63 %
All-Electric
Zone 15 -Palm 11,631 8,449 -27 %
Sprin~s
Zone 16 Sample size too small (12)
Differentials in use between vacation homes and permanent residents are somewhat smaller in
Palm Springs than in PG&E zones with vacation homes. However, because vacation homes
are occupied more in the winter months, differences are largely concentrated in the hotter
summer season."
Ave. Annual Use by Income, Square feet, Household Size, and Housing Type: Zone 10
Basic
Income 30-50K 50-75K 75-lO0K lO0K+ lO0K+
Sq.Ft. 1,000 to 1,250 to 1,500 to 2,000 to 3,000+
1,250 1,500 2,000 2,500
Type of SF SF SF SF Sir
Unit
HH Size
1 4,368 4,368 5,491 6,707 11,225
2 4,899 4,899 6,022 7,238 11,756
3 5,010 5,010 6,133 7,349 11,867
4 6,003 6,003 7,127 8,343 12,860
Note: Households earning more than $ 100K will be in the second or third tier on an
annual average basis depending on the size of their dwelling. Balded areas mean the
annual use is over 300% of the baseline. (From Table 25 of the 2002 Report)
Studies have shown that a home's orientation will have some effect on the sizing of an air
conditioning system and estimated energy usage. An example is shown below:
Manual J Cooling Load & Estimated System Capacity in Monitored Houses (2008
ACEEE Summer Study)
Plan Sq.Ft. Orientation AC
Size
(Est.)
1 2077 North 4 tons
2077 East 4 tons
2 2301 North 4 tons
2301 Southwest 3.5
3 2666 North 5
2666 SW 5
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Est. AC at
105 deg. F.
(kBtu/h)
Total
44
44
44
39
56
56
Manual J Load
(kBtu/h) -Total
27.5
25.8
28.4
27.5
30.9
31.1
Page 36
2666 NW 14 44 31.5
4 2923 North 5 56 30.5
2932 SE 5 56 31.8
2932 w 4 44 28.9
ACEEE -American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
Staff Research -1993 Home (1,600 sq. ft.)
rea 1nerev sa~e -SCE A (E U ) 2013
Site: Mature landscaping, dual pane tinted windows, attic fan, covered patios, new 16
SEER 3.5 ton HVAC system, new tankless water heater, programmable thermostat (78
degrees or higher), evening appliance usage, etc. No pool or spa. SCE Rebate
Programs -AC Cycling/Peak-Time shut off and Level Pay Plan.
Months Oct. to May 15 to 20 kWh/day
Months June to July 30 kWh/day
Months August to Sept. 40 to 53 kWh/day (August 2013
-966 kWh usage)
Note: Based on average pay program and cycling program, the cost per month is $80 to
$90. In August 2013, the A/C cycling credit was $28.08. In the summer, the baseline
energy allowance is 1,194 kWh per month for Tier #1 fees.
SCE' s Tier Billing Program (Ave. cost per kilowatt hour) -Tier 1 = $0.13, Tier 2 =
$0.16, Tier 3 = $0.27, and Tier 4 = $0.31.
A tankless water heater can save 30% to 40% more energy than a 40 gallon water heater.
A 2,000 sq. ft. home with 15 solar panels can reduce its energy costs by 25% to 50%
depending upon the cost of energy, the type of solar system and other variables. A 4-ldlowatt
system can produce 6,000 kilowatt-hours a year.
A A ve. nnua se y ncome, iquarc eet, l U b I s f H ouse 10 Ids· 1ze, an dll -ousmg T ype: one as1c Z lOB .
Income 30-S0K 50-75K 75-lO0K lO0K+ lO0K+
Sq. Ft. 1,000 to 1,250 to 1,500 to 2,000 to 3,000+
1,250 1,500 2,000 2,500
Type of Unit SF SF SF SF SF
HH Size
1 4,368 4,368 5,491 6,707 11,225
2 4,899 4,899 6,022 7,238 11,756
3 5,010 5,010 6,133 7,349 11 ,867
4 6,003 6,003 7,127 8,343 12,860
Note: Households earning more than $100K will be in the second or third tier on an annual
average basis depending on the size of their dwelling. Bolded areas mean the annual use is over
300% of the baseline. (From Table 25 of the 2002 Report)
In addition to emzttzng criteria pollutants the project will also result in the emzsszon of
greenhouse gases. Although GHG thresholds have not been formally adopted, preliminary
thresholds indicate that single-family residential projects that have less than 95 dwelling units
would not exceed the signijtcant threshold. Since the proposed project includes 98 single-
family units greenhouse gas emission could potentially exceed the threshold. Estimated GHG
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 37
emissions from the use of electricity, natural gas, transport of water, and vehicle trips are
summarized in table below.
Emissions Summary
CO2 Equivalent CO2 Equivalent Pounds
Emission Source Metric Tons Million Metric Tons Per Day
Electricity 226.1 0.0002 1,366
Natural Gas 481.6 0.0004 2,909
Moving Source 1,238.9 0.0012 8,186.8
Water Transport 213.1 0.0002 1,281.6
Total 2,159.7 0.0020 13,743.4
Note: Extrapolation using EA090007
The following ordinances were adopted by the City in June of 2013 to help mitigate electricity
and transportation fuel emissions, which have been identified as the top two sources of
eniissions in Rancho Mirage per the aforementioned GHG inventory.
Section 17.20.140(D)(l) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code (RMMC) states that all new
building, both residential and commercial, to be electric vehicle charging station ready.
Section 17.26.030(M)(l) states that all new residential construction shall be "solar ready,"
meaning that electrical panel capacity is provided, and conduits are provided within the walls
and/or attic space to a roof connection for PV panels. While these measures are directly
related to architectural development on the project site, they will help to reduce Greenhouse
Gasses within the City. The project as proposed is consistent with General Plan and Zoning
Code (Rancho Mirage Greenhouse Gas Inventory, page 3-10).
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, D
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
□ □
Response: See response to VII(a). Homes will be designed to comply with Title 24 of
the CA Code of Regulations as adopted by the City Council under Title 15 of the Municipal
Code. Ordinance #1070, adopted on .Tune 6, 2013 and which became effective on July 6,
2013, requires new developments to be solar-ready with an electrical panel box and wall
installed conduit, subject to the design parameters of the Building Division. Ordinance # 1069,
adopted on June 6, 2013 and which became effective on July 6, 2013, requires new
developments to be ready for plug-in electric (PEV) vehicles. The applicant has two options:
1) Provide one 120V AC 20 amp and one 2081240V 40 amp, grounded AC outlet to serve one
parking space, or 2) Provide electrical panel capacity for one 120V AC 20 amp and one
2081240V 40 amp, grounded AC outlet and install conduit for a future outlet to serve one
parking space. Lastly, the project is subject to the City's Water Conservation Landscaping
Ordinance that regulates the amount of tuif in front yard areas (23% or less), subject to final
approval by CVWD (Chapter 17.24 of the Municipal Code). Smart irrigation controllers
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 38
shall be installed for each home and/or the HOA maintained areas.
The City has adopted a Green Building Code that developers can use tu improve the quality of
their developments. Currently, the design guidelines are voluntary at this time meaning the
developer can work with the Building Official to add "green building" solutions to the project
to enhance the homes for future buyers. Also the developer can pursue LEED certification
with the U.S. Green Building Council. On average, LEED-certified homes use 20 to 30% less
energy than a normal h01ne, which means lower utility bills each month for the buyer.
2013 Solar Program: A 2,000 sq. ft. home with 15 solar panels can reduce its energy costs by
25% to 50% depending upon the cost of energy, the type of solar system and other variables.
A 4-kilowatt system can produce 6,000 kilowatt-hours a year. The Property Assessed Clean
Energy Program (PACE) is now available in Rancho Mirage and the entire Coachella Valley.
PACE allows an eligible property owner to obtain jfriancing for a variety of energy related
conservation measures such as installation of solar panels, water conservation projects, etc.
The financing can be put on the property owner's tax bill and paid over time and it is
transferable with the property. For more details please visit www.cleanenerg yCVupgrade.com
or call 800-855-SAVE (7283).
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the D
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
□ □
Response: Hazardous materials are transported through the Rancho Mirage area along
Highway 111 and some local roads, and across the SOI area along the Southern Pacific
Railroad line and the I-JO. Arterial streets are the preferred truck routes because they
minimize the exposure of residential uses from the impacts that could occur from a hazardous
material accident within a local neighborhood. Designated truck routes in the City include
Ramon Road, Dinah Shore Drive, Gerald Ford Drive, Monterey Avenue, and Highway 111 as
well as portions of Bob Hope Drive, Frank Sinatra Drive, and Country Club Drive.
The project is the construction of a residential community and it is not anticipated to involve
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials (Project Description). If
hazardous materials are used during construction ( such as fuels or oils for construction
equipment, paints or solvents), the imposition of regulatory requirements and standard
conditions of approval would render the impact to less than significant (General Plan EIR,
pages 5-127, 5-132, and 5-134).
b) Create a significant hazard to the D
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
□ □
Page 39
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Response: This project is residential in nature and will not pose a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Also see response VIII (a).
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle D
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
□ □
Response: This project is within the boundaries of the Palm Springs Unified School District.
Rancho Mirage Elementary School located at 42-895 Indian Trail, Rancho Mirage High
School lo cated at 31001 Rattler Road, and Palm Valley School (Private) located at 35525 Da
Vall Drive are the only schools within the City Limits and are all several miles from the project
site. The commercial properties -i,yithin ¼ mile of the site have not yet been developed. The
three schools within the City are also not located within ¼ mile of any hazardous waste site
that would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials nor
are they within ¼ mile of the project site. The project will not emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school.
d) Be located on a site which is included D
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment?
□ □
Response: The site is not listed as a hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 (General Plan EIR, Appendix A, page A-42 and the most
recent Cortese List located at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Corte. e List.cfm)
e) For a project located within an airport D
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
□ □
Page 40
Response: The eastern edge of the airport is 2. 7 miles from the western Rancho Mirage City
boundary. Flights approaching and departing the Palm Springs International Airport may fly
over the City and the SOI, but these flights would be more than three miles from the runways
and at a high altitude (General Plan BIR, page 5-130, 5-134).
f) For a project within the vicinity of a D
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
□ □
Response: The City of Rancho Mirage has one helipad at the Eisenhower Medical Center,
located north of the Emergency Department, and approximately two miles south of the project
site. There are no private airstrips or heliports within the City listed with the California
Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. The primary risks associated with
heliports are take-offs and landings, but will not effect the project area. Currently, helicopter
flights in and out of EMC average two .flights a month. The flight path is from the
east/southeast and there are no expansion plans that are anticipated to in.crease the frequency
of over-flights. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of
approval, the impacts would be less than significant (General Plan BIR, page 5-131, 5-134).
g) Impair implementation of or D
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
□ □
Response: The City of Rancho Mirage has a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, originally
adopted in 1994, which is continually updated. The two main evacuation routes in the City
include I-10 and Highway 111 along with primary and minor arterial streets serving as
secondary routes. Since earthquakes, floods, fires, or other disasters may render certain
routes impassible, specific evacuation routes are not ident(fied in the plan because they can
change depending upon the type of emergency. As the project is consistent with the General
Plan, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted
Multi-Hazard Functional Plan (General Plan EIR, page 5-132).
h) Expose people or structures to a D
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
□ □
Response: There are no wildlands near the project site and the project will not expose people
or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 41
wildlands. (General Plan EIR, page 5-132).
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY --Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or D
waste discharge requirements?
□ □
Response: The developer has submitted a 2013 Preliminary Hydrology Study as required by
the TTM application. The report notes: "Basins "A" & "B", as well as "K" & "L" are
assumed to be equalized respectively and in such manner are able to store the JOO-year, 24-
hour storm volume. The remaining basins, "E" & "O" can each store their own JOO-year, 24
hour storm volume. The volume for each basin was calculated using the average end area
method. The JOO-year, 24-hour runoff volumes were determined from the output generated
from the Unit Synthetic Hydrographs located in Appendix A."
In conclusion, "The proposed Tesoro development will retain the JOO-year, 24-hour storm
runoff within the site boundaries, as well as maintain at least J foot offreeboard between J 00-
year water surface elevation in each basin and their adjacent building pads. As a result of the
entire JOO-year, 24-hour on-site retention, there will be no increase to downstream flow or any
impact to existing storm drain facilities." The report is available for viewing at the Planning
Division with the TTM application.
The City of Rancho Mirage is required to comply with NPDES, the SDWA, and CWA in
addition to applicable water management plans and programs, and local regulations. The
General Plan Update contains relevant goals, policies, and prograrns (water conservation
including using native, drought tolerant landscaping materials, installation and utilization of
water efficient plumbing fixtures, and use of reclamated water for irrigation and golf courses)
that encourage the evaluation of development plans for their potential to create groundwater
contamination and the conservation of a clean water supply.
The project is not expected to discharge waste except conventional domestic water wastes, and
no impacts are anticipated related to this. This project is consistent with the General Plan,
and the implementation of the General Plan Update has the potential to impact the quantity of
runoff and other pollutants to receiving waters, especially during periods of heavy rain.
Concerns relating to water quality during construction include the containment of any
potential contaminants such as gasoline and other petroleum products. Another concern is the
release of any construction related storm water that may contain contaminants (including
sediment material). Grading of soils creates the chance of erosion and potential introduction
of sediments to existing area water systems, especially when construction storm water is
allowed to flow into public streets. As discussed previously, the site is greater than one acre in
size and will require compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) as well as the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD)
regulations during any grading and construction activities. Compliance with adopted
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 42
procedures for grading and erosion will mitigate any impacts associated with grading and
water quality.
Standard conditions of approval and for obtaining grading and building permits include the
developers preparation and implementation (throughout all construction activities)of a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Fugitive Dust (PMl0) Control Plan.
Construction site Best Management Practices are also implemented to prevent any
contamination of water that could occur as a result of construction activities of the proposed
project. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements as identified in the General Plan
EIR and standard conditions of approval, the impacts vvould be less than significant (General
Plan EIR, regulations Sections 5.7.4, and 5.7.5, page 5-164).
b) Substantially deplete groundwater D
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
□ □
Response: With litigation ongoing between the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and
the local water districts (CVWD and DWA service 75% of the Coachella Valley), the
discussion of the Valley's 1,000' deep aquifer has been in the local newspaper recently. The
Tribal Board states the reason for litigation is that the local water purveyors are not managing
the resource adequately, not enough effort has been taken to refill the aquifer even with
percolations ponds and other recharge efforts. Only in the last three years has recharged
water exceeded water output. Prior to this timeframe, overdraft has occurred since 1986. On
September 8, 2013, The Desert Sun Newspaper stated that in the 1970s wells in the valley hit
water at depths of 104.4 feet and that wells now are 159.3 feet. This 55' drop in the aquifer
has been continually tracked by local water purveyors and the districts are working to
replenish the aquifer using Colorado River water and runoff from the abutting mountains in
the Coachella Valley. Pumping more water from the aquifer than replaced is considered an
'overdraft' situation. Furthermore, " ... the valley has some of the heaviest water use in
California, and uses considerably more per person than other desert cities such as Phoenix
and Las Vegas. The valley also has some of the lowest water rates in California." For
example, Valley water averages benveen $1.16 to $183 per 100 cubic feet while San Diego
averages $3.98 and San Francisco is approximately $4.85. Per the newspaper, baseline water
use is 591 gallons per day for CVWD and 736 gallons per day for DWA. The Districts state
the number is inflated because it does not take into account the seasonal residents. Per capita
water usage in Las Vegas is 219 gallons/day and Phoenix is an average of 110 gallons/day.
Therefore, the valley is, on average, 5X more a water user than other urban desert regions.
(The water lawsuit is set to be heard in Feb. 2015.)
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 43
No one knows exactly how much water the CV aquifer holds. "Water agencies have calculated
the cumulative overdraft since the 1970s at more than 5.3 million acre-feet of water. That's
enough to jtll more than 2.6 million Olympic swimming pools, with each acre-foot equivalent
to 325,851 gallons." As noted in the article, water demand is expected to increase in the
Valley as noted:
a ey ater D eman dP. ro,1ectt01LS
2010 12015 12020 12025 I 2030 I 2035 I 2040
678,600 I 69s,100 I 719,100 I 7s2,ooo I 783,Joo I s1?,100 I sso,soo
Note: Using acre-feet. Between 2015 and 2020 the water increase will be 23,700 acre-feet, a 3% increase.
"Water use has de creased somewhat in the valley in recent years, and the reasons include the
recession-driven downturn in construction as well as tiered water rates and other conservation
measures." From 2010 to 2012, "a total of 903,650 acre-feet from the Colorado River poured
into ponds to replenish the aquifer. Those quantities by far surpassed the 528,116 acre-feet
seen during the entire previous decade from 2000 to 2009. "
Although 47% of the Valley water usage is farming, most farms are irrigated by Colorado
River water instead of groundwater. Over the last 20 years many farms have converted to
various irrigation systems to reduce water consumption, with some going to drip irrigation
systems ( e.g., grapes, etc.). Golf courses typically use 1 million gallons of water per day or 3
acre-feet. Large water users in Rancho Mirage were reported to be Mission Hills Country
Club (4,807 acre-feet) and The Estate at Sunnylands (1,646 acre-feet). Sunnylands personnel
state that they eliminated 50 acres of turf and installed a new, high performance irrigation
system in the last two years. Lake Mirage personnel state that their water usage was 725 acre-
feet in 2008 and now they believe this year it will be 510 acre-feet, a reduction of 215 acre-feet
or 70M gallons. Costs for water vary depending if it is groundwater or Colorado River water
from $42 per acre-foot to $110 per acre-foot. Today, a total of 19 golf courses receive treated
sewage for irrigation, including 5 courses supplied by DWA and 14 by CVWD. Per CVWD,
they'd like all existing 22 courses to use recycled water, Colorado River water or a blending of
both. CVWD's Mid-Valley pipeline (2009) was built to bring canal water from Indio to the
Palm Desert treatment plant to help provide water to upper valley golf course users.
Per comments from the Coachella Valley Water District, this development lies within the study
area of the 2010 Water Management Plan Update. The groundwater basin in the Coachella
Valley is in a state of overdraft. Each new development contributes incrementally to the
overdraft. CVWD has a Water Management Plan in place to reduce the overdraft to the
groundwater basin. The elements of the Water Management Plan include supplemental
imported water, source substitution and water conservation. The plan lists specific actions for
reducing overdraft. With the following mitigation, the project level impacts would be
considered less than significant (General Plan BIR, page 5-321):
This project is consistent with the General Plan, and the implementation of the General Plan
Update, which contains goals, policies, and programs encouraging water conservation. The
City has adopted an ordinance ( 17.24.025 Incorporation by reference-Coachella Valley
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 44
Water District Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.1) to require water
conserving landscape design including the use of native desert plants, drought resistant
landscaping, and efficient irrigation technology in private and public landscaping
applications. In addition, the CVWD indicated in the General Plan Update that the District
has siiffkient water supply to meet the anticipated demand of the proposed implementation of
the General Plan (General Plan EIR, page 5-156).
Mitigation IX (b) 1: The elements and actions described in the updated CVWD Water
Management Plan shall be incorporated into the design of this development to reduce its
negative impact on the Coachella Valley groundwater basin.
In 2003, the Coachella Valley Water District adopted a landscape model ordinance that
calls for the use of water efficient vegetation in new and remodeled landscaping.
c) Substantially alter the existing D
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on-or off-site?
□ □
Response: Section 13.05.010 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code requires on-site retention
of storm water with the development of undeveloped properties of one gross acre or more in
size located north of the Whitewater River Channel for the volume of runoff resulting from a
JOO-year storm with a time duration that generates the maximum storm water volume.
The site is relatively flat and contains no streams or rivers. There are no "Waters of the
United States" or swface waters that have drainage paths across the property. The proposed
retention basins, which are dispetsed throughout the 33 acre project site will act as terminal
retention basins for the storm runoff; percolation will occur at the basins after rainfall events.
The project is designed to accept existing storm water flows and accommodate storm water on
site to the JOO-year, 24-hour storm. The project is within the scope of the existing General
Plan EIR and no additional impacts beyond those already ident(f1ed will occur (General Plan
EIR, Existing Regulations Section 5.7.4, page 5-155, 5-161, 5-164).
d) Substantially alter the existing D
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-or off-site?
Response: See response to IX (c)
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
□ □
Page 45
e) Create or contribute runoff water D
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Response: See Response to IX ( c) and ( d).
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water D
quality?
Response: See Response to IX (a).
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood D
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
□ □
□ □
□ □
Response: 171e project site is not located within a Floocl Hazard Area (General Plan BIR
Figure 5.7-5) and the project would not place housing within a JOO-year flood hazard area.
The flood zone map indicates that the property is within Flood Zone X Unshaded (FIRM Panel
Number 06065 1595 G, August 28, 2008) which indicates minimal .flooding. Therefore,
impacts related to storm .flows will be less than significant.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard D
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
Response: See Response to IX (g).
i) Expose people or structures to a D
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
□ □
□ □
Response: This project is not within close proximity of any dam or levee. This project as a
part of implementing the General Plan would not expose people or structures to flooding as a
result of a levee or dam. Moreover, the hazard of earthquake-induced dam inundation in the
Rancho Mirage area is considered nil (Also see response to IX (g); General Plan BIR, page 5-
158).
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or D
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
□ □
Page 46
mudflow?
Response: Although rnudflows and seiche.s (predominantly localized near swimming pools or
with reservoir tanks upslope from developed areas near Magnesia Spring Canyon) are a
potential hazard in the City, this project is not located near a large body of water or slope that
would cause such impact. Due to the geographical location of the project, there would not be
an impact by seiche, tsunami or mudflow hazards (General Plan EIR, page 5-159).
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established D
community?
□ □
Response: The implernentation of the project will preserve the established community, is
consistent with implementation of the General Plan, and will not result in the physical division
of an established community. The project is consistent with programs that encourage the
preservation or enhancenient of the existing community through infill development and open
space opportunities, as well as the continuance of the City's resort/residential character and
development of compatible uses that will enhance the existing character of Rancho Mirage
(Official Land Use and Zoning Map, General Plan EIR, page 5-184).
b) Conflict with any applicable land use D
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
□ □
Response: The project, as designed, is consistent with the City General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. The 2005 General Plan is consistent with the ten core policies of SCAG's
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) that are relevant to the proposed project.
Furthermore, the General Plan is consistent with the majority of SCAG's ancillary/advisory
policies. The consistency of the General Plan with each of SCAG's applicable regional
policies is described in Table 5.8-5 of the General Plan. This table also demonstrates that the
General Plan contains policies that encourage the City to participate in regional programs
and issues. The project is not located within the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Reservation boundary.
Upon implementation of the programs, regulatory requirements and standard conditions of
approval identified in Section 5.85 of the General Plan EIR, the impacts would be less than
significant.
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 47
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat D
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Response: See response to X (a) -Biological resources.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES --Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a D
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
□ □
□ □
Response: All areas ,vithin the City south of Interstate 10 are within Mineral Resource Zones
(MRZ) 1 and 3 (Figure 5.9-1 General Plan EIR). MRZ-1 is defined as a Mineral Resource
Zone where adequate information indicates that no sign(ficant mineral deposits are present or
likely to be present. MRZ-3 is a Mineral Resource Zone where the significance of mineral
deposits cannot be determined from the available data. The project site is located within MR-
I, and upon implementation of regulatory requirements and General Plan Update policies, the
impacts would be less than significant (General Plan EIR, page 5-200, 5-205).
b) Result in the loss of availability of a D
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
Response: See response to XI (a).
XII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation D
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
□ □
□ □
Response: The project is not sited within the 65 dBA CNEL contours as shown on Table 5.10-
9 in the City's General Plan EIR. The City Noise Element indicates that exterior noise levels
at residential locations should not exceed a CNEL of 65 dB while interior levels shall not
exceed an annual CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room. The project will be in compliance
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 48
with City Noise Element requirements for exterior and interior noise levels.
Chapter 8.45 of the Municipal Code shows the following dBA for low density residential areas
in the City at certain times during the day. A 45 dBA rating is required between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when people are the most sensitive to outdoor noise.
Land Use/Zone Time o.f Dav Noise Level (dBA)
Low Density Residential -R-E, H-R, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. 55
R-L-2 and R-L-3 6 p.m. to JO p.m. 50
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 45
Medium/High Density Res., Hospital, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. 60
Open Space (OS, R-M, R-H, MHP) 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. 55
JO p.m. to 7 a.m. 50
Special Exemption Provision 8.45.0SOE -Construction and grading noise are exempt provided
the work hours comply with Section J 5.04.030(A)( JO) of the RMMC.
Note: 45 dBA is equal to normal refrigerator noise while a normal conversation at 5' is 55
dBA. Typical suburban daytime noise is 50 dBA.
Title 24 of the Building Code establishes uniform noise insulation standards for residential
projects. The interior noise standard is 45 dBA in any habitable room. To create an indoor
space to comply with the 45 dBA, exterior windows and doors are rated 28-30 using a Sound
Transmission Class (STC). Wall construction typically includes l" of stucco, batt insulation
with 2X4 studs, and gypsum board which is a 45 STC rating. Therefore, an acoustic study was
not required for the project because the site is not adjacent to an Arterial thoroughfare. The
City Building Official will review the construction plans to insure compliance with Title 24
standards.
Typical noise levels during different construction stages are as follows: 84 -Ground clearing,
89 -Excavation, 78 -Foundations, 85 -Erection, and 89 -Finishing. Average noise levels
correspond to a distance of 50' from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given
phase of construction. and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase.
Typical noise levels from construction activities and construction equipment is as follows:
Dump truck 88, Portable air compressor 81, Concrete mixer (truck) 85, Scraper 88,
Jackhammer 88,, Dozer 87, Paver 89, Generator 76, Backhoe 85, and Rock Drilling 98.
(Source: Bolt, Baranek, and Newman, 1971; Cunniff; 1977).
Construction noise, a temporary nuisance, is subject to the provisions of Chapter 8.45 of the
Municipal Code, which states: "Construction, alteration, repair, grading or improvement of
any building, structure, road or improvement to real property for which a pennit has been
issued by the city if said construction occurs within the allowable hours set forth in Section
15.04.030(A)(J0)." Construction work shall not occur between the hours of 7:00 p.m. of each
day and 7:00 a.m. of the next succeeding day or on Sundays and holidays, without written
permission of the Building Official being first obtained. The Building Official may grant
permission to work during those periods under appropriate circumstances after first having
determined that such work will not unduly or unreasonably inte,j-'ere with the peaceful
enjoyment of property adjacent to such work.
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 49
The proposed project would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of established standards, nor would the proposed project result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels or otherwise be substantially affected by existing
noise. With implementation of regulatory housing requirements and standard conditions of
approval, the project related impacts would be less than significant (General Plan EIR, page 5-
218, 5-240)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation D
of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
□ □
Response: This project is surrounded by lo cal streets having low traffic volumes and low noise
levels. The tracts interior streets are private, gated, and will accommodate vehicle trips from
98 dwelling units. Monterey Avenue, the nearest arterial, has a CNEL contour of 404 feet to
the 65 dBA line. Since this project is more than 560 feet from Monterey Avenue, no noise
impact will occur (General Plan EIR, Table 5.10-9).
c) A substanlial permanent increase in D
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
□ □
Response: No new i11f'ormation of substantial importance would alter the findings and
conclusions in the previous EIR and the proposed use is consistent with all Elements of the
General Plan (Also See response to XII (a)).
d) A substantial temporary or periodic D
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
□ □
Response: Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction. First, the
transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site could incrementally
increase noise levels along local access roads. The second type of short-term noise impact is
related to noise generated at the job site during site preparation, grading and/or physical
construction. This project is consistent with the General Plan Update and no additional or
new environmental effects would occur that have not already been analyzed as a result of
project implementation. Compliance with City Ordinances is mandatory and as such, does not
constitute mitigation under CEQA. Upon implementation of the programs, regulatory
requirements and standard conditions of approval, no significant impacts will occur (CEQA
Section 15162, General Plan EIR, page 5-217, 5-218)
e) For a project located within an airport D
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
□ □
Page SO
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Response: Aircraft from the Palm Springs International Airport also contribute to this noise.
The City is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL contours of this airport or any private airports
(General Plan BIR, page 5-215).
f) For a project within the vicinity of a D
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
□ □
Response: There is no private airstrip in the vicinity of the project site (See response to XII
(e)).
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING --
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth D
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
□ □
Response: In terms of population growth, current forecast information for California suggests
that the recession is not expected to have long-term impacts. Since the current recession is
nationwide, California is not losing as many people to other states as it did during the
economic slowdown in the 1990s. In the near term, the State's population is not projected to
hit the peak annual growth of over 700,000 reached in the 1980s. However, average annual
population growth of nearly 500,000 or 1.3 percent is projected over the next decade, leading
California to reach a statewide population of over 44 million people by 2020 and over 51
million people by 2035.
The project would develop 98 homes on approximately 33 acres (less than 3 dwelling units per
acre). The project is consistent with the Rancho Mirage General Plan and General Plan EIR
which plans for growth 20 years into the future to 2025. This project does not cause a
significant growth inducing impact by itself, and the statement of overriding considerations
made by the General Plan EIR considers the cumulative impact of building out the General
Plan. No new or unanticipated environmental effects would be caused by this project not
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 51
previously covered in the EIR, and no new information of substantial importance would alter
the findings and conclusions in the previous EIR. Therefore, this project is consistent with the
provisions of CEQA Section 15162, and no further assessment is required (General Plan EIR,
page 5-245, 5-250, CEQA Section 15162).
b) Displace substantial numbers of D
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
□ □
Response: The project site is currently vacant and no displacement will occur.
c) Displace substantial numbers of D
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
□ □
Response: The project site is currently vacant and no displacement will occur.
XIV . PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□
□
□
□
□
Page 52
Response -Police and Fire Services: The population growth associated with the development
of this project will not surpass the growth predicted by the General Plan, and the policies of
the General Plan require that develope,-s provide adequate utilities and public facilities
associated ·with development.
The additional police and fire personnel, building and material costs caused by this project
would be offset through the increased revenue and fees generated by the development. As a
result, siifficient revenue would be available for necessary service improvements to provide for
adequate police and fire facilities, equipment and personnel upon implementation of the
project consistent with the provisions of the General Plan. The Existing Regulations identified
on page 5-253 of the General Plan EIR along with project S']Jecijic mitigation measures would
serve to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed project to levels determined to be less
than signifzcant (General Plan BIR, page 5-253):
Mitigation XIV (a) 1: Participation in Community Facilities Districts to mitigate the
impact on police and fire protection resources.
Impact Level after Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Response --Schools:
Estimated Student Generation
Grade Level Potential Build-Student Generation Projected Build-
out Units Rate out Enrollment
Elementary (K-6) 98 0.29 28.4
Middle School (7-8) 98 0.14 13.7
High School (9-12) 98 0.18 17.6
Mitigation: The proposed project is required to pay school impact fees under Senate
Bill #50. Payment of these fees would offset impacts from increased demand for school
services associated with build-out of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan by
providing an adequate financial base to construct and equip new and existing schools.
As shown below, development fees for 98 single-family units have the potential to result
in a developer fee of over $672,000 for homes that are about 2,000 sf. The school
developer fee will be assessed at the time a construction permit is requested based on the
actual square footage of residential dwelling.
Projected School Developer Fees
Land Use
Single-Family
Total
Estimated Square
Feet Per Unit
2,000
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
# of Units
Planned
98
Total Square Estimated
Feet School Fee
196,000 est. $3.43/sq. ft.
$68 600 est.
Page 53
Source: $3.43 per square foot (Sept. 2013). In 2004 the fee was $2.14 per sq. ft.
The Existing Regulations identified in the General Plan ElR (page 5-259) would reduce
potential impacts associated with school services to a level that is less than significant.
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to Schools have been identified and
the impact is considered to be less than significant.
Response -Library Services: Development Impact Fee of the City of Rancho Mirage provides
a mechanism for funding for libraries and library furnishings. The City of Rancho Mirage
institutes a development fee on new development within the City to finance public facilities,
including libraries, which are required to mitigate the impacts of development in the City.
Compliance with payment of the Development Impact Fee is mandatory. No other significant
unavoidable adverse impacts related to Library Services have been identified and the impact is
considered to be less than significant.
Response -Parks: Development Impact Fee of the City of Rancho Mirage provides a
mechanism for funding for parks. The City of Rancho Mirage institutes a development fee on
new development within the City to finance public facilities, including parks, which are
required to mitigate the impacts of development in the City. Compliance with payment of the
Development Impact Fee is mandatory. No other significant unavoidable adverse impacts
related to Library Services have been identified and the impact is considered to be less than
significant.
Response -Other:
Sewer: In 2003, Mr. Peter Solomon, representing Regency Hornes during the construction of
Versailles (Tract 29065), established a program to reimburse Regency Homes for working
with the Coachella Valley Water District to install a sewer lift station that would benefit other
properties to the north and west of his development (Council Resolution 2003-34). This site
borders the benefit area but does not have to pay the sewer fee because at the time of the
program Mr. Solomon held title to site. Based on the land transfer, the fee exception was
transferred to the current owners unless Mr. Solomon produces documentation that this
allowance was not granted when the property was sold.
Water: In 1999 and 2000, the City met with Section 30 property owner to see if there was
interest to do an assessment district to complete water, sewer and street improvements. The
district was never formed. Estimated off-site improvement costs for a 5-acre parcel was
$35,000 to $40,000 in 1999 based on an estimated improvement cost of $900,000 per mile. In
2003 MSA Consulting determined that a new 12" to 18" water line was needed for Via
Josefina to allow built-out of surrounding residential areas. To date, the line has not been
installed.
The letter from Mr. D. Andrew Avila, Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal -Coves
Communities Fire Dept. for TTM 30210 in 2004 states:
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 54
"Re: Water Infrastructure for Fire protection, Section 30
With respect to the area of undeveloped land in the City commonly referred to as "Section 30",
the City Fire Marshal office advises the City there is insufficient infrastructure for fire
protection in many areas within that section. This is due to either; no public water available for
fire fighting, inadequate water pipe size to deliver basic fire flows and/or, inadequate hydrant
spacing. The City requirements for basic fire flows are as follows:
• Single Family Residence -1500 gallons per minute (gpm)
•Multi-family Residence -2500 gpm
•Commercial/Industrial -3000 gpm
• Up to 50% reduction may be allowed if building is provided with a fire sprinkler
system.
According to the Coachella Valley Water District map on file with this office, there are 4-and
6-inch water lines serving some areas. Usually, a minimum 6-inch line is needed to serve a
single family dwelling while a minimum 8-inch water line is needed to serve multi-family and
commercial developments.
As your Fire Marshal, I recommend all prospective developers within this area known as
"Section 30" be well advised their project proposal may not be feasible due to this lack of
infrastructure.
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please advise."
Due to the recession, CVWD issued less than 500 water meters per year from 2009-2013.
Prior to 2009 to 2004, the District averaged 2,500 or more (2004 & 2006 = 4,500/yr.) per the
District's 2013-2014 Fiscal Report. Per CVWD, in order to become an "efficient" water user,
homeowners, HOAs and businesses need to install smart irrigation controllers, subsidized by
the District, that will, on average, assist homeowners in reducing their water bills by 26%."
As part of the 2012 Settlement Agreement with CVWD over the Section 19 Specific Plan
(SP090001)/EIR approval (Quorum Realty Fund V, LLC v. CVWD-Case No. Inc. 10009866),
the property owners (Quorum Realty), CVWD and the City of Rancho Mirage are jointly
paying to construct the new water transmission line that will start north of Interstate JO and
head south to serve Sections 13, 19 and 24. This project is estimated to cost $9.3M with the
City contributing $4.1 Mand CVWD contributing $4.1 M.
CVWD's letter of September 27, 2013, states that the District "will provide domestic water and
sanitation service to this area and such service will be subject to the satisfaction of terms and
conditions established by CVWD and exercised from time to time, including but not limited to
fees and charges, water conservation measures, etc." However, access to water meters will
not occur until 2015 because the District needs to build a 3.2M gallon reservoir in the I-10
area and a 36" diameter transmission line to serve the Mission Hills area, including Section
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 55
30.
Mitigation XIV (a) 2: No City permits shall be issued for improvements upon said
property (grading, etc.) until the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) completes the
Mission Hills Pressure Zone Improvement Project which includes a new reservoir and
trunk line to serve the zone (with a current anticipated completion date of December
2015) and said project becomes operational. Alternatively, CVWD may submit a "will-
serve" letter to the City dictating the terms and conditions associated with the provision
of water service prior to issuance of City permits.
Mitigation XIV (a) 3: A covenant shall be recorded on the property to the satisfaction of
the City Attorney requiring CVWD to complete the Mission Hills Pressure Zone
Improvement Project or alternatively a "will-serve letter to the City from CVWD
dictating the terms and conditions prior to issuance of City permits.
Electri city: The savings estimates below include the 2010 and 2013 rev1s10ns to Title 24
building standards as well as AB No. 1109 (Hoffman, 2007) lighting and TV savings.
CA Energy Demand 2014-2024 Prelim. Forecast
Year SCE Planning Areas -Electricity Consumption Savings (Gigawatt Hours -
GWH) -Residential
Bldg. Standards Appliance Standards
2012 2,791 6,579
2015 3,082 8,322
2020 3,700 10,324
2024 4,127 11,189
CA Energy Demand 2014-2024 Prelim. Forecast
Year SCE Planning Areas Electricity Peak Demand Savings (Megawatts -MW) -
Residential
Bld2. Standards Appliance Standards
2012 844 1,989
2015 958 2,586
2020 1,147 3,200
2024 1,254 3,400
Note: Gigawatt hours= I million kilowatt hours. Megawatts= 1 million watts.
Energy savings features are:
Low-E glass in new windows is a technical advance that uses a nearly invisible coating
on the inside layer of the window glass. The Low-E coating blocks heat energy while allowing
nearly all of the visible light to pass through. This new technology reduces summer heat gain
and the damaging ultraviolet rays that fade curtains, sofas and other fabrics. The efficiency of
the windows is measured in U-factor and SHGC: the lower the U-factor and the SHGC the
more efficient the window.
Water Heater 0.82 Energy Factor or higher provide a major improvement on a home's
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 56
overall energy budget. Many systems now have improved efficiencies which can help lower
utility bills on an annual basis. Tankless ·water heaters, as an example, can save energy in
three ways: heating only the water needed for use, preventing heat loss of hot water stored for
long periods of nonuse, and preventing the heat cycling of maintaining a set temperature in a
tank type water heater. This is just one way to reduce emissions into the environment,
differentiate your community, increase the efficiency of your homes and help decrease monthly
utility bills.
Attic and wall insulation have long been known as e_ffective tools in saving energy. R-
38 attic insulation is increasingly common. New insulation products allow increased
insulation in walls without having to increase_ wall thickness. The biggest advance in
insulation is improvements in the installation techniques. Commonly called Quality Insulation
Installation ( QI!), these methods can improve the effectiveness of insulation by simply
following specific installation guidelines.
All engineered duct system with properly sized and insulated ducts that are sealed and
pressure tested, significantly improves the overall system, efjfriency. A good duct system helps
ensure more uniform airflow throughout the house, improving comfort. And the sealed ducts
reduce wasted heating and cooling dollars.
Ducts in Conditioned Space increases the e.ffzciency of the air distribution system for
the home. Not having to cool a hot duct in the summer or heat a cold duct in the winter helps
to maintain the room temperatures of the home and reduce overall energy use of the system.
Ducts Sealed & Tested help ensure the conditioned air is distributed properly to each
room in the residence. This increases both the comfort level of the home and the consumer.
Properly sealing ducts helps lower utility bills on an annual basis by reducing the amount of
conditioned air that can be lost to an attic or woll through cracks in the ducting system. Also,
tested ducts help to improve the indoor air quality of the home by reducing the amount of dust,
pollen and other contaminates from entering openings in the duct work and being distributed
into the home.
Solid Waste: Between 2000 and 2012, the total population of the City of Rancho Mirage
increased by 4,255 to 17,504 in 2012. During this 12-year period, the city's population
growth rate of32.1% was lower than the Riverside County rate of 44.1%.
Per the EPA (2009), Americans generate about 243 million tons of trash, and recycled and
composted 82 million tons of this material, equivalent to a 33.8% recycling rate. On average,
the recycling/composted rate was 1.46 pounds per person with a waste generation rate of 4.34
pounds/person/day. Solid waste estimates are 1.0 cubic yard (203 gallons) per day per 20
people which is less than a studio apartment unit. Daily waste generation is JO
gallons/person. This figure is an average and takes into account other users within the overall
complex (i.e., restaurant, etc.). These guidelines are approximate and can vary depending
upon the end user and recycling measures taken to reduce overall daily waste.
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 57
1sposa IT 011S-anc o ll'a2e R h M"
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
35,181 30,960 25,826 23,605 23,767
# of Programs Population Disposal Employment Employment
Implemented Target Annual Target Annual
42-2007 14.7 11.4 20.2 15.4
43 -2008 14.7 10 20.2 13.5
44 -2009 14.7 8.2 20.2 11.5
45 -2010 14.7 7.5 20.2 11.7
46 -2011 14.7 7.5 20.2 10.1
Somce: July 1, 2013 Riverside County (RCIWMP) -2013 5-Yr. Review Reporl
Year MSW Recycling Total Percentage
Tonnage Tonna£e Tonna£e Recycled
2010 23,604.96 42,156.36 65,761.32 64%
2011 23,767.18 44,371.51 68,138.69 65%
Source: Public Works Division (Jan. 2014)
Riverside County trash facilities serving Rancho Mirage are: 1) Coachella Valley trans.fer
station and 2) Edom Hill. Edom Hill, formerly a regional la11dfill site, is designated as a
transfer station and materials recovery facility operated by Burrtec (2004 opened). Desert
Solutions, a contingent facility, is a permitted facility that is not yet built. A transfer station is
an approved facility for accepting commercial, residential, and industrial waste from internal
and external clients. Tran"~f'er stations serve as a local collection point to the final disposal
site.
Pursuant to the City Council's approval of the 6-Year Burrtec contract on February 6, 2014,
the recycling goals.for the City are:
Calendar Verif. Date Required # of
Year Food-Generating
AB 341 Customers
2014 By 1-31-2015
2015 By 1-31-2016
2016 Bv 1-31-2017
2017 By 1-31-2018
2018 Bv 1-31-2019
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
34
39
44
49
54
Required % of Required % of
Non-Food Multi-family
Generating AB AB 341
341 Customers Customers
60% 60%
70% 70%
80% (75-85%) 80% (75-85%)
90% (80-100%) 90% (80-100%)
100% (90%) 100 (90%)
Page 58
Note (Page 10 of contract) -"Unless and until the City designated in writing a different
Disposal Site, Contractor shall continue to deliver all MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) to the Edom
Hill Transfer Station. It is the understanding of both parties that the operator of the transfer
station (Burrtec Recycling and Transfer, LLC, an Affiliate of Contractor) will transport all MSW
to the Badlands Landfill, Lambs Canyon Landfill or the El Sobrante Landfill for ultimate
disposal." Page 12 -Unless otherwise notified, single stream recyclable materials will be sent to
Escondido. Food scraps shall be delivered to the Coachella Valley Composting Facility which is
operated by Burrtec. Yard waste shall go to Edom Hill (Burrtec) and then to Colmac Energy.
Construction debris shall be directed to SA Recycling, Granite, and/or Desert Recycling.
Exhibit A -Paue 7 of 23 ....
Dwelling Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Recycling at no additional
charge
Home, Location -Times Billing Location of Times
Nongatcd on collected per Method-Collection -Collected Per
public street Backyard or wk. -Curbside, Wk.-
sideyard -60' Individual backyard or
one-way Twice Customer sideyard Once
Attached Same as Once or twice Same as Same as Once
(condos, etc.) above or above above
in a gated curbside
dcv. w/HOA
Homes or Same as Same as Central Same as Once
attached above above billing above
housing in
gated dev. w/
HOA or
Property
Manager
Gated MHP Same as Same as Same as Same as Once
with HOA or above above above above
Property
Manager
Residential Rates (to June 30, 2014)
Single Family Home $16.93 to over $22 depending upon the
Condo/Apartments -Walk-in Service
Same -Curb Service
Same -Central Billing/Gated Walk-in
Same -Gated/Curbside
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
service needs
$13.51 (once a wk. service)
$16.93 (2X per wk.)
$11.74 -Once per wk.
$14.48 -2X per wk.
$13.28 -Once per wk.
$16.23 -2X per wk.
$11.40-Once per wk.
$14.17 -2X per wk.
Page 59
Mobile Home Park -Walk-in $12.21 -Once per wk.
$14.17 -2X per wk.
Same -Curb service $10.16 ~ Once per wk.
$12.76 -2X per wk.
Commercial Rates (3 yard bin example only)
Collection 1/week $107.26 + 25% for recycling ($26.82) = $134.08
2/wk. $192.84 + 25% ($48.21)
3/wk. $285.68 + 25% ($71.42)
4/wk. $363 .12 + 25% ($90.78)
5/wk. $449.63 + 25% ($112.41)
6/wk. $534.70 + 25% ($133.69)
Edom Hill can accommodate 3,500 tons/day on 21.9 acres while the composing area (3.6
acres of the 21.9 ac. site) can accommodate 500 tons/day. Composting includes
construction/demolition and green materials. Non-composting materials include agriculture,
construction/demo., dead animals, food waste, green materials, industrial, metals, mixed
municipal, tires and wood waste. Permitted traffic volume per day is 1,097 for transfer site
and 206 for green waste. The CVTS has been in operation since July 5, 2000, and it is
currently operated by Burrtec under contract with the cities of Coachella and Indio acting as a
Joint Powers Authority, who lease the 14.47 acres from the Riverside County Waste
Management District ( RCWMD) abutting the Coachella landfill ( closed). CVTS is currently
permitted to process and compost a maximum of 250 tons per day of green waste and plant-
basedfood waste (local landscapers, golf courses, farmers, and the general public) as well as
accepting 12,500 gallons per day of grease trap liquids. The current SWFP permits 169
vehicles to use the facility each business day. The food waste comes from restaurants,
institutions, grocery stores and any other food waste collection programs established by any of
the Coachella Valley cities. Food waste represents both pre-consumer (grocery stores) and
post-consumer (restaurants, hospitals). CV Compost operates under a Solid Waste Facility
Permit (SWFP No. 33-AA-0292), issued by the Riverside County Local Enforcement Agency
(LEA), a branch of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health.
Coachella Valley Compost, 87011 Landfzll Road, Riv. Co. (2014 ): A Draft EIR (Solid Waste
Facility Permit Revision) is being prepared by Riverside County Waste Management District
( RCWMD) to increase the amount of feedstock and grease trap liquids from 250 to 785 tons
per day (up to 450 tons/day for composting), and from 12,500 to 55,000 gallons per day,
respectively. The amount of vehicles permitted to enter the facility would increase from 169 to
536 per day. Burrtec has also requested an expansion of the site from 35.27 acres to 40.60
acres in order to accept construction and demolition material for recycling (200 tons/day) as
well as upgrading the whole facility by moving the scale and scale house to allow additional
vehicle queuing capacity between the front gate and the scale house, adding an office and
employee break room and a wastewater disposal system to accommodate the additional
employees ( an increase from 8 to 49 employees at future peak operation.). The request also
includes expanding the operation from 6 to 7 days per week.
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 60
Recvcling -Collected at curb or inside the yard or backyard at no cost once per week. Call
760-340-2113 for a free wheeled 32-gallon cart with a lid to conveniently put all your
recyclables in for pick-up. Materials you can recycle include new.1papers, magazines, junk
mail, telephone books, ofjfre and computer paper, cereal boxes and egg cartons, cardboard,
metal cans, glass and all types r4"plastics.
Bulky Item Picktt/l. -Burrtec offers free pickup of bulky items to individual, residential account
holders living in the City. Bulky items include mattresses, chairs, washers, dryers, TVs, etc.
Bulky items will be picked up on the resident's normal trash day but an appointment is
necessary.
Mitigation: Burrtec is the service provider for this area and will work with the future
homeowners to make sure a recycling prograrn is established to comply with A.B939 State of
California goals.
XV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of D
existing neighborhood and regional parks
· or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
□ □
Response: The impact that residential development has on neighborhood, regional parks and
other recreational facilities should consider the average age of the City's population and the
fact that many residents live in gated communities containing private recreation amenities
(General Plan ElR, page 5-271). The extent to which the City of Rancho Mirage can plan and
implement parks, trails and other recreational facilities is related to the availability of funding.
The Quimby Act is a funding mechanism for parkland acquisition. Under this act, residential
subdivisions must dedicate parkland or pay an in-lieu fee to enable the City to acquire a ratio
of three (3) acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City collects Quimby Act in-lieu fees to
generate funds for park acquisition and support. The Quimby Act does not provide dedication
or fees for the City's trail system. The construction of parks and bicycle paths in Rancho
Mirage is primarily funded by the City's development impact fee. The impact fee has been
established to collect fees from new developments that create a need for public facilities such
as parks. Upon implementation of the project design features, regulatory requirements, and
standard conditions of approval, the impacts would be less than significant (General Plan EIR,
page 5-271, 5-274).
b) Does the project include recreational D
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
□ □
Page 61
Response: The implementation of the project will result in the incremental fair-share need for
parks and recreational facilities. When parks and recreational facilities are proposed, they
will be processed in accordance with the City Municipal Code and CEQA regulations. Some
proposed trails, if expanded, have the potential to impact sensitive biological areas within the
Santa Rosa Mountains. However, the General Plan Update contains goals, policies and
programs to mitigate potential adverse impacts to the environment that may result from build
out of the General Plan. Future discretionary and environ.mental review is required for the
development of parks and recreational facilities along with the implementation of project
design features, regulatory requirements, and standard conditions of approval would render
the impacts of the subject project to be less than sign(ficant (General Plan EIR, page 5-271, 5-
274).
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is D
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
□ □
Response: In the summer of 1999, the City Council approved General Plan/Zone Map
Amendment Case No. GPA99003, Monterey Specific Plan Amendment SPA99001 and
Environmental Assessment EA990007, a request to establish an internal circulation plan for
Section 30 (640 acres), including a trail system. Approximately 47 acres of the master planned
area will set up for public roads. City Council Resolution 99-30 approved Alternative Street
System No. 3 for Section 30 along with a multi-use trail. Ordinance #752, approved by the
City Council on June 7, 2001, allowed changes to the trail system using Spec(fic Plan
Amendment Case No. SPA0J00J and Environmental Assessment Case No. EA010006. A
review of the traffic report for Section 30 in 2000 by RKJK & Associates showed that the
Ginger Rogers Road connection to Via Josefina to future Street "D" to Monterrey Avenue will
have 3,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day when all the streets are constructed.
The project would permit the construction of up to 98 dwelling units which would roughly
translate into approximately 980 trips per day. Even if each dwelling had one peak hour trip,
it would cause 98 additional vehicles at the intersection of Via Josephina and Via Florencia.
The trips will be dispersed onto Via Josephina and either head north or south. The three
intersections that would be the most impacted would be the intersection of Bob Hope Drive
and Ginger Rogers Road, the intersection of Gerald Ford Drive and Oasis Way, and the
intersection of Dinah Shore Drive and Key Largo A venue. The project does not substantially
increase traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system, and is
consistent with the 2005 General Plan. All intersections affected by the project, both at the
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 62
existing condition and at build-out, are at or above LOS D, the City's threshold of significance.
The Circulation Element includes improvements necessary to maintain desired levels of service
in the City at build-out.
The 2005 General Plan notes that while the Key Largo/I-JO Freeway overpass has been
proposed to relieve congestion at five key intersections (Bob Hope Drive/Ramon Road, Bob
Hope Drive/Dinah Shore Drive, Monterey Avenue /Dinah Shore Drive, DaVall Drive/Ramon
Road, and DaVall Road/Dinah Shore Drive) the overcrossing is in the County of Riverside
jurisdiction, and therefore, was be considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact
because the City has no control over the implementation or timing of this improvement. A
Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted concurrent with the 2005 General Plan
Update approval.
If the City develops the fee benefit area for the construction of the Key Largo overcrossing
over the 1-10 Freeway, and the project is located within this zone of benefit, payment of the fee
is mandatory and as such, does not constitute mitigation under CEQA. With the
implementation of project design features, regulatory requirements, and standard conditions of
approval would render the impacts to be less than significant (General Plan BIR, page 5-301,
5-305).
b) Exceed, either individually or D
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways?
□ □
Response: The project is consistent with the adopted Circulation Element of the General Plan
and Section 30 Master Circulation Plan which includes improvements necessary to maintain
adequate levels of service in the City at build-out. (Also see Response to XVI (a); General
Plan EIR, page 5-302).
c) Result in a change in air traffic D
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
□ □
Response: Palm Springs International Airport is located 2. 7 miles to the west of the Rancho
Mirage City Limits. The western portion of Rancho Mirage within the airport's land use plan
area is within Zone E "Other Airport Environs" where the risk level and noise impact are low.
In Zone E, there is no restriction on maximum residential and nonresidential densities. The
project will not create any new building height standards or uses in the western part of the
City that would impact the airport or that would be impacted by the airport, and does not
include a stadium. The project is very low density residential limited to 20 feet/1 story in
height. Upon implementation of project design features, regulatory requirements, and
standard conditions of approval, the impacts would be less than significant (General Plan BIR,
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 63
page 5-302, 5-305).
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a D
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
□ □
Response: The proposed project is consistent with the 2005 General Plan and would result in
new local private streets, and the improvement of a planned public street, but would not
increase hazards due to a design feature or inadequate emergency access. The City has
adopted roadway design standards which would preclude the construction of any unsafe
design features. Iherefore, there would be no impacts to the circulation system or to
emergency access as a result of the proposed project (General Plan EIR, page 5-302).
e) Result in inadequate emergency D
access?
□ □
Response: California Fire Code requires secondary access for all dead end single access
roadways exceeding 500 feet, and as such the applicant is proposing to extend Street Lot R to
Monterey A venue to satisfy this requirement. The proposed path of travel is consistent with the
approved street network per the Section 30 Master Circulation Plan. Therefore, there would
be no inadequacies as they relate to emergency access.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? D □ □
Response: The pi·oject is single family residential in nature. Each parcel will have a minimum
of a two car garage. The properties have adequate room for parking on site (Project
description).
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, D
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
□ □
Response: The project is consistent with the General Plan (EIR Figure 5.14-2) where golf
cart, bicycle, and pedestrian pathways are located throughout the city. The SunBus Line
provides fixed route transit along major corridors in the City, and the City continues to work
with SunLine in regard to the placement of turn-outs and shelters along the routes. The
SunDial ( dial-a-ride type) service provides low cost public transportation for ADA certified
riders. Section 30 provides for multi-purpose trails in the required 19 foot wide parkway.
Although the previously adopted Design Guidelines for Section 30 dictated that a decomposed
granite trail is acceptable; maintenance and erosion of the trail proved unacceptable, and the
Council revised the Section 30 Design Guidelines (See Section I, Aesthetics). The project will
have a less than significant impact with adherence to the revised guidelines and adopted
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 64
policies, plans and programs for alternative transportation (General Plan EIR, page 5-303).
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS : Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment D
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
□ □
Response: The Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD) domestic water system serving the
city includes 15 wells, 9 above-ground storage reservoirs (water tanks) and an extensive
system of distribution lines ranging in size from 4 to 36 inches in diameter. This 98 dwelling
unit project will cause its incremental ''.fair share" of increase in demand for water and
increases in wastewater flow. The project does not by itself trigger the need for construction,
but does incrementally add to the cumulative effect, which leads to the construction of
additional treatment facilities or expansion of these facilities.
CVWD also provides sewer collection and treatment services for the city, with effluent being
conveyed to CVWD's Water Reclamation Plan No. 10 (WRP-10) on Cook Street in Palm
Desert. The capacity of WRP-10 is 18 million gallons per day, and has upgraded sewer lines
serving the city. CVWD has also expanded its non-potable water (recycled water) distribution
systems, adding additional go(f' course customers, and is modifying operations to allow 24-
hour delivery of tertiary treated water (Rancho Mirage General Plan 2005, Water, Sewer and
Utilities Element).
In 2005 the Palm Desert Treatment Plant was able to accept an additional 5 million gallons of
wastewater per day. As a result, the Palm Desert Treatment Plant would be able to accept
additional wastewater from the City of Rancho Mirage from build-out of the General Plan.
When the District decides that expansion of the plant is necessary, the expansion project would
undergo separate environmental view under CEQA. The impact of this project on the
construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities
would be considered less than significant (General Plan EIR, page 5-311, 5-321).
b) Require or result in the construction of D
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
□ □
Response: Per comments received from the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) which
are on file with the Planning Department, CVWD may need additional facilities to provide for
the orderly expansion of its sanitation systems. These facilities may include pipelines, wells,
reservoirs, booster pumping stations, lift stations, treatment plants and other facilities. The
developer may be required to install these facilities and provide land and/or easements on
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 65
which some of these facilities will be located. These sites shall be shown on the tract map as
lots and/or easements to be deeded to CVWD for such purpose.
c) Require or result in the construction of D
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
□ □
Response: All development one acre or greater in size north of the Whitewater River channel
are required to ensure that the existing and proposed storm water drainage system would be
designed to handle peak flows from a peak JOO-year storm event as stated within Section
13.05.010 of the City's Municipal Code. The proposed project will accommodate all storm
drainage in on-site storm water retention basins. The hydrology study for this project
demonstrates that the proposed retention basins have adequate capacity to retain the JOO-year,
24-hour storm runoff within the site boundaries, as well as maintain at least 1 foot of
freeboard between JOO -year water surface elevation in each basin and their adjacent building
pads. As a result of the entire 100-year, 24-hour on-site retention, there will he no increase to
downstream flow or any impact to existing storm drain facilities. (Also see Section IV
Hydrology). No further mitigation is required.
d) Have sufficient water supplies D
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
□ □
Response: Per comments provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) which are
on file at the Planning Department, CVWD has recently completed domestic water hydraulic
modeling studies for other projects located in the Mission Hills area. The hydraulic modeling
studies show that there is no surplus capacity in the domestic water system for domestic water
demand and fire flow requirements for new development. However, CVWD is currently
designing a 3.2 million gallon reservoir and a 36-inch diameter transmission main to serve the
Mission Hills area. It is anticipated that these facilities will be complete by December 2015.
The groundwater basin in the Coachella Valley is in a state of overdraft. Each new dwelling
unit contributes incrementally to the overdraft. CVWD has a Water Management Plan in
place to reduce the overdraft to the groundwater basin. The elements of the Water
Management Plan include supplemental imported water, source substitution and water
conservation. The plan lists specific actions for reducing overdraft. The elements and actions
described in the plan shall be incorporated into the design of this development to reduce its
negative impact on the Coachella Valley groundwater basin. With water conservation
techniques described in Section IX (b) and the following mitigation, the project level impacts
would be considered less than significant (General Plan EIR, page 5-321):
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 66
Mitigation XVII (d) 1: No City permits shall be issued for improvements upon said
property (grading, etc.) until the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) completes the
Mission Hills Pressure Zone Improvement Project which includes a new reservoir and
trunk line to serve the zone (with a current anticipated completion date of December
2015) and said project becomes operational. Alternatively, CVWD may submit a "will-
scrve" letter to the City dictating the terms and conditions associated with the provision
of water service prior to issuance of City permits.
Mitigation XVII (d) 2: A covenant shall be recorded on the property to the satisfaction of
the City Attorney requiring CVWD to complete the Mission Hills Pressure Zone
Improvement Project or alternatively a "will-serve letter to the City from CVWD
dictating the terms and conditions prior to issuance of City permits.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than significant.
e) Result in a determination by the D
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the projects
projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments?
□ □
Response: Per comments received from the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) which
are on.file at the Planning Department, CVWD will provide sanitation service to this area and
such service will he subject to the sati,\faction of terms and conditions established by CVWD
and exercised },-om time to time, including but not limited to fees and charges, water
conservation measures, etc.
CVWD may need additional facilities to provide for the orderly expansion of its sanitation
systems. These facilities may include pipelines, wells, reservoirs, booster pumping stations, lift
stations, treatment plants and other facilities. The developer may be required to install these
facilities and provide land and/or easements on which some of these facilities will be located.
These sites shall be shown on the tract map as lots and/or easements to be deeded to CVWD
for such purpose. As a result of these comments, impacts are considered less than significant.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient D
permitted capacity to accommodate the
projects solid waste disposal needs?
□ □
Response: Increases in population within the City of Rancho Mirage result in increases in
solid waste disposal needs. According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board,
residential and commercial users within the City of Rancho Mirage produced 30,826 tons of
solid waste in 2000 ( approximately 85 tons per day). Disposal Rates for the City of Rancho
Mirage are 2 pounds per resident per day for residential consumers. Therefore, based on the
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 67
average family size of 2.36 (2000 US Census), this 9 unit single family development would
increase the City's solid waste generation by one, one hundredth of a percent, per year.
Because many residential properties in the City are occupied on a seasonal basis, this figure
will be considerably lower.
The City of Rancho Mirage participates in a diversion program with Burrtec to recycle ·waste
products. Source reduction, recycling programs, composting and grass recycling, and
recycling of construction debris are among the diversion items. In 2002, the City of Rancho
Mirage diverted 45% of snlid waste from landfills and current levels are above 50% diversion.
As a result, impacts are considered less than significant (General Plan EIR, page 5-313).
g) Comply with federal, state, and local D
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
□ □
Response: The project will comply with all applicable regulations pertaining to solid waste
(See response to XVII (f)).
h) Other Utility providers? □ □ □
Response: Imperial Irrigation District provides electrical service in the area. The Gas
Company provides natural gas service. Verizan provides telephone service to the site. Time
Warner provides cable television service to the area. The Coachella Valley Water District
provides water treatment/distribution services and sewer services (no septic tanks are
proposed.) Utilities will be provided to the residences along public and private streets. The
cost applicable to the project will be determined by the provider during the development
process and costs will be borne by the developer. Upon implementation of prc~ject design
features, regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, less than significant
impacts are anticipated.
XVIII. MANDATORY FJNDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to D
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
□ □
Page 68
Response: As discussed in the re::,ponses in Sections IV (Biological Resources) and V (Cultural
Resources): upon implementation of project design features, regulatory requirements,
standard conditions of approval, and mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study, the
impacts associated with the disturbance of Biological and Cultural resources have been
mitigated to a less than significant level.
b) Does the project have impacts that are D
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the eff ccts of
probable future projects)?
□ □
Response: Population growth resulting from the development of the project is less intensive
than that predicted by the 2005 General Plan Update EIR. The General Plan Update EIR has
identified the impacts associated with this growth as being a growth inducing and cumulative
impact that is potentially sign(ficant. This Mitigated Negative Declaration is consistent with
the anticipated build-out of the project site covered in the General Plan EIR and no new
information of substantial importance would alter the findings and conclusions in the previous
EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental D
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
□ □
Response: The project's potential environmental effects have been mitigated to a less than
significant level by the measures outlined in the Initial Study, and this Agency intends to adopt
a Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the supporting documentation herein.
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
February 5, 2014
Page 69
CHAPTER FOUR -MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
4.1 Introduction.
Table 4-1 outlines the potential ·impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed project, and
assigns responsibility for the oversight of each mitigation. This Table shall be included in all bid
documents and included as a part of the project development.
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Page 70
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact
Number
I (a) 1
ill (a) 1
Impact
Aesthetics,
maintenance
Air Quality
Responsible
Par!Y_
Developer
Developer
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Mitigation Measure Impact After j Approval by:
The 6 foot wide multi-purpose trail located
within the 19 foot wide parkway shall have a
medium broom finish 4" thick P.C.C (Poured
in Place Concrete). The color shall be Davis
Co. "Yosemite Brown" or approved equal.
The multi-purpose trail shall be installed on
the east side of Via Josefina, the north and
south sides of Via Florencia and the west
side of Via Florencia where it turns north.
Mitigation
Less than
significant
A plan to control fugitive dust through I Less than
implementation of reasonably available dust significant
control measures shall be prepared and
submitted to the City of Rancho Mirage for
approval prior to the issuance of any grading
permits associated with the project. The plan
shall specify the fugitive dust control
measures to be employed. The project
proponent shall comply with all applicable
SCAQMD Rules and Regulations including
but not limited to the following:
a. Rules 403 and 403 .1 (Fugitive Dust)
specifies control measures for use in
developing site specific fugitive dust control
plans to minimize blowing dust from
construction sites and insure the clean UE_ of
Page 71
LJ City Public Works
Department
D eity Public Works
Department
□AQMD
Impact
Number
III (a) 2
III (a) 3
Impact
Air Quality
Air Quality
Responsible
Partx_
Developer
Developer
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Mitigation Measure
construction related dirt on approach routes
to the site including: watering measures,
chemical stabilizers, wind fencing, covering
haul vehicles, bed liners in haul vehicles,
wheel washers and high wind measures;
b. Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings)
restricts the VOC (Volatile Organic
Compound) content of any architectural
coating materials used on-site to a maximum
of 2.08 pounds of VOC per _gallon.
Earth-moving act1v1t1es shall be suspended
during first and second stage ozone episodes
or when winds exceed 25 MPH per the
Coachella Valley PMl O State
Implementation Plan and SCAQMD Rule
403.1.
The following watering techniques shall be
employed to partially mitigate the impact of
construction-generated dust particulates:
a. Pre-grading site watering (irrigation
system for minimum of 72 hours);
b. Site watering 7 days a week
(irrigation system, minimum of 4
times per 24 hours, or by water
trucks, minimum 4 times per 24
hours, at 1 truck/8 acres);
Page 72
Impact After I Approval by:
Mitigation
Deity Public Works
Department
□AQMD
Deity Public Works
Department
□AQMD
Impact
Number
Impact Responsible
Party
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Mitigation Measure
c. Perimeter sprinkler system (all sides
continuous night watering when
windy);
d. Portions of the project site that are
undergoing earth moving operations
shall be watered such that a crust will
be formed on the ground surface and
then watered again at the end of the
day, as part of the constructions
specifications. Control methods are
provided in detail in the Dust Control
Plan Review Guidance for Local
Government" from the South Coast
Air Quality Management District,
available from the City of Rancho
Mirage or the S.C.A.Q.M.D.;
e. Any construction access roads should
be paved as soon as possible and
cleaned after each work day. The
maximum vehicle speed limit on
unpaved road surfaces should be 15
mph;
f. All trucks should maintain at least
two feet of freeboard;
g. Trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or
other loose dirt material off-site
should be covered and washed off
before leaving the site;
h. Adjacent streets should be swept if
Page 73
Impact After I Approval by:
Mitigation
Impact
Number
m (c) 1
Impact
Air Quality
Responsible
Partr
Developer
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Mitigation Measure
silt is carried over to adjacent public
thoroughfares;
i. As part of the construction
specifications, any vegetative ground
cover to be utilized on-site shall be
planted as soon as possible to reduce
the disturbed area subject to wind
erosion. Irrigation systems needed to
water these plants shall be installed as
soon as possible to maintain the
ground cover and minimize wind
erosion of the soil;
J. Construction operations affecting off-
site roadways shall be scheduled for
off-peak traffic hours and shall
minimize obstruction of through-
traffic lanes.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the
property owner/developer shall include a
note on all grading plans which requires the
construction contractor to implement the
following measures during grading. These
measures shall be discussed at the pregrade
conference.
a. Use low emission mobile
construction equipment.
b. Maintain construction equipment
engines by keeping them tuned.
Page 74
Impact After I Approval by:
Mitigation
lJcity Public Works
Department
Impact
Number
IV (a) 1
Mitigation
IV (a) 2
Impact
Biological
Biological
Responsible
Part_!
Developer
Developer
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Mitigation Measure
c. Use low sulfur fuel for stationary
construction equipment.
d. Utilize existing power sources (i.e.,
power poles) when feasible.
e. Configure construction parking to
minimize traffic interference.
f. Minimize obstruction of through-
traffic lanes. When feasible,
construction should be planned so
that lane closures on existing streets
are kept to a minimum.
g. Schedule construction operations
affecting traffic for off-peak hours.
h. Develop a traffic plan to minimize
traffic flow interference from
construction activities (the plan may
include advance public notice of
routing, use of public transportation
and satellite parking areas with a
shuttle service).
Mitigation for impacts to these species is
accomplished through the payment of a fee to
the City of Rancho Mirage. Fees vary
depending upon the use to which the land is
put, acreage and density. Contact the
Coachella Valley Association of
Governments to determine current fees.
A preconstruction survey should take place at
least 30 days_ priQ!"_to 12_roject grading to
Page 75
-I Impact After I Approval by:
Mitigation
□ City Building and
Safety Department
D City Public Works
Impact
Number
Mitigation
IV (a) 3
Mitigation
IV (a) 4
Mitigation
IV (a) 5
Impact
Biological
Biological
Biological
Responsible
Party_
Developer
Developer
Developer
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Mitigation Measure
determine the location of active burrows on
and within 550 yards of an approved project
site. If no active burrows are found in the
survey area grading may commence
providing a biolo_gical monitor is onsite.
A biological monitor, with the authority to
halt or redirect grading, should be present
whenever grading or construction vehicles
are present and operating on an approved
project site. The function of the monitor is to
protect burrowing owls that arrive on or near
the project site after the clearance survey and
during the construction E~riod.
The breeding season of the western
burrowing owl is from February 1 through
August 31 of each year. No construction
disturbances of any kind should occur within
500 meters (550 yards) of an active burrow
during this time period. Thus, on a project
site, grading should take place from
September 1 through January 30 of each year
to avoid restriction or cancellation of grading
because of the presence of burrowing owls
during the breeding season.
Resident owls present on or near the project
site outside the breeding season can, in some
instances, be relocated to other sites by a
permitted biologist under the authorization of
the California De2_artment of Fish &
Page 76
Impact After I Approval by:
Mitigation
Department
0 City Public Works
Department
0 City Public Works
Department
0 Development
Services Director
□ California
Department of Fish &
Game
□ U.S.Fish&
Impact Impact Responsible
Number Party
Mitigation Biological Developer
IV (a) 6
Mitigation Cultural Developer
V (b) 1
Mitigation Geology Developer
VI (a) 1
Mitigation Hydrology and Developer
IX (b) 1 Water Quality
Mitigation Public Services Developer
TIM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Mitigation Measure Impact After Approval by:
Mitigation
Wildlife. Wildlife Service
Breeding surveys should be conducted 30 D Development
days prior to any construction activities that Services Director
are planned between February 15 and June □ California
Department of Fish & 15. If a nest is found, a buffer should be Game
established in which construction activities □ U.S. Fish &
are prohibited until all young have fledged. Wildlife Service
The width of the buffer should be determined
by a qualified biologist.
Upon the uncovering or other discovery of □ City Planning
artifacts or cultural resources during Department
construction activities associated with the
project's development, all construction on
the site shall be halted, and a qualified
archaeologist shall be called to the site to
identify the resource and recommend
mitigation in the event of the resource 's
cultural significance.
During site grading and construction work, D e ity Public Works
the recommendations noted lil the Department
Geo technical Investigation Report by
Sladden Engineering shall be complied with.
The elements and actions described in the LJ Coachella Valley
Water Management Plan shall be Water District
incorporated into the design of this
development to reduce its negative impact on
the Coachella Valley groundwater basin.
Participation m Community Facilities D eity Public Works
Page 77
Impact
Number
XN (a) 1
Mitigation
XIV (a) 2
Mitigation
XN (a) 3
Mitigation
XVII (d) 1
Impact Responsible
Party
Public Services Developer
Public Services I Developer
Utilities
Service
Systems
and I Developer
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Mitigation Measure
Districts to mitigate the impact on police and
fire protection resources.
No City permits shall be issued for
improvements upon said property (grading,
etc.) until the Coachella Valley Water
District (CVWD) completes the Mission
Hills Pressure Zone Improvement Project
which includes a new reservoir and trunk line
to serve the zone (with a current anticipated
completion date of December 2015) and said
project becomes operational. Alternatively,
CVWD may submit a "will-serve" letter to
the City dictating the terms and conditions
associated with the provision of water service
prior to issuance of City permits.
A covenant shall be recorded on the property
to the satisfaction of the City Attorney
requiring CVWD to complete the Mission
Hills Pressure Zone Improvement Project or
alternatively a "will-serve letter to the City
from CVWD dictating the terms and
conditions prior to issuance of City permits.
No City permits shall be issued for
improvements upon said property (grading,
etc.) until the Coachella Valley Water
District (CVWD) completes the Mission
Hills Pressure Zone Improvement Project
which includes a new reservoir and trunk line
Page 78
Impact After I Approval by:
Mitigation
Department
LJc;ry Public Works
Department D Coachella Valley
Water District
D City Attorney
D Coachella Valley
Water District
Deity Public Works
Department
Impact Impact Responsible
Number Party
Mitigation Utilities and Developer
XVII (d) 2 Service
Systems
TTM 36620 / EA 130006 / SPA 13001
May 6, 2014
Mitigation Measure Impact After Approval by:
Mitigation
to serve the zone (with a current anticipated
completion date of December 2015) and said
project becomes operational. Alternatively,
CVWD may submit a "will-serve" letter to
the City dictating the terms and conditions
associated with the provision of water service
prior to issuance of City permits
A covenant shall be recorded on the property LJ City Attorney
to the satisfaction of the City Attorney
requiring CVWD to complete the Mission
Hills Pressure Zone Improvement Project or
alternatively a "will-serve letter to the City
from CVWD dictating the terms and
conditions prior to issuance of City permits.
Page 79
"EXHIBIT C"
AERIAL
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
AND UNDERGROUNDING
[SEE A TT ACHED]
EXHIBIT C Street Improvements and Undergrounding
;---, I I ___ J Subject Property (TTM 36620) ·-·· Street Improvements
and Undergrounding
ORDINANCE CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE)
I, Kristie Ramos, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Mirage, California, do
hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Ordinance No. 1172 was
introduced by first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council held on May 21,
2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Hobart, Kite, Smotrich, Townsend, Weill.
None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Ordinance No. 1172 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on June 4, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Hobart, Kite, Smotrich, Townsend, Weill.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
I further certify that I have caused Ordinance No. 1172 to be posted and/or
published, as required by law (GC Sect. 36933).
~~-~~&_
Kristie Ramos
City Clerk